Fuel On The Highway In British Pre-Columbia

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Supporters of the British Columbia (Canada) carbon-based energy tax that I discussed in my last post have made claims that the data shows this tax was a success … so being a suspicious-type fellow, I thought I’d take a look at the data myself. I didn’t figure the tax was having much effect, but I was prepared to find anything. Reality’s funny that way, I like not knowing which bush hides the rabbit … anyhow, here’s a typical claim:

MOTOR GASOLINE (DRIVING)

The above figures show changes in overall use of all petroleum fuel products (subject to the carbon tax). To gain some insights specifically into how the carbon tax has affected the behaviour of drivers, one can examine just the changes in motor gasoline consumption (one component of the overall fuel use numbers). Since 2008, per capita gasoline use in BC has declined by 7.3% more than in the rest of Canada (Table 4) – a substantial difference. Gasoline use in BC was already declining faster than in the rest of Canada from 2000-2007 (see Figure 4).

The tax covers all carbon-based fuels, heating fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, natural gas, all of them. Data is unavailable for some of them, so I have looked at the consumption of the highway fuels, gasoline and diesel, to see if the tax has any effect on how people are driving up in the frozen North.

Statistics Canada has an excellent website, from which I got most of my data about the fuel use. First, here are the raw changes in per capita diesel and gasoline use (combined) by Province for the years 1993-2011. This analysis is only the gasoline and diesel used on the roads, not the use of those fuel for off-road vehicles and farm tractors and the like. (Note that off-road and farming fuel, and indeed fuels for all purposes and users, are all subject to the BC carbon-based energy tax.)

canadian per capita fuel use by provinceFigure 1. Per capita Canadian diesel plus gasoline use by Province. Only fuels used on the highway are counted. Thick red and black lines show British Columbia and Canadian average per capita fuel use. Nunavut and Northwest Territories are not included due to lack of data for the earlier years, before Nunavut was created. DATA SOURCE

Now that’s interesting, but it doesn’t really allow us to look at the subtle year-to-year changes. For that we need to look at the percentage changes in emissions by province, to see who is going up and who is going down.

In looking at a percentage change in anything, the first question of interest is, percentage change from what starting point? Because the tax was instituted in 2008, I looked at the percentage change from that time. Figure 2 shows that result, and given the claims of the proponents of the tax, it’s quite funny … well, it’s funny except if you live in BC, I guess when the joke’s on you it kind of loses its humor. Anyhow, here’s the percentage change in per capita use of highway fuels by province:

change in canadian per capita fuel use by provinceFigure 2. Percentage change in fuel use, with the year 2008 used as the base from which the percentages are calculated. Blue line shows the corresponding percentage change in the real (inflation-adjusted) Canadian GDP. 2011 is the most recent year for which StatCan has data.

The first thing that stands out is what I found in my analysis of the US driving habits—Americans drive more miles in good economic times, and cut back on the driving in tough economic times. Similarly, the highway fuel used in both British Columbia and also the rest of Canada has moved roughly in parallel with the national economic situation.

The next thing I noticed was that from 1993 to 2008, BC had the slowest growth in highway fuel use of all of the Provinces.

Next, the changes in highway fuel use after the imposition of the tax are interesting. Figure 3 shows a closeup of Figure 2, highlighting the recent period from 2004 to 2011.

change in canadian per capita fuel use by province closeupFigure 3. Closeup of Figure 2, showing the post-tax changes in road-fuel use. The BC carbon-based energy tax was instituted in 2008.

So … just like the rest of Canada (thick black line), BC road fuel use dropped from 2004 to 2008, when the BC tax was instituted … except it was dropping faster than the national average.

Again just like the rest of Canada, the BC road fuel use bottomed out in 2009, the year following the imposition of the carbon based energy tax. I can only assume that this is related to the blue line, showing the real GDP for Canada.

And just like the rest of Canada, since then British Columbia road fuel use has risen to the end of the record … except it’s risen faster than the national average.

