IS THE CARBON BUDGET ANOTHER TAX?
There are many issues on international, national, provincial and now local levels that are coming to the fore regarding climate change. I don't claim to understand them all so am largely dependent on others to help clarify them. Common Sense Edmonton has just released an update on Edmonton's new "Carbon Budget" for the 2023-2026 four-year budget. Keep tuned for more news and views about the "Carbon Budget"
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
WARNING: CARBON BUDGET INCOMING AT CITY HALL
Later this month, Council will be debating Edmonton's next four-year budget, covering 2023-2026.
We'll have plenty more coverage of that debate when it happens, but for now we wanted to update you on the City's latest boondoggle - a new "Carbon Budget".
For those unaware, a boondoggle is defined as "work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value", which perfectly describes this latest document out of City Hall.
In short, the City has invented a number - 176 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions - and decided that is all they're allowed to emit until 2050 (by when they plan to be carbon neutral).
They've also calculated how much they expect to emit, and lo and behold, they will hit the 176 million tonne limit by 2037 - 13 years early.
That shortfall will, of course, then be used as justification to impose even more regulations, restrictions, and taxes on Edmontonians in the coming years.
The problem is, the City of Edmonton shouldn't be creating climate budgets at all.
Top-down central planning of an economy - whether investments, housing, or carbon, doesn't work, and will only lead to a less efficient and less effective outcome.
The City seems to forget that Canada already has a federal carbon tax that has been forced on every province, every city, and every Edmontonian.
We distinctly remember, though, that at the time of its introduction, the tax was justified as a market-based approach to reducing emissions, that incorporates environmental impacts into prices.
Whether you agree with the federal carbon tax or not, the claim was that it would work most efficiently by incentivizing individuals to make the best environmental choices for themselves.
In other words, by raising prices on things that emit carbon, you incorporate the environmental impact of those things into the price, meaning that people can just make decisions based on price, rather than based on both price and nebulous, hard-to-track, environmental factors.
The City's Carbon Budget plan throws that entire idea out the window and would see the City continue to make decisions based on both economic and environmental factors, even though the environmental factors are now already built into the economic factors, meaning environmental factors are being double counted.
The entire existence of this Carbon Budget plan proves that the City doesn't understand how the federal carbon tax works, that the City doesn’t believe that the federal carbon tax works at all, or both.
Either way, this document is a massive waste of time, resources, and taxpayer money.