Nullius in Verba

(Please read the previous Green Shift article first if you haven’t already)

How the Green Shift Causes More Greenhouse Gas Production and is Worse for the Environment

In the 16th Century St. Paul’s Cathedral garnered the displeasure of much of London’s population, protesting against the control of religion and human rights by a foreign power in Rome, the cathedral was pillaged and nearly destroyed. God Himself made His feelings known when He joined with the mob, and destroyed the tower with a lightening bolt, the awesome display quickly sobering all sides in the debate.

During this time and afterwards, the well protected St. Peter’s also known as Westminster Abbey, had remained untouched, and money donated to that cathedral was siphoned off to pay for the maintenance of St. Paul’s, of which we have just stated caused much unrest and finally resulted in catastrophe.

It is from this situation the old English idiom “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul” came into use.*

The problem, as many have found out the hard way, is that quite often both Peter and Paul lose out when the unintended consequences of the enlighted action lead many and money astray. 

(Stephane Dion Could Not Convert Canadians As Only the “One” Converts St Paul on the Road to Damascus)

As I indicated in the previous article on the Green Shift, an unintended consequence of the shifting may actually result in more production of the supposed greenhouse gasses by consumers. In essence this has to do with the price elasticity of demand as well as the income elasticity of demand. These are influenced by the unfortunate fact that there are no real substitute goods for gasoline or many fossil fuels for that matter, as well as the fact that these substances are involved in almost every human endeavor.

To define it simply, the economic definition of elasticity is the ratio of the percent change in one variable to the percent change in another. The price elasticity of demand is therefore the percent change in quantity demanded divided by the percent change in price. Gasoline is a very inelastic good, meaning that changes in the price of gasoline will have very small effects on the quantity demanded.

In simple terms, the price elasticity of demand defines the percent people will decrease their consumption of a good if the price is increased. The income elasticity of demand is the percent people will increase their consumption of a good if you increase their income.

Alright so lets start with a very basic example. On a simple microeconomic scale, if Peter is spending 100 dollars on fossil fuels and the government taxes it by 20 more dollars, he will reduce his consumption of gasoline by the price elasticity of demand. In layman’s terms he will cut his use of gasoline by a certain amount based upon his budget. If the price elasticity of demand is inelastic because Peter cannot find another fuel source for his car, Peter may end up spending 118 dollars on gasoline with the government pocketing the 18 dollars and Peter reducing his quantity of gasoline by the small amount he can while sacrificing his spending on other more unnecessary things in his budget.

If the government then gives Peter back the 18 dollars it took then Peter may use the extra income to spend some of that money on gasoline depending on his income elasticity of demand. In layman’s terms as his income increases he will spend more of his budget on gasoline for example by making that extra trip to the video store, or out to dinner etc. More than likely he will use the extra money to buy some of the unecessary goods he gave up before the price increase once he has satisfied his gasoline requirements.

Think of what you would do in this simple situation, if you were only buying the amount of gas you absolutely needed before the tax, and then after the tax you got your money back. You will more than likely try and be back where you started. This is why on a micro-economic level, I think the Green Shift is flawed when it comes to greenhouse gas reduction. Soon I will show you the numbers, or the money as they say.

But what happens if the government gives you more money than you started with? This is the situation where you might actually end up buying more greenhouse gas producing products than you ever did before, and also where you might indirectly switch from using friendlier natural gas to deadlier gasoline. 

The problem is that the consumption taxes and income taxes are not directly linked.

Let’s set this up. The Green Shift proposes the impossible, that it will only target non-gasoline fuels for taxation. According to Natural Resources Canada data, residential natural gas contributes to 32.2 Mt of CO2 per year. It is a large segment of of the total residential production of CO2, on par with electricity. Oil is minor with only a 6.8 Mt contribution and will be ignored in this simple estimate. The estimated long run price elasticity of demand of natural gas is -0.36 according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The Green Shift will increase the price of natural gas by ~18.0% at the end of four years. Therefore the reduction in CO2 production is calculated to be 2.09 Mt (18.0%*(-0.36)/100*32.2 Mt).

According to the Green Shift somehow the majority of Canadians are going to get more money back due to income tax reductions. You only have to go to their website to see that somehow you are coming out ahead after playing with their calculator. (The plan implies the wealthy will not but in actual fact it will likely be the poor who suffer most.) Government projections have the revenue from National Personal Income Taxes in four years at roughly 143.375 billion dollars. Increased personal income due to Green Shift, 7.54%**. The income elasticity of demand for gasoline has been calculated to be on average to be 0.88 from a meta analysis by Espey. Natural Resources Canada has greenhouse gas emissions at 89.4 Mt CO2 for gasoline transportation. The increase in CO2 use from the increased income spent on gasoline is 5.93 Mt.  