Now here’s the funny part. From 2004 to the tax year of 2008, BC road fuel use was showing nearly the fastest decrease in fuel use in the country. Fuel use dropped about three times as much as the rest of Canada during that period. That was before the tax.

After the tax, BC road fuel use dropped, but for only one year. So did the rest of Canada, and the US, showing that the drop was at least in part due to the global financial meltdown.

And since 2009, BC is tied with the Yukon territory and Newfoundland/Labrador for the fastest increase in fuel use in the country. Highway fuel use rose five times faster in BC than in the rest of Canada since 2009.

Finally, since 2008 when the carbon-based energy tax was imposed, energy use on the road has risen in BC, not fallen. And not only has it risen, since the tax took effect BC has risen faster than all but three of the other provinces.

Can we say that the carbon-based energy tax hasn’t changed fuel use in BC? Nope, all I’ve looked at is road fuel … but fuel use on the highways of BC sure hasn’t changed. Well, that’s not exactly true.

Before the tax, per capita road fuel use in BC was dropping faster than almost all the provinces.

After the tax, per capita road fuel use in BC is increasing faster than almost all the provinces.

So actually, yes, I’d say I was wrong, the tax has had an effect on BC road fuel use … but likely not the one expected by the promoters.

w.

PS—you may recall that up top, the promoters extolled the drop in gasoline used for road fuel in British Columbia … why didn’t I find that result? Why do I show an increase?

Well, it’s because I show all the highway fuel used, not just gasoline. And although there was a small decrease in gasoline use in BC, there was a larger increase in diesel use. And as a result, total BC road fuel use is not 7.3% less than the rest of Canada as they would lead you to believe by omitting the diesel figures—BC road fuel use has increased by 4.2% more than the rest of Canada. Like I say, it pays to be really suspicious with statements from folks like that, single issue fanatics.

PPS—In my previous post on the BC carbon-based energy tax, I said I wanted to discuss the (lack of) benefits, the costs, and the results of the tax. That post showed that the maximum possible benefit of the BC tax is a cooling of three thousandths of a degree (0.003°C) after fifty years. This post is about a curious result of the tax, the fact that BC highway fuel use (gas plus diesel) was dropping before the tax, and has increased since then by much more than the rest of Canada. The next post will discuss the costs of the tax, and why “revenue neutral” isn’t.

NOTE: This is one of a four-part series on the BC carbon-based energy tax. The parts are:

British Columbia, British Utopia

Fuel on the Highway in British Pre-Columbia

The Real Canadian Hockeystick

Why Revenue Neutral Isn’t, and Other Costs of the BC Tax

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wayne d
July 12, 2013 8:45 pm

Add me to the list. I buy enough fuel at the Alberta border with BC to bet me to my BC destination. Then if I am near the US border like at Grand Forks, I slip across the border like everyone else and fill up for the return trip. The US Danville station there is just a few hundred metres across the border.

July 12, 2013 8:49 pm

Hey Klem and others! Stop pushing the idea that BC is a lefty paradise! For all the hippies and Vancouver dope smokers etc. we elected the liberals because they were the pro business alternative to the socialist NDP. We did not vote for a carbon tax any more than we voted for harmonized sales tax. We were poorly served. Recently we re elected the bums, even though we wanted them out, because the alternative party was against the enbridge pipeline. Does that sound like California to you folks? At least our premier doesn’t travel to the states to slag our principal source of revenue…(ears burning, you Albertans out there?)

