Did BCs Carbon Tax fail?

 So, I don't have all of the numbers. And I don't know where those complaining about carbon pricing are getting their numbers from. But, I've seen a recent explosion of articles like this one, and this one and this one.

It is probable that this is just the opening salvo by the PC Party leader. But, it might also just be the general populace not understanding things.

But, here is what I found.

The above is admittedly supplied by the BC Government. But, it is at least backed by facts and figures. So, while possibly biased, at least there are sources to back the data.

What is interesting is the graphs on GHG per person, and relative to GDP and population. Why are those important? Simply put, they show GDP grew substantially recently, along with the population.

And that is important for a reason; carbon pricing doesn't eliminate carbon usage. It only scales it back. And it only scales it back so far. At a certain point, people and the economy adjust. At that point, carbon emissions will begin to scale uniformly with things like GDP growth and population growth.

So, for me, the first problem with the claim that carbon pricing failed is that it doesn't actually hold water based on the actual evidence I'm able to find. Firstly, the claim that it grew 10% since 2007 is interesting. 2007 wasn't the peak, and 10% higher than 2007 is still less than where it was prior to that. Which means that despite a HUGE uptick in GDP and population, BC is STILL below peak emissions. Which is actually quite insane when you think about it.

And, if you look at the graphs which end at 2017, it is safe to assume that the 10% figure probably isn't wrong. Just that it doesn't make any sense to cite it. You NEED to look at emissions per person.

Here is a simple example; I live in a city with one person. I emit 100 units of carbon. Carbon pricing is implemented. Over some number of years I remain the only resident and my emissions drops to 50 units. It is clear as day my carbon usage decreased. No one can misinterpret that. Next year, 2 more people move in. They also contribute 50 units of carbon. Now, per capita we are still at 50 units, which is clearly a reduction. But, the city itself now emits 150. 

These articles are holding up a number like the 150 above and claiming it means that the carbon tax isn't working.

Basically, as many have stated, carbon pricing in and of itself won't eliminate emissions and to get significant gains it would need to be priced high enough to put undue pressure on low income households. 

But, the problem doesn't end there. This argument about the failure also presumes that the only objective was to prevent carbon emissions from growing above the 2007 numbers EVER.

More than likely, that simply isn't true. Curbing emissions is a nice effect of such policy. But, it isn't the only aim. Another arm of that objective is often to use that money to help develop cleaner alternatives.

And, this is another narrative which people opposing carbon pricing tend to fumble on. They say EVs are still more expensive than gas cars and that solutions aren't available after all of this time for many other problems. And they aren't wrong. But, the argument is predicated upon the assumption that the market isn't moving toward that, and thus will never make it. 

And that is false. Many Provinces already get sizable amounts of their energy from renewables. Solar panel efficiency has sky rocketed. And EV prices HAVE come down. They aren't as affordable as gas cars yet, but that is also partly tied to the other problem they are addressing in parallel; range. The fact that range is increasing at the same time as pricing is coming down is a testament to just how quickly this actually is happening. The cost of increasing the range is putting substantive pressure on the price keeping it from coming down.

To me, the other fundamental problem with opposing carbon pricing is the sheer negligence.  Alberta has suffered more forest fires, exacerbated by climate change, and threatening the very industry which is the primary culprit. BC spent a brief moment with the worst global air quality this month thanks to forest fires from the US, similarly linked to climate change. Floods in other parts of Canada and severe weather systems around the globe are much more threatening AND COSTLY than any carbon pricing strategy.

And then there is the inevitability; the end of oil. We will run out of it and even if we don't, it isn't a particularly stable industry right now. Canada as a whole (including Alberta) would be better off making an investment in shifting away from what is increasing becoming just a gamble. I'm not proposing abandoning those currently working in that industry. We need a plan which addresses things in a way minimizes job and skill loss. 

But, at the end of the day, the problem is simple. When I scrutinize the data, it doesn't tell me that carbon pricing failed. It paints the exact opposite picture.