Reaction has been moderately positive. Most of us in the environmental movement are giving it two thumbs up. I heard pundits on the radio talk about "tax restructuring". Instead of taxing positive things, such as productivity and the accumulation of wealth, we are taxing negative behavior; waste and unbridled consumption. I think our government deserves some kudos for this move, and I look forward to further ‘restructuring.’

 

I feel optimistic, for the first time in a long time. I know there is a great deal more we still have to do, but ‘every great journey starts with a single small step.’

 

We are calling this a carbon tax, but we are really taxing the consumption of air. If we define consumption as the transformation of a product or substance to the point where it no longer has value, purpose or use, then we are taxing the processes that transform air from a resource benefiting all life on this planet, to a substance that can cause harm. 

 

This same principal ought to be applied to the consumption of other vital resources such as water, and land. As much as we remove these resources from the commonwealth then we ought to tax that consumption. 

 

A tax on water would look like the carbon tax. Those behaviors or products that poison water would be taxed. 

 

A tax on land would look very much like a property tax; except, instead of taxing the market value of property (wealth tax), we would tax the degree to which land no longer benefits the commonwealth. Land that is left natural has a universal benefit, so would not be taxed. Agricultural land would only be taxed a little. Developed land, including roads, train tracks, parking lots, landfill sites, even grassy parks . . . everything that transforms property from a natural state or a food producing state would be taxed by a higher level of government. Private property would be taxed by a regional or municipal government. Property held by a municipality would be taxed by a provincial government, provincial property would be taxed by a federal authority and taxes from federal properties would be placed in a special fund to contribute to global initiatives on the environment. Buildings would be taxed again, according to their size. 

 

Single resident property would bare the greatest tax burden relative to size. This is because land that would otherwise benefit the commonwealth is entirely converted to benefit only a few.

 

I believe this policy would effectively stop urban sprawl, discourage the production of car dependent suburbs and single resident housing. It would discourage oversized houses. It would allow for the revitalization of urban centres. Cities would become more compressed, and therefore cleaner, livelier, more efficient and productive. They could be designed to accommodate sustainable behavior; produce more, consume less and waste nothing. I don’t think there is a better way to redesign cities so they might continue to sustain us.

 

Perhaps I’m expecting too much. After all this is just a "small step" carbon tax. Still, I cling to any light that might lead to better cities.