Friday, April 20, 2007

Footprints

I determined my own personal ecological footprint today, and it returned results stating how much land I personally use. According to the website, I use 3.3 hectares for food, 0 for mobility, and 0.8 for shelter, giving me a total of 4.9 hectares in total.

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.




I then found out my lifestyle footprint.

Everything goes wrong that can go wrong, in this future of risk and paranoia. Total ecological footprint is halved, but for the wrong reasons - economic stagnation and social malaise. The rich consume avariciously while others tighten their belts, amidst a host of problems - climate change, urban unrest, toxic waste, mutant organisms, and international terrorism.

My lifestyle footprint has apparently plunged the world into some sort of Orwellian nightmare. Oops. My attempts to cut economic boom has apparently gone in the other direction, creating stagnation and recession, while the climate appears to be taking a turn for the worse. The best way to curb this would be to invest money in industries that can help raise the country’s GNP and raise it from this social nightmare I accidentally created.

Carbon Tax: The Potential to Do Good

In an issue that stands to be as costly as climate change, what with the numerous measures required to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one would surmise that a carbon tax could be the perfect result. A carbon tax has the potential to solve the problem–only if it was targeted at the industry, and not at the average person. Even though the federal government promises that it would be a revenue-neutral initiative, one that stands only to redirect profits from the tax into other areas, I believe that it is a movement that Canada needs to tailor before it can be implemented.

The carbon tax would be placed on all carbon products, with the heaviest emphasis obviously on fuels and oil operations. As CBC News mentions, however, all provinces of Canada presently have consumer taxes on fuels. This is one of the measures that amounts to the overloaded gas prices that many North Americans are so swift to complain about. A carbon tax wouldn’t remedy this problem; in fact, it would only accelerate it, with heightened gas prices added at the pump to compensate for the increased prices. Of all things, North Americans seem especially sensitive to the price of gas, and to strap that price to a rocket ship of inflation would only sour the population to the concept of a carbon tax. Though a carbon tax stands to impact the price of coal, Canadians likely would not be as receptive to a spike in the price of coal.

Corporate Canada could certainly benefit from a carbon tax, however. Already, the level of greenhouse gas emissions contributed by the manufacturing sector alone is far too high. One website advocates a carbon tax for companies, explaining how companies would feel pressured to invest in more environmentally friendly methods that could potentially help them lower their greenhouse gas emissions and dodge the tax. The probable benefits to the environment far outweigh the costs.

Overall, I believe that a carbon tax would be most effective if it spared the middle class, targeting instead the industry and corporate sector. The costs of the tax would be too burdensome for the average person to easily bear. The corporate sector, however, only has to invest in green technology to avoid falling victim to the tax. As the Vancouver Sun states, “That could enable Canada to reap the full economic and environmental potential of such an innovation and allow the country to make its proper contribution to halting climate change.” It’s about time that something was done.