Business
World Bank offers dim outlook for the global economy in face of higher interest rates
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/06/tvrd-cp-world-bank-global-economy-inflation-image-2023-06-06.jpg)
That’s the latest outlook of the World Bank, a 189-country anti-poverty agency, which estimates that the international economy will expand just 2.1% in 2023 after growing 3.1% in 2022. Still, the bank’s latest Global Economic Prospects report, which it issued Tuesday, marks an upgrade from its previous forecast in January. That estimate had envisioned worldwide growth of just 1.7% this year.
The Federal Reserve and other major central banks have been aggressively raising interest rates to combat a resurgence of inflation, set off by a stronger-than-expected rebound from the pandemic recession, persistent supply shortages and energy and food price shocks caused by the Ukraine war.
But the global economy has proved surprisingly resilient in the face of higher borrowing costs, and the World Bank predicts that growth will accelerate to 2.4% in 2024.
The United States has continued to generate unexpectedly robust job gains — employers added 339,000 workers in May, far more than economists had forecast — even though the Fed has raised its benchmark rate 10 times in the past 15 months. In its report Tuesday, the World Bank upgraded its forecast for U.S. economic growth this year to 1.1%. Though weak, that is more than double the growth the World Bank had envisioned in January.
The eurozone, which represents the 20 countries that share the euro currency, is expected to post collective growth of 0.4% this year. That, too, marks a slight upgrade: In January, the World Bank had expected no growth at all for the eurozone this year. Europe, struggling with higher energy prices caused by the Ukraine war, enjoyed relief from a surprisingly warm winter, which reduced demand for heat.
The World Bank upgraded its 2023 outlook for China after Beijing late last year relaxed its draconian zero-COVID policies, which had restricted travel and hammered its economy. The world’s second-biggest economy is now expected to grow 5.6% in 2023, up from 3% last year. The World Bank envisions Japan’s growth decelerating to 0.8% this year from 1% in 2022. It foresees India’s growth slowing to a still-strong 6.3% from 7.2% last year.
The bank predicts that global trade will slow markedly this year. It foresees a sharp drop in the price of energy and other commodities this year and next.
Economy
Carbon tax costs Canadian economy billions
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/tvrd-ctf-carbon-tax-inflation-economy-gas-prices-image-2024-06-14.jpg)
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Franco Terrazzano
This tax costs Canadians big time at the gas pump, on home heating bills, on the farm and at the dinner table.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal government to scrap the carbon tax in light of newly released government data showing the tax will cost the Canadian economy about $25 billion in 2030.
“Once again, we see the government’s own data showing what hardworking Canadians already know: the carbon tax costs Canada big time,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “The carbon tax makes the necessities of life more expensive and it will cost our economy billions of dollars.
“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must scrap his carbon tax now.”
The government of Canada released modelling showing the cost of the carbon tax on the Canadian economy Thursday.
“The country’s GDP is expected to be about $25 billion lower in 2030 due to carbon pricing than it would be otherwise,” reports the Globe and Mail.
Canada contributes about 1.5 per cent of global emissions.
Government data shows emissions are going up in Canada. In 2022, the latest year of data, emissions in Canada were 708 megatonnes of CO2, an increase of 9.3 megatonnes from 2021.
The federal carbon tax currently costs 17 cents per litre of gasoline, 21 cents per litre of diesel and 15 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.
The carbon tax adds about $13 to the cost of filling up a minivan, about $20 to the cost of filling up a pickup truck and about $200 to the cost of filling up a big rig truck with diesel.
Farmers are charged the carbon tax for heating their barns and drying grains with natural gas and propane. The carbon tax will cost Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
“No matter how many times this government tries to put lipstick on the carbon tax pig, the reality is clear,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “This tax costs Canadians big time at the gas pump, on home heating bills, on the farm and at the dinner table. Trudeau should make life more affordable and improve the Canadian economy by scrapping his carbon tax.”
Business
New York and Vermont Seek to Impose a Retroactive Climate Tax
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/08/tvrd-tvrd-power-line-electricity-energy-image-2022-08-25.jpg)
From Heartland Daily News
By Joshua Loucks for the Cato Institute.
Energy producers will be subject to retroactive taxes in New York if the state assembly passes Senate Bill S2129A, known as the “Climate Change Superfund Act.” The superfund legislation seeks to impose a retroactive tax on energy companies that have emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) and operated within the state over the last seventy years.
If passed, the new law will impose $75 billion in repayment fees for “historical polluters,” who lawmakers assert are primarily responsible for climate change damages within the state. The state will “assign liability to and require compensation from companies commensurate with their emissions” over the last “70 years or more.” The bill would establish a standard of strict liability, stating that “companies are required to pay into the fund because the use of their products caused the pollution. No finding of wrongdoing is required.”
New York is not alone in this effort. Superfunds built on retroactive taxes on GHG emissions are becoming increasingly popular. Vermont recently enacted similar legislation, S.259 (Act 122), titled the “Climate Superfund Act,” in which the state also retroactively taxes energy producers for historic emissions. Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland and Massachusetts.
Climate superfund legislation seems to have one purpose: to raise revenue by taxing a politically unpopular industry. Under the New York law, fossil fuel‐producing energy companies would be taxed billions of dollars retroactively for engaging in legal and necessary behavior. For example, the seventy‐year retroactive tax would conceivably apply to any company—going back to 1954—that used fossil fuels to generate electricity or produced fuel for New York drivers.
The typical “economic efficiency” arguments for taxing an externality go out the window with the New York and Vermont approach, for at least two reasons. First, the goal of a blackboard or textbook approach to a carbon tax is to internalize the GHG externality. To apply such a tax accurately, the government would need to calculate the social cost of carbon (SCC).
Unfortunately, estimating the SCC is methodologically complex and open to wide ranges of estimates. As a result, the SCC is theoretically very useful but practically impossible to calculate with any reasonable degree of precision.
Second, the retroactive nature of these climate superfunds undermines the very incentives a textbook tax on externalities would promote. A carbon tax’s central feature is that it is intended to reduce externalities from current and future activity by changing incentives. However, by imposing retroactive taxes, the New York and Vermont legislation will not impact emitters’ future behavior in a way that mimics a textbook carbon tax or improves economic outcomes.
Arbitrary and retroactive taxes can, however, raise prices for consumers by increasing policy uncertainty, affecting firm profitability, and reducing investment (or causing investors to flee GHG‐emitting industries in the state altogether). Residents in both New York and Vermont already pay over 30 percent more than the US average in residential electricity prices, and this legislation will not lower these costs to consumers.
Climate superfunds are not a serious attempt to solve environmental challenges but rather a way to raise government revenue while unfairly punishing an entire industry (one whose actions the New York legislation claims “have been unconscionable, closely reflecting the strategy of denial, deflection, and delay used by the tobacco industry”).
Fossil fuel companies enabled GHG emissions, of course, but they also empowered significant growth, mobility, and prosperity. The punitive nature of the policy is laid bare by the fact that neither New York nor Vermont used a generic SCC or an evidentiary proceeding to calculate precise damages.
Finally, establishing a standard in which “no finding of wrongdoing is required” to levy fines against historical actions that were (and still are) legally permitted sets a dangerous precedent for what governments can do, not only to businesses that have produced fossil fuels but also to individuals who have consumed them.
Cato research associate Joshua Loucks contributed to this post.
Originally published by the Cato Institute. Republished with permission under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.