The following is one post in a series: “Reporting Back: Green Party of Canada Policy Conference, Halifax“
Amy Taylor from the Pembina Institute presented on the details of how Environmental Tax Shifting should be implemented. The goal is to internalize costs, and can be accomplished in a number of ways, including regulation, trade permits, and environmental pricing, which includes subsidy removal, taxes, charges and user fees.
There are three kinds of ETS:
- Broad. For example, a shift from income tax to consumption tax.
- Sector Specific. This shift occurs within one industry, so that taxes are reinvested to make that industry more efficient and environmentally responsible.
- Individual reform. For example, deposits on beer bottles.
The good news is, other countries have already tested this stuff out and shown that it works, so we don’t have to jump before we look. (Come to think of it, that’s also bad news, because it means we’re already behind.) For example, Germany increased a fossil fuels tax while decreasing employment insurance charges. Sweden gives efficiency rebates to those who purchase more energy efficient vehicles.
Taylor concluded with two lists. First, things we should conceder taxing (or taxing more): water consumption, municipal waste, green house gas emissions, motor vehicle pollution, deforestation. Second, taxes we could reduce: income, capital, property, payroll charges, sales taxes.
Taxing the fuel efficiency of vehicles should be seperated into vehicle classes.
Because I can get around in my Golf, I shouldn’t get a way better break than a soccer mom who buys the most efficient min-van.
Off the top of my head, I would assume it would pretty easy to establish 3 size classes for vehicles and set a km/per gallon target.
example, the same tax break (Or lack of being taxed more for inefficiency) could apply for:
compact 35 kpg
mid size (sedans/station wagons) 30kpg
large (mini vans/ suvs)27kpg
these numbers are only an example of the kind of scale I’m describing.