Wednesday September 25, 2024

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday September 25, 2024

Bring on the Carbon Tax Election: Confronting the Reality of Climate Change and the Cost of Inaction

Pierre Poilievre’s “Axe the Tax” campaign has struck a chord with many Canadians, positioning him as the frontrunner for the next election and framing the carbon tax as Public Enemy Number One. His rallying cry comes at a time when Canadians are struggling with inflation, housing shortages, and skyrocketing costs. But in the rush to ease voters’ anxieties, Poilievre is pushing an agenda that, in its simplicity, ignores a complex and pressing issue—climate change. The real danger isn’t the carbon tax itself, but the absence of any credible plan to address the climate crisis if Poilievre gets his way. In calling for a carbon tax election, Poilievre may get what he wants, but the real debate Canadians need is not just about scrapping a tax, but about how we will pay for the massive costs of climate inaction.

As Andrew Phillips highlights in his Toronto Star piece, while Canada prepares to abandon its carbon pricing strategy, the rest of the world is moving in the opposite direction. The Financial Times recently praised carbon pricing as the most efficient way to reduce emissions and incentivize cleaner energy. There are now 78 carbon pricing mechanisms in place globally, covering a quarter of global emissions. This growing global consensus reflects a simple economic principle: when you put a price on carbon, you force polluters to pay for the damage they cause, encouraging them to innovate and reduce emissions.

Opinion: The rest of the world knows the best tool to fight climate change. Canada is abandoning it

Yet, in Canada, Poilievre’s campaign feeds on fear and misinformation, painting a picture of economic devastation that carbon pricing simply hasn’t caused. Phillips points out how Poilievre’s claims of “mass hunger” and “nuclear winter” if the carbon tax increases are ludicrous. This kind of hyperbole might win votes, but it does a disservice to Canadians by treating them like they can’t handle the truth about the costs of climate policy. Phillips reminds us that the alternatives to carbon pricing—industrial pricing or green subsidies—are far more costly. There is no free lunch. We either pay for reducing emissions now, or face higher costs later, not only in dollars but in the mounting damage from unchecked climate change.

The global reality that Phillips emphasizes is crucial to understanding the stakes. Countries that don’t price carbon will increasingly face penalties on exports through mechanisms like the European Union’s carbon border adjustment tax. Canada, too, will not be exempt from this economic shift if it abandons carbon pricing. The world is moving away from fossil fuels, and the price for not keeping up will be steep—not just environmentally, but economically. This isn’t fear-mongering; it’s the reality of global trade and the green transition that Canada will have to navigate whether or not Poilievre wants to admit it.

Opinion: The conservative defeat of carbon pricing is the defeat of economics – and of conservatism

On the other hand, Andrew Coyne’s analysis in The Globe and Mail also lays bare the political and economic stakes of scrapping carbon pricing. Coyne argues that Poilievre’s “Axe the Tax” campaign may be brilliant politics but it is deeply flawed policy. By focusing only on the immediate costs of the carbon tax, Poilievre avoids confronting the much larger costs of doing nothing. Coyne points out that it’s not the tax itself that’s the problem—it’s the lack of a viable alternative. What Poilievre is offering Canadians is a temporary reprieve from paying for climate policy, but at the expense of real long-term solutions.

Like Phillips, Coyne highlights that while carbon pricing may not be popular, it is one of the most efficient tools we have to reduce emissions. The alternative—whether it’s more regulation, industry-targeted taxes, or massive green subsidies—is likely to be far more expensive. And, as Coyne reminds us, without a carbon tax, Canada risks falling behind in a global economy increasingly shaped by environmental policies. One Globe reader astutely observed that Poilievre is setting Canadians up to pay one way or another—whether through environmental destruction or through tariffs on our exports in the global market. Either way, we cannot dodge the costs.

The heart of the problem with Poilievre’s campaign is its focus on short-term political gain at the expense of long-term sustainability. He has tapped into real voter frustrations about affordability, but he’s selling Canadians a false choice. His message suggests that we can have lower costs today without paying for it tomorrow—a claim that simply doesn’t hold up in the face of climate science and economic reality.

Phillips rightly criticizes the vacuum of leadership in Canada’s climate policy debate. The Trudeau government, once hailed for introducing carbon pricing, now faces political abandonment, even from former allies like the NDP. As Canadians turn away from the Liberals, they’re not demanding a credible climate alternative—they’re just rejecting the current plan. Poilievre has capitalized on this by framing carbon pricing as the enemy, without offering any serious plan for how he would deal with the climate crisis.

Coyne echoes this criticism, noting that Poilievre’s anti-carbon tax stance is all about the politics of the moment and not about policy for the future. Coyne argues that the Conservatives have failed to offer any meaningful proposals to address climate change. The reality is that we can’t escape the costs of reducing emissions. Whether through a carbon tax or another mechanism, we will have to pay to clean up our economy. Scrapping the carbon tax without a credible replacement is simply kicking the can down the road—an irresponsible move for a country already experiencing the impacts of global warming.

If Poilievre wants a carbon tax election, let’s have one. But let’s ensure it’s based on facts, not the kind of fear-mongering he’s peddling. As both Coyne and Phillips argue, the real debate isn’t whether we need to pay for climate policy—it’s how we pay for it. Canadians deserve to hear the truth: fighting climate change will cost money, but failing to act will cost much more. If Poilievre wants to lead the country, he needs to offer a serious plan for reducing emissions, not just a catchy slogan.

At the end of the day, Canadians must confront the reality that the climate crisis isn’t going away. The rest of the world knows this, and while they’re adopting carbon pricing, we’re at risk of moving backwards. If Poilievre’s “Axe the Tax” campaign succeeds, it will be a political win for him, but a loss for Canada. And as Phillips warns, even if we dodge the carbon tax at home, we’ll pay the price in the international arena.

A carbon tax election could be the moment where Canadians finally confront the truth about the cost of climate action—or inaction. But to get there, we need an honest debate, not political theatre. (AI)