Gen. P. Malaise
July 12, 2013 9:28 pm

the Canadian north ..NWT and NON-of-THAT have few roads and is very resource driven. so their numbers are always difficult to understand.
Great writing Willis. carbon tax does nothing but wealth redistribution. the progressives actually don’t care even if global warming caused by man. they just use it as an excuse to exert control over the sheeple and other useful idiots. one day the educated people will stop talking to them and trying to explain their folly. trying to debate them is pointless as the comments from the trolls prove. I hope we stop these leaches sooner then later. they are nothing but a waste of bio-fuel themselves.

gaelan clark
July 13, 2013 4:21 am

Eli Rabett on July 12, 2013 at 10:23 am
Ummmm, I suppose the emmissions tax scheme works if you dont use math correctly or you dont understand which metric to measure by.
Let us use your simpleton population stat–4.1 mill to 7.1 tril…err..billion…we get 0.000577…that is 1 whole order of magnitude off. WOW!!
Now let us do the more appropriate calculation of land mass….BC has 364,764 sq miles while the planet has 57, 500, 000 sq miles. That fraction equates to 0.00634!!!
WOW ELI WOW…YOU REALLY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!! BC’s gas tax has les than half of the expected value that it needs in order to keep GLOBAL WARMING in their neck of the woods at bay.
Now, how much tax is needed to get BC to the .00634?
And how much time do we need to get you to use the proper numbers AND THEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY MEAN?

gaelan clark
July 13, 2013 4:35 am

Eli Rabbit….under your twisted math Australia–population 22.31 million amd land mass of 2.97 mm sq miles—-would be responsible for only 0.00314 of emissions reduction (population divided by population) WHERE WHEN IN A GLOBAL WORLD—NOT A FLAT EARTH ONE MIND YOU—AUSTRALIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR LAND MASS OF THE WORLD….so that calculation takes us to 2.97 mm sq miles / 57.5 mm sq miles and POP BANG WOW WOW WOW the nymber turns out to be 0.0516—-
Come on Eli….

Jeff Alberts
July 13, 2013 8:26 am

Tim Folkerts says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:21 am
I don’t have any hard numbers, but I recently visited relatives in northwest Washington. They report that gas stations close to British Columbia do a brisk business selling gas to Canadians. The same goes for various other commodities that are taxed or subsidized differently on the two sides of the border. This is probably not a big enough effect to impact Willis’ analysis, but people do naturally try to get the best prices, even if it mean occasional trips to other cities/states/countries.

I affectionately call the Costco in Bellingham “Little BC”. Now, if we could get them to stop driving like Californians…

Matthew R Marler
July 13, 2013 8:31 am

Eli Rabbet: What the carbon tax in BC has shown is that a carbon tax is a workable way to reduce emissions
Really? Where exactly was that “shown”?

LearDog
July 13, 2013 8:51 am

great analysis Willis, thanks very much! I’m guessing that Shale Gas development in the Horn River Basin in the NE corner of BC is driving the increased consumption. Hard to control the statistics for increased commercial activity – but this work and approach is very important. Thanks again.

David Ball
July 13, 2013 11:55 am

john s says:
July 12, 2013 at 8:49 pm
Don’t blame me, I voted Wildrose. Saw Redford coming from a mile away. She is killing Alberta.

David Ball
July 13, 2013 11:59 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:51 am
Where exactly are people from BC “filling up” in Alberta?

david moon
July 13, 2013 10:44 pm

Willis- do you ever sleep? This last week I’ve been rehearsing “Damn Yankees” at local community theater. Playing shows for audiences Fri, Sat , and Sun .So I haven’t looked at your sreadsheet yet

CodeTech
July 14, 2013 1:58 am

David Ball: Crowsnest, mostly… when I go there, for example to see Frank Slide, I see more BC plates than Alberta.

July 14, 2013 7:12 am

NW Libertarian says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:31 pm
the gas prices were all 145.1 no matter if it was Petro Canada, Esso, Shell, Chevron, Husky, etc. Is there some sort of price control there now?
==================
collusion. also known as rip off at the pump. the prices of all gas stations go up and down in unison, regardless of brand. quite a bit of computer power is used to analyze buying patterns to maximize revenues. and the government does nothing to investigate.

David Ball
July 14, 2013 6:17 pm

CodeTech says:
July 14, 2013 at 1:58 am
What is that, maybe 10 or 20 cars per day. Wow!!
Sarc off/

David Ball
July 14, 2013 6:22 pm

On a busy day. It is also 1/2 a tank from any major centre. Really stretching there. I call bulls**t.