Stephen Harper spent a fair amount of time today saying that, if the Liberals get in power and institute a carbon tax, the country could be thrown into recession and, as a bonus, national unity would be threatened.
Jack Layton, too, had not very nice things to say about Stephane Dion’s carbon tax and income tax cut.
Here though, are some non-partisan types, that actually think Dion’s approach is best.
First, here’s an excerpt from e-mail exchange I had before the writ was dropped with Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University, who specializes in the economics of climate change policy:
Conservatives have intensity cap on industry (with a huge 100% offset loophole), and no price or regulation on the 50% of emissions coming from non-industry (vehicles and buildings). These policies will not reach the emission reduction targets for 2020 that Harper and Baird say they will.
[The] NDP want [an] absolute cap on industry. All permits will be auctioned and the money used to subsidize offsets among non-industry. This won’t work. Industry will shut down from the cost hit. And offset subsidies do not reduce emissions.
I am not pro-Dion (see my 2006 CD Howe attack on his policies when he was environment minister) but the Liberals (and Greens) have the only policies that are realistic in that they apply an economy-wide cost on emissions to industry and non-industry. That or an economy-wide absolute cap (which Dion promises within 2 years) is the only way to reduce emissions without destroying the economy.
And here’s the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, a lobby group which represents CEOs at Canada’s biggest companies:
There is no question that taxation can be effective in changing business and consumer decisions and behaviour. Environmental levies such as a carbon tax are transparent, making the price of emissions clear and consistent. They can encourage long-term investments in research and in capital equipment by establishing a known rate of return.
But Canadians must recognize that significant levels of taxation likely would be required to drive significant changes in behaviour.
We are not proposing a new tax. However, if any new environmental tax were to be proposed, it must be a substitute for existing forms of taxation, not a revenue grab. Any new tax in Canada must not discriminate against any particular sector or region, and should be implemented only as part of broader tax reform that aims to enhance our country’s economic as well as environmental performance.
This is especially important with respect to environmental taxation, since the burden of such taxes in most cases flows through to the individuals who ultimately use the energy or consume its resulting products. Simply adding to Canada’s tax burden under the guise of environmental responsibility is a recipe for both damaging the country’s economy and undermining public support for environmental goals.
And here’s what Matthew Bramley, director of the climate change program with the Pembina Institute, an advocacy group which has often been at odds with both Liberals and Conservatives, has to say about today’s claims:
Mr Harper and Mr Layton’s opposition to carbon taxes is contradicted by leading economics and business organizations who say taxing pollution is a good way to harness market forces to fight global warming. There is no evidence to support Mr Harper’s claim that a modest carbon tax would cause a recession. In fact, Mr Dion’s proposed tax would need to be further increased to enable Canada to meet science-based targets for greenhouse gas reductions.
Unchecked global warming will cause immense economic costs. Canadians expect a fact-based debate about not just the costs of acting but also the costs of failing to act and failing to repair Canada’s damaged reputation on this issue.”
One of the problems for Canadians, reporters, and experts like Jaccard and Bramley when it comes this debate about costs is that, so far, only the Liberals (much to the dismay of some of those very same Liberals) have actually spelled out how much more coal, diesel fuel and natural gas will cost. The Conservatives and the NDP admit that their regulatory approach to getting rid of greenhouse gas emissions involves some costs but, so far, we haven’t had a clear accounting from either party about what they might be.
Technorati Tags: greenhouse gas emissions, carbon tax
