PROPIEDADES DE LA INFORMACIÓN INSTITUCIONAL RECOLECTADA

According to the OECD, there are specific criteria that are relevant for evaluating environmentally related taxes.119 The OECD recommends that environmentally related taxes should be evaluated on the basis of their (i) environmental effectiveness; (ii) dynamic effects; (iii) economic efficiency; (iv) administrative costs; and (v)compliance costs.120 _{The generic ex post evaluation criteria for}

TEs on the other hand, requires an assessment of the relevance, cost, impact and efficiency of the

117 _{World Bank, Carbon Pricing, supra note 107 at 78} 118 _{BC, Facts, supra note 110.}

119 _{OECD, Environmentally Related Taxes in OECD Countries: Issues and Strategies (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2001)}

at 45 [OECD, 2001]. This OECD report documents the growing evidence of the environmental effectiveness of environmentally related taxes in OECD Member Countries.

111

TEs. Given that the OECD criteria (iii) – (v) overlap with themes in the generic ex post evaluation, this section discusses only the OECD criteria (i) and (ii) which are peculiar to environmental related taxation.

In terms of environmental effectiveness, the OECD states that the environmental effect of the tax can be determined by measuring “the extent to which the tax delivers its environmental objectives.121 _{According to the B.C. Ministry of Finance, the objective of carbon taxation is to put}

a price on carbon in order to: (i) encourage individuals, businesses, industry and others to use less fossil fuel and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; (ii) send a consistent price signal; and (iii) ensure that those who produce emissions pay for them; and (iv) make clean energy alternatives more attractive. For B.C.’s carbon tax to meet the criterion of environmental effectiveness, the tax must have successfully met these objectives by altering taxpayers’ behavior to generate an improved environmental outcome. A general consensus based on the review of the carbon tax by several scholars indicates that the carbon tax has been highly environmentally effective in terms of its objectives.122 Noteworthy is the periodic research conducted by Sustainable Prosperity (SP), a national green economy think tank at the University of Ottawa on the efficacy of B.C.’s carbon tax.123 This group has been tracking the impacts of the carbon tax in B.C. since its introduction in 2008.124 In addition to the reviews relying on figures provided by Statistics Canada,125 these periodic reports have also been adopted by the World Bank in discussing and evaluating the B.C. carbon tax, thereby adding credibility to its adoption in this thesis.126

According to the 2013 SP review, fuel consumption in B.C. has reduced since the introduction of carbon tax while fuel use in the rest of Canada has increased. In evaluating the environmental effects of the tax, the report compared the consumption of only those fuels that are subject to the

121 _Ibid.

122_{Nicholas Rivers & Dave Sawyer, “Pricing Carbon: Saving Green: A Carbon Price to Lower Emissions, Taxes and}

Barriers to Green Technology”, (2008), Suzuki Foundation, online: < http://www.davidsuzuki.org> at 20-21; Pierre

Sadik, “Essentials of a Carbon Tax for Canada”, (2015), Eco Justice website, online: http://www.ecojustice.ca> at 10;

123 _{Elgie & McClay, 2012, supra note 111; Stewart Elgie & Jessica McClay,“BCs Carbon Tax Shift After Five Years:}

Results. An Environmental (and Economic) Success Story”, Sustainable Prosperity Policy Commentary, (July 2013), online: < http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca > [Elgie & McClay, 2013].

124 _{Elgie & McClay, 2012, supra note 111 at 6.}

125 _{Elgie & McClay, 2013, supra note 123 at 2, Table 1.} 126 _{World Bank, Carbon Pricing, supra note 107 at 87.}

112

carbon tax in BC to their corresponding consumption in the rest of Canada, on a per capita basis.127 The comparison was based on the period immediately preceding the introduction of carbon tax in B.C. (between July 1 2007 – June 30 2008) and the period within which the tax had been introduced and implemented (July 1 2008 – June 30 2012).128 The review found that “BC’s fuel consumption per person has fallen every year since the carbon tax came in; overall, it declined by 17.4 percent from the 2007/08 base year to 2011/12”.129 In comparison to the rest of Canada, it was noted that B.C.’s fuel consumption “declined 18.8 percent more than in the rest of Canada during this four year period – a remarkably large difference”.130

Dynamic efficiency is another useful criterion suggested by the OECD for evaluating environmentally related taxes. The OECD notes that environmentally related taxation ought to incentivize the taxpayers to adopt cheaper and innovative techniques and technology for abatement.131 In the case of B.C., it is apparent that the increase in gasoline prices due to the taxation on carbon has influenced consumers to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles.132 Specifically, relevant data indicate that, “[t]he market share of subcompact and compact passenger car sales has increased steadily while the market share of larger cars, SUVs, pickups and minivans has declined.”133 _{Even though this change in consumer behaviour can be as a result of multiple}

factors, the B.C. Ministry of Finance as well as reports from other writers suggest that carbon tax played a dominant role in affecting consumers’ behaviour in choosing a cleaner energy alternative in the purchase of vehicles in the B.C. province.134

In terms of innovation of technology, studies conducted on certain communities in B.C. indicate that the carbon tax has encouraged the development of clean energy projects in most of those

127 _{See especially, Elgie & McClay, 2013, supra note 123 at 2 (footnote 3). The fuel used in the analysis se include}

propane, butane, naphtha, motor gasoline, stove oil/kerosene, diesel fuel oil, light & heavy fuel oils, petroleum coke, and still gas.

128 _Ibid. 129 _Ibid. 130 _Ibid.

131 _{OECD, 2001, supra note 119 at 46.} 132 _{B.C. Facts, supra note 110.} 133 _Ibid.

134 _{Ibid.; Ross Beaty, Richard Lipsey & Stewart Elgie, “The Shocking Truth About B.C.’s Carbon Tax: It Works”,}

113

communities.135 Specifically, interviews were conducted on twelve local governments in B.C. by Pembina Institute, an organisation that promotes clean energy solutions through research, education, consulting and advocacy.136 The findings of the Institute revealed that seven of the twelve communities that were interviewed indicated the carbon tax “as having either a very or somewhat positive role in building the business case for projects they had implemented.”137 _The

remainder of the communities interviewed noted that carbon tax had a neutral impact on the business case for their projects because the tax rate “is too low to significantly influence their investment decisions”.138 _{Based on these interviews, it is evident that a higher percentage of these}

communities perceive a positive impact of carbon tax in making decisions for clean energy innovation, especially as there was no “negative impact” recorded in the interviews. In one of the reports, Sarah Webb, a Climate Action program manager in the Capital Regional District was quoted as saying that, “[t]he tax was an external mechanism that helped [the district] quantify the economic differences between ‘business as usual’ and green infrastructure innovation. While we recognize there are some limitations of the carbon tax, it is a step in the right direction to more holistic accounting.”139

Based on the above, one can reasonably conclude that the B.C. carbon tax has been substantially successful in terms of its environmental effects and dynamic efficiency as it stimulates clean energy awareness and technological progress in the area of clean energy innovation. Nevertheless, the next section in this thesis also assesses the carbon tax in terms of its continued relevance, costs and administrative efficiency in order to provide a comprehensive ex post evaluation of this tax.