Re: your Oct. 25 editorial, “Carbon tax headed for ballot box.”
First, the author wrongly states that “polluters are forced to participate in a cap-and-trade system.” This should have read: “a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend” or “a refunded price on pollution” plan.
Second, your editorial writer states that the additional cost per litre of gasoline will be 11 cents in those jurisdictions subject to the federal plan. It’s more like four to six cents.
Nova Scotia is implementing its own measures, which have gained Ottawa’s approval.
But some context is needed here.
Yes, the province was able to reduce its carbon emissions significantly over the last decade, but that glosses over the fact our emissions were extremely high to begin with.
An important point is also missed: the cap-and-trade plan the Nova Scotia government is implementing accomplishes less for low-income households (the latter use six times less fossil fuel than their highest-income counterparts).
However, those in lower-income brackets in other provinces like New Brunswick, who are subject to the federal government’s “refunded price on pollution,” will come out ahead. The federal plan offers the additional moral capacity to take a small bite out of poverty — something the government here should have taken into consideration, given that 50 per cent of Nova Scotians are below a $32,000-annual-income threshold.
Nova Scotia’s cap-and-trade plan ends up protecting only high-income households because of the amount of fossil fuels they use. Under the federal rules, the latter’s consumption habits would put them a bit behind financially, even after being compensated with their dividend cheque.
Furthermore, cap-and-trade plans are highly susceptible to fraud, as criminals can easily steal the credits through nefarious schemes or outright theft from government computer systems, as happened in Europe where $12 billion worth of carbon credits was stolen.
The editorial states that “We’ll face a smaller hike at the pumps than those in other provinces, but we won’t be getting those cheques from Ottawa.”
Why didn’t the author add that, with the refund cheques, up to 80 per cent of households would come out ahead or break even? That’s the big reveal about the carbon tax that wasn’t uncovered in the piece.
The editorial goes on to say: “Other provinces, including Nova Scotia, accepted the federal plan and are permitted to manage the revenues.” But that means low- to middle-income citizens here will not get a break that the “refunded price on pollution” plan would give them. Our province will do what it likes with the revenue and will say it will implement green tech projects (something this government is not known for). All the while, it will protect the highest income earners — who won’t even notice a small rise in prices — at the expense of the rest of us.
The editorial then puts the federal refund plan in the context of the political arena — analyzing the prospects of Liberals vs. Conservatives.
As my colleague, Rolly Montpelier, a climate activist in Ottawa, points out: “If the federal government gets more votes for doing the right thing — tackling climate change — so be it.” He and millions of others around the world are emphatically saying, “The future of our children and grandkids is at stake. Doing nothing is not an option.”
And, he adds, “The Conservative governments of Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have no plan or have a plan that falls short of the backstop plan. Their insistence on further delaying our slim but absolutely necessary chance of keeping the temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees is also not an option.”
I find it irresponsible that our largest newspaper in Atlantic Canada turns the reality of what we’re facing into a speculation game about political outcomes, cheapening what is a life-and-death situation by stating that “voters facing large price hikes at the gas pumps may find that argument convincing. Ontario, which the Liberals will need to win, will be fertile ground for Andrew Scheer’s Tories.”
Large price hikes?
What about the federal backstop that will help most voters at the pumps with cheques that will increase every year as the price of fossil fuels increase, as it must, in order to transition us away from pollution? Isn’t that what we should be focusing on?
Every citizen in Canada should be getting this refund. Why not steer the editorial in that direction and be in accordance with a majority of economists, including this year’s Nobel Prize winner in that field?
Finally, I will respond to your conclusion: “All of which sets up the main issue for the next election. Not since the 1988 free-trade election has a Canadian campaign been fought largely over a single economic issue.”
Action on global warming is not a “single economic issue.” As Montpelier says, “It’s a moral, ethical, generational, existential, environmental, quality-of-life and economic issue.”
The federal “refunded price on pollution” plan is the first step in recognizing the whole picture. We, the majority of citizens who would benefit from this fair, inexpensive and simple plan must demand we get fair treatment. Our province must take a moral stand and return the revenue collected to the citizens. Then we would know the government is looking out for those who elected it, not a few wealthy businesspeople in its inner circle of influence.
Joanne Light of Halifax is group leader, Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
