British Columbia's carbon tax is not ‘working incredibly well’

In a recent interview with host Paul Kennedy on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio show Ideas, Professor Tim Flannery from the University of Melbourne was discussing some examples of carbon taxation, leading to the following claim (starting at 08:52):

In BC [British Columbia, Canada], you have a carbon tax now that is working incredibly well.

The view that BC's carbon tax is “working incredibly well” is erroneous, but widely disseminated and allowed to stand unchallenged by interviewers failing to discharge basic standards of critical journalism.

The provincial government in BC releases its greenhouse gas emissions [GHG] inventory on an annual basis, with the latest available year being 2013.

Since 2010, BC's total GHG emissions have increased 3.2%, its energy-related emissions have risen 5.5%, and transportation-related emissions have increased 3.4%. Per capita GHG emissions have actually risen from 13.9 to 14.0 tons CO2e [carbon dioxide equivalents] per person over this time frame.

The problems with BC's carbon tax were even noted by the federal conservative government in early 2015, leading to the following media reports:

British Columbia is on track to increase greenhouse gas emissions -- not reduce them -- according to a letter from Canada's environment minister [Leona Aglukkaq] ... Instead of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, the 2014 Emissions Trend Report says B.C. is actually on pace to increase emissions 11 per cent by 2020 (from 2005 levels) ...

"If Stephen Harper's [conservative] government is scolding you on not doing enough on climate change, you've got a problem," said NDP [New Democratic Party] environment critic Spencer Chandra Herbert.

If the purpose of BC's carbon tax was to substantially reduce GHG emissions, how are these facts evidence that the policy is “working incredibly well”?

 

In a recent interview with host Paul Kennedy on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio show Ideas, Professor Tim Flannery from the University of Melbourne was discussing some examples of carbon taxation, leading to the following claim (starting at 08:52):

In BC [British Columbia, Canada], you have a carbon tax now that is working incredibly well.

The view that BC's carbon tax is “working incredibly well” is erroneous, but widely disseminated and allowed to stand unchallenged by interviewers failing to discharge basic standards of critical journalism.

The provincial government in BC releases its greenhouse gas emissions [GHG] inventory on an annual basis, with the latest available year being 2013.

Since 2010, BC's total GHG emissions have increased 3.2%, its energy-related emissions have risen 5.5%, and transportation-related emissions have increased 3.4%. Per capita GHG emissions have actually risen from 13.9 to 14.0 tons CO2e [carbon dioxide equivalents] per person over this time frame.

The problems with BC's carbon tax were even noted by the federal conservative government in early 2015, leading to the following media reports:

British Columbia is on track to increase greenhouse gas emissions -- not reduce them -- according to a letter from Canada's environment minister [Leona Aglukkaq] ... Instead of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, the 2014 Emissions Trend Report says B.C. is actually on pace to increase emissions 11 per cent by 2020 (from 2005 levels) ...

"If Stephen Harper's [conservative] government is scolding you on not doing enough on climate change, you've got a problem," said NDP [New Democratic Party] environment critic Spencer Chandra Herbert.

If the purpose of BC's carbon tax was to substantially reduce GHG emissions, how are these facts evidence that the policy is “working incredibly well”?