Carbon Tax Increase
There is some outrage, at least in the news, that carbon pricing in Canada is continuing to go up, despite COVID-19.
I think that there a few important points here however: climate change is just as, if not more impactful in the long run than COVID-19. Stopping measures aimed at curtailing carbon emissions because of the economic issues caused by a short term virus doesn't exactly make sense. Here is an article on the topic.
The crazy thing about that article is not that it is saying that carbon emission will kill more people in the long run. Rather, it is stipulating that the reductions in emissions in Wuhan have ALREADY saved more people than the virus has killed. And by a wide margin. And that this trend should continue. I'll re-iterate what the author says though: this isn't to say that the virus is a good thing. Merely that it puts the impacts of carbon emissions into perspective.
Also note that this is just talking air pollution directly, not global warming impacts, like increased forest fires, other extreme weather and loss of life due to the economic impacts global warming is having on agriculture.
We're willing to halt our economy due to a virus because we can readily see and understand the impacts on lives a lot more clearly. But, it is being used to vilify efforts to curtail carbon emissions which are responsible for a far greater number of deaths.
And while I understand that we don't want to cause undue hardship given that people are losing their jobs, it is also undeniable that gas, which is the primary source of both direct and indirect carbon consumption for the average person is being impacted both by this crisis and by a trade war to a degree which has gone so far beyond cancelling out the effects of carbon pricing that gasoline is at near 20 year lows.
Adding to that, gasoline for cars is the number one cost out of the gas induced expenses and the crisis has triggered the average person to be out driving less. Further reducing the impact. And those that are still out driving at normal or near normal rates are presumably those unaffected by the crisis (essential service workers, etc...). And for them, the combination of a continued pay check and reduced gas prices work out to a positive cash flow, comparatively.
I have no doubts that SOME people ARE or will be affected by the carbon pricing. But, every policy affects someone. And almost all impact someone for the worse. Against the backdrop of COVID-19, the impact of carbon pricing will be undetectable for the overwhelming majority.
And gas prices, and thus the impacts of the increase to the carbon pricing won't truly be felt until the economy approaches levels normal prior to the pandemic. At which point any arguments linked directly to the impact of COVID-19 will also become equally moot.
The biggest tragedy in all of this would be that people see COVID-19 as worse than climate change. But, as you should able to gather from that article above, it couldn't be further from the truth.
Here is a key except from the post for those unwilling to read through it:
I think that there a few important points here however: climate change is just as, if not more impactful in the long run than COVID-19. Stopping measures aimed at curtailing carbon emissions because of the economic issues caused by a short term virus doesn't exactly make sense. Here is an article on the topic.
The crazy thing about that article is not that it is saying that carbon emission will kill more people in the long run. Rather, it is stipulating that the reductions in emissions in Wuhan have ALREADY saved more people than the virus has killed. And by a wide margin. And that this trend should continue. I'll re-iterate what the author says though: this isn't to say that the virus is a good thing. Merely that it puts the impacts of carbon emissions into perspective.
Also note that this is just talking air pollution directly, not global warming impacts, like increased forest fires, other extreme weather and loss of life due to the economic impacts global warming is having on agriculture.
We're willing to halt our economy due to a virus because we can readily see and understand the impacts on lives a lot more clearly. But, it is being used to vilify efforts to curtail carbon emissions which are responsible for a far greater number of deaths.
And while I understand that we don't want to cause undue hardship given that people are losing their jobs, it is also undeniable that gas, which is the primary source of both direct and indirect carbon consumption for the average person is being impacted both by this crisis and by a trade war to a degree which has gone so far beyond cancelling out the effects of carbon pricing that gasoline is at near 20 year lows.
Adding to that, gasoline for cars is the number one cost out of the gas induced expenses and the crisis has triggered the average person to be out driving less. Further reducing the impact. And those that are still out driving at normal or near normal rates are presumably those unaffected by the crisis (essential service workers, etc...). And for them, the combination of a continued pay check and reduced gas prices work out to a positive cash flow, comparatively.
I have no doubts that SOME people ARE or will be affected by the carbon pricing. But, every policy affects someone. And almost all impact someone for the worse. Against the backdrop of COVID-19, the impact of carbon pricing will be undetectable for the overwhelming majority.
And gas prices, and thus the impacts of the increase to the carbon pricing won't truly be felt until the economy approaches levels normal prior to the pandemic. At which point any arguments linked directly to the impact of COVID-19 will also become equally moot.
The biggest tragedy in all of this would be that people see COVID-19 as worse than climate change. But, as you should able to gather from that article above, it couldn't be further from the truth.
Here is a key except from the post for those unwilling to read through it:
Putting these numbers together [see table below for details] yields some very large reductions in premature mortality. Using the He et al 2016 estimates of the impact of changes in PM on mortality, I calculate that having 2 months of 10ug/m3 reductions in PM2.5 likely has saved the lives of 4,000 kids under 5 and 73,000 adults over 70 in China. Using even more conservative estimates of 10% reduction in mortality per 10ug change, I estimate 1400 under-5 lives saved and 51700 over-70 lives saved. Even under these more conservative assumptions, the lives saved due to the pollution reductions are roughly 20x the number of lives that have been directly lost to the virus (based on March 8 estimates of 3100 Chinese COVID-19 deaths, taken from here).And, again the source is this article.
Comments
Post a Comment