Provide Solutions and Avoid Gas Tax Pains and Carbon Tax Attacks

It all sounds so nice and green and fair. A revenue neutral carbon tax for British Columbia, the Best Place on Earth. The greens loved it. The first government in North America to give carbon taxing a shot. If it worked here, it would spread like wildfire across North America.

Well, the organic manure hit the windmill. It is fair to say that it was not a popular move. In a move that still seems rather surreal, the left leaning New Democratic Party borrowed a page from the neo-cons and starting an “Axe the Tax” campaign. The bad timing of the summer’s high gas prices certainly didn’t help. People were mad and looking for fight.

Now, with falling oil prices, there is concern that people will quickly return to their SUV lovin’ ways. Both for environmental, security and economic reasons, there is talk about gas or carbon taxes to discourage overuse of the precious black gold.

In going forward with such politically tricky ideas, it is important to learn from the BC experience. It would be easy enough to draw the conclusion that people just are not willing to except such taxes. This would be a mistake. The problem is not with the concept of a carbon tax, it is how it was implemented that caused the pain.

First of all, while it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, making the tax revenue neutral proved to be a bad idea. The anti-tax crowd, likely the ones the government was trying to bring onboard with revenue neutrality just simply does not like taxes, especially new ones, especially ones that they perceive as social engineering. On top of that, many just don’t trust government. They fully expect the money to be used for something and thus were not convinced.

People want solutions. If they feel they have no options to avoid paying the tax, they will feel like they are being unfairly targeted for actions they have little control over. They will fell like they are being punished for driving and they feel they have no alternatives, they will get mad.

Instead of returning the money from the carbon tax, a better idea would be to use it to fund transit improvements and other public measures that can help people reduce their carbon emissions. Five billion in transit improvements will get peoples attention. Construction companies, consultants and unions will be onboard. Drivers will feel that they have an option or at least will think that other drivers with leaving them with more space on the road. People waiting in the cold while packed trains and buses pass them by will certainly be excited about increased transit funding.

Using funding from a tax to improve public transit creates a lot of big winners who will provide the public support needed for the tax to be successful. A revenue neutral tax will create a lot of small winners who, given the small amount they receive, will not really care much one way or the other.

People don’t mind pay more taxes if they know the money will be used for something they want. If the last election was any indication, people clearly want money to be spent on rail and rapid transit. Voters in Seattle, Los Angles and Honolulu approved tens of billions of dollars in tax increases for rapid transit. California approved ten billion dollars for high-speed rail.

No one really gets that excited about receiving a hundred dollars in the mail. It is no big deal these days. Pretty much everyone will pay some of that in carbon tax so really no one really benefits that much.

Congestion charging has been a success in London because transit improvements where on the ground when the charges came into effect. Pricing without improvements is rather cruel. Without alternatives, it is just another tax that is unlikely to change people’s behavior.

Pooling our resources to create a better transportation system is a far more compelling idea than giving everybody a hundred bucks and hoping against all hope they can use this small amount of money to somehow provide themselves with a greener transportation solution.

Ironically, the province did announce a transit plan before the carbon tax was implemented. Which is all fine and good. Only problem is that they didn’t have a plan to fund it. Without such a plan, it is hard for people to take the plan that seriously especially when they are staring a carbon tax in the face. Only now is the province looking at revenue sources to fund the transit improvements. Up on the list are bright ideas like a cell phone tax (I don’t get it either) and of course gas taxes, congestion charges and road pricing.

So when governments are considering carbon taxes, road pricing and other similar measures, here are a few suggestions:

• Create many big winners
  
• Provide people with solutions so they have an option to avoid paying
  
• Clearly tie the tax or charge to the solutions
  
• Announce the solutions and the tax or charge at the same time
  
• Have solutions on the ground when the tax or charge starts
  
• As the solutions improve, increase the tax or charge
  

Good Luck!

Billions for Bikes Beats Band-aid Bailouts

Shockingly enough, this is my first post dedicated to bicycles. I was rather fixated on high-speed rail for a while. Now that the people in my home state have voted to spend $10 billion on high-speed rail and there is talk of systems all over North America, it is time to focus on pedal power.

In a world shaken to the core by climate change, volatile fuel prices, rising obesity rates and a collapsing economy,  there has never been a better time for cycling. What is possible will only be limited by our vision and execution. 

Green stimulus is all the rage. People realize that this is an opportunity to transform our cities and our economy. We need to create a world where people can live great lives while using much less energy and resources. This, really is our only option.

Politicians are looking for shovel ready projects where construction can start as soon as possible. Bicycle paths and bridges are idea. Compared to other types of projects, they are simpler and have less impact on the environment and the community. Transit and rail projects are complicated and can take years to plan. Not to argue against transit and rail, we need both. It is just that cycling projects can be done now while the economy is still in the tank. This will provide people with both jobs and affordable transportation speeding the recovery. 

