Are Climate Change Policies Fair to Vulnerable Communities? the Impact of British Columbia's Carbon Tax and Australia's Carbon Pricing Policy on Indigenous Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares carbon pricing policies in British Columbia and Australia in order to identify differences between carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes (ETS) from a fairness perspective. We examine how taxes and trading systems impact indigenous communities in both jurisdictions. While the regressivity of carbon pricing is a critical part of any fairness assessment, we argue that socioeconomic and cultural factors must also be taken into consideration. We discuss the importance of accompanying carbon pricing with policies that mitigate not only distributional impacts, but also additional impacts. These may be funded by the revenue generated by the policy or by other sources of government revenue. We argue in favour of devoting at least some portion of revenues generated by the instruments to climate change mitigation, versus tax cuts, since vulnerable communities are often disproportionately impacted by climate change. We conclude that carbon pricing policies have the potential to be designed in a way that is fair to indigenous communities. The devil is in the details. Both ETS and carbon taxes have cost implications for disadvantaged groups such as indigenous peoples, but they can both be designed in a way that compensates fairly for these impacts. Ultimately, it is a political choice.Les auteures comparent les politiques d'etablissements des prix du carbone en Colombie-Britannique et en Australie afin de determiner, d'une perspective d'equite, les differences entre les taxes sur le carbone et les programmes d'echange de droits d'emission. Les auteures etudient les incidences des taxes et des programmes d'echange sur les collectivites autochtones en ColombieBritannique et en Australie. Meme si le caractere regressif de la tarification du carbone est un element critique de toute evaluation du caractere equitable, les auteures avancent qu'il faut egalement prendre en consideration les facteurs socio-economiques et culturels. Elles discutent de l'importance de jumeler la tarification du carbone a des politiques qui attenuent non seulement les impacts repartitifs, mais egalement les autres impacts. Ces politiques pourraient etre financees par les recettes des politiques memes ou par d'autres sources de recettes publiques. Les auteures plaident pour que soit consacree a ce financement une partie au moins des recettes provenant des instruments d'attenuation des effets du changement climatique, au lieu d'une reduction des impots, puisque les collectivites vulnerables sont souvent celles qui souffrent le plus des incidences du changement climatique. Elles concluent qu'il est possible de donner aux politiques de tarification du carbone une orientation equitable envers les collectivites autochtones. Mais il faut porter une attention particuliere aux details : tant les programmes d'echange de droits d'emission que les taxes sur le carbone ont des consequences financieres pour les groupes defavorises comme les peuples autochtones, mais il est possible de faire en sorte qu'ils offrent une indemnisation equitable pour ces impacts. Au bout du compte, le choix est un choix politique.IntroductionI. Background and context1. Indigenous communities and climate change2. Defining fairness3. Fairness in carbon taxes and emission trading schemesa. Regressive impactsb. Procedural fairnessc. Revenue useII. The analytical framework1. Design2. Cost implications3. Impact of complementary policies4. Impact of outcome (effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions)III. Case studiesA. BC carbon tax1. Designa. Scopeb. Ratec. Policies for revenue use2. Cost implicationsa. Direct and indirect costsb. Regressive impactsc. Socio-economic/cultural challenges of adapting to increased costsi. Remotenessii. Housingiii. Employment in impacted sectors3. Impact of complementary policiesa. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".