Income elasticity of demand will also effect the consumption of natural gas. Income elasticities of demand differ between countries widely, and are greater in Europe. Ashe et al. in the Energy Journal show a 1.3 to 6.1 income elasticity of demand for natural gas in the long run between Europeans. I will use a more conservative number calculated by David Brightwell at Texas A.M. of 1.46 as it is likely an underestimate of Canadian elasticity. The increased consumption of natural gas due to increased income is 3.31 Mt ((32.2 - 2.09))*(0.0754*1.46)).

The Green Shift alone results in an increase in CO2 greenhouse gas production by consumers of 7.15 Mt (5.93 + 3.31 - 2.09 Mt).

Limitations to this analysis include the cross price elasticity of coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. In simple terms by making one more expensive relative to another there may be a consumer switch to the cheaper fuel. As has been shown by many authors substitution effect between any two is very small if not insignificant, except for the substitution between natural gas and oil, and natural gas and gasoline for some reason. Either way, the cross price elasticity would make the increase in CO2 production from the Green Shift larger if at all. Another obvious limitation is the increase in over-all fossil fuel use due to increasing incomes as GDP rises over the next four years. This would change the numbers somewhat, but more important to note, would increase fossil fuel use overall and greenhouse gas production. It is also important to consider the linearities, in this case the differences in elasticities faced by people with different incomes. People in the low income bracket tend to have a more inelastic price elasticity for necessities and a higher income elasticity. This is due to the fact that the richer you get the less likely you are to spend any more money on gasoline. In essence you reach a point where you are using as much gasoline as you like. Therefore while I have used average elasticities, it is likely that my number is an underestimate as most of the apparent Green Shift income transfers are to the low income bracket who are more likely to buy more fossil fuels than the middle income bracket.

A note to those in British Columbia who face a gasoline tax based carbon tax. It is likely that due to the income elasticity of demand you will also see an increase in greenhouse gas production.  

A Shocking Mystery

There exists a mystery in regards to the Green Shift. No where in the pdf can I find any mention of household increased electricity costs due to their increased tax on coal. Coal plants produce a large share of electricity in North America. Obviously electricity contributes a significant household cost. Considering that with the income tax decrease most Canadians are barely ahead adding the increased cost of electicity would certainly put most Canadians into the red.

Why do Economists Like the Green Shift?

Economists do not necessarily like the Green Shift. Many economists favor a change in our tax strucure from income taxes to consumption taxes. I agree with this but have some reservations, one of which is that the change has not been well studied with real occurances. Basically the theory is that by reducing our focus on income taxes, taxes that cause a negative strain on productivity and employment, we will increase GDP. Moreover by taxing pollution we will account for the negative externalities caused by consumption and increase GDP. This is called the double divident effect. The argument out there is whether this effect is real, weak or strong.

An economist who I respect, Dr. Ross McKitrick, has calculated the GNP rise due to the double dividend in Canada to be positive, (0.6%) with a 21 dollar (1989) per tonne CO2 tax. I don’t know whether he factors in the income elasticities into his reduction of CO2 model or whether he simply accepts a reduction. 

It is also important to note other studies such as by Carraro et al. that show that in the short run the double dividend effect can increase employment, but in the long run has no effect. Dr. Stephen Smith presents a review of the possibilities of the double dividend and its possible negatives and concerns.

Some of my concerns regard the implications of a shift from capital to labor in an open market. If labor is made cheaper relative to capital it may occur that the productivity of labor relative to other countries decreases. Essentially this is due to the disincentives to reinvest in productivity. As productivity falls, so does wages and Canadians may become poorer relative to other countries. Other concerns regard to the increased costs of energy and it’s obvious effects on production, manufacturing, industry, and even the service sector. Fossil fuels are an integral input in almost any good or service.

Many of the people who advocate a Green Shift use Finland and Sweden as an example of success. Fortunately for the Fins and Swedes, they have alternatives or substitutes in the form of nuclear power and hydroelectricity respectively. Finland is expanding its reliance on nuclear power and Sweden has placed its reduction on reliance on nuclear power on hold as they have come to realize the the difficulties of renewable energy. Sweden has 44% of electricity  produced by hydro and 47% by nuclear energy, total 91%. In comparison Canada has 24% of it’s electricity generated by CO2 producing sources, and this doesn’t appear to be changing as provincial governments have no real policies for energy production.

 

Mt = mega tonnes 

* It is likely that the idiom “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul” has been in the vernacular for much longer, and may indeed hark to the 12th century latin vernacular. However the event must have well suited the expression for those aware and cynical enough to turn it to English.

** It is hard to know, reading the Liberal Green Shift plan, which year the dollars are adjusted for due to inflation. I am assuming 2008 dollars. I hope they thought of inflation.