Sifting Through The Propaganda

H/t Theo Moudakis

Having purchased this past summer a used hybrid vehicle that gives me remarkable fuel economy, I am now a very infrequent customer at the gas pump. My greenhouse gas emissions are much less than was the case with my late 17-year-old car, and that pleases me immensely. The fact that I will also come out even farther ahead in my carbon tax rebate is an additionally pleasing benefit.

Yet according to the propaganda promulgated by lil' PP (and, sadly, now echoed by the NDP), that 'tax' is the source of an insupportable burden on the backs of hardworking Canadians. PP, of course, never lets the facts get in the way of demagogic rants. 

However, his denunciation 

flies in the face of the fact that 90 per cent of the revenue from the fuel levy is rebated to Canadians — the Parliamentary Budget Officer has found that most households, particularly low-income households, receive more from the rebate than they pay in additional costs.

PP trades in people's ignorance and susceptibility to propaganda. Fortunately, not everyone is buying his "alternative facts",  as attested to by these letters to the editor:

Carbon pricing makes sense if you understand it

Poilievre poisoned Canadians against the most effective tool we have for fighting climate change, Sept. 17

An open letter signed by hundreds of economists, followed by another written by Nobel prize winners, called carbon pricing the most effective and cheapest way of reducing emissions. Fee and dividend, as in Canada, is also said to be the fairest model. Who is qualified to come up with a better idea? How a carbon fee changes consumer behaviour is quite simple. The “pain” will be felt and the benefit is in the cheaper alternatives and less wasteful use. Our system has a double benefit: the savings and the rebate are greater than the usage of the average middle-income earner. According to the World Bank, 110 countries had either pricing, taxes or emissions trading. All have the same effect. This includes China where coal use has peaked and more coal plants are being closed than opened. Wind and solar are more environmentally friendly and cost-effective than carbon and are scalable. Canada has the best possible scheme but sadly, it has been watered down due to political pressures. It might be more useful to have opinions from informed parties rather than those who admit they do not understand.

John Peate, Peterborough, Ont.

I’m angry that the Liberals can’t communicate the simple concept that we get back as much as we put in to the quite reasonable carbon levy. Our government has (with a major push from the NDP) set in motion the filling of glaring gaps in our health care system (dental care and prescription drugs) and an affordable child care system. I’m puzzled how they’ve now managed to become so unpopular that we might elect a right wing government that could wipe out all that progress. Ironically, the Star recently had a review of Henrik Ibsen’s play “Rosmersholm” in which a character says “elections used to be won by those who spoke with the most sense, not the most volume.” Enough said!

Garry Watson, Niagara Falls

Wait a minute! The carbon levy has been under sustained attack from the Tories for two years, but it is not dead yet. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been spreading lies and misinformation about the levy, and I have