Be sure to push for high-quality cycling facilities that people want and will use. This tends to be paths and cycle tracks, like in Amsterdam and Copenhagen that are separated from cars. There is little evidence that even bike lanes are effective at encouraging more people to cycle. By pushing for want people actually want, you will find that politicians are likely to be more receptive in spite or even because of the additional cost. 

Don't be afraid to dream big. Politicians just aren't interested in small projects that no one will even notice. Don't forget, the goal is economic stimulus. That means big bucks. These people are used to dealing with large numbers. Don't waste their time or yours with small projects.

Unlike the automobile industry, the bicycle industry is doing just fine thank you. Sales are at record levels. Unfortunately, unlike the automobile industry, the bicycle industry has not done a very good job of fighting for funding for facilities. If auto industry had done such a poor job, we would still be riding horses and well, bicycles. Fortunately, the bike industry is starting to support advocacy groups, but much more needs to be done.

So start phoning, writing, and meeting with your elected representatives. Join and volunteer for cycling advocacy groups. Form your own. Bring your friends, family and co-workers on board. Be relentless. Don't take no for an answer. Remember, the squeaky gets the green stimulus.

More info:

Third Wave Cycling Group - My consulting firm

British Columbia Cycling Coalition - British Columbia's Cycling Advocates

Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition

Bikes Belong - Sponsored by the U.S. bicycle industry with the goal of putting more people on bicycles more often

Thunderhead Alliance - The national coalition of state and local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations

Sustrans - The UK's leading sustainable transport charity

Active Transportation for America - A Case for Increased Federal Investment in Bicycling and Walking

Certainty in an Uncertain World - The Case for Accelerated Investment in Cycling

Unfair Debate and Just Plain Invalid Arguments

So now Bush has doomed the economy with the band aid bailout, I can stop madly posting on every comment section on the web. Not quite sure why I never got around to posting on that. I guess it was such a bad idea, I was not quite sure where to start.

Well, now on to the annoyance du jour. It is bad enough when environmentally sites do PR for automakers and advertise so called green cars. I guess it pays the bills. Might as well get some money from them while they still have any money to give. 

What got to me today was an ad on grist that was not only plain wrong but also used just plain old faulty logic to draw people in. That did it. If there is one thing I can't stand is stuff that couldn't pass a first year philosophy course, which includes the majority of stuff posted on the web these days. Half the world's problems could be solved if people would just take Philosophy 112 or whatever number it was.

Anyway, the offending ad displays a nice beach with a sunset mentions something about drilling for oil and proceeds to proclaim "overpopulation is an environmental problem". Fair enough, their are six billion or so of us. That is a lot, I'll admit. The button said "join the debate". The site was fairdebate.org. Suspecting that the only reason someone would call their site fairdebate would be to try and hide the fact that the debate was anything but fair, I couldn't resist clicking the button. 

Fair, turns out to not describe the quality of the debate but the rather cute acronym for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Fair enough. What is not fair is the quick bait and switch they pull. Turns out they don't seem to care about global population, just US population. And not just any old US population, merely those who happen to be a little newer newcomers than the rest of us newcomers. The religious conservatives having 17 and counting children don't seem to be on their radar yet in spite of their hit show on TLC.

True, more people in the US will have an impact on the American environment but in a world of global warming, the key word is global. It doesn't really matter if someone is in the good old US of A or in Timbuktu, the impact is the same, isn't it. Well, actually not. The people of the US are just about the hoggest of resource and energy hogs. Sure, when someone comes to the country to live what is rapidly becoming the American nightmare, they are likely to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". 

And the prize for bucking personal responsibility goes to FAIR. They won it fair and square. A small suggestion. How about cutting down on your own consumption before building the fence. This would have the added benefit of not sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas for oil to people who don't like you very much. Save the economy and the environment at the same time. Sounds like a good deal. You might what to some some for the kids as well. They might really appreciate that when they grow up.

I suspect though, that it may not be the environment they are really concerned about. It is more about being scared of losing their so call high standard of living which they seem to be doing a fine job of losing on their own. Who would have thought that it would be their own captains of capitalism that would steer the ship into the rocks. They were too busy worrying about more people climbing on board to notice.

Back to population. The key is ensuring women have access to education, economic opportunity and are free to make choices regarding their lives. These are basic rights that have the added benefit of solving the "population crisis". Europe is proof of this. So is my dating life. I tend to be attracted to bright women. Of the dozens I have dated, I only know of two who have had children.

So if you are worried about the impact of population on the environment, you know what to fight for. Women's rights and lower consumption of resources and energy. If you are worried about immigration, stop that. If you are still having trouble, stop listening to Lou Dobbs. If you can't, then at least stop using the environment as an excuse. It is elitist at best to think that you have more rights to resources and to pollute than other people.

Yikes, a google later and it is much worse than I thought, my spidy sense was right:

http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/is_fair_unfair.pdf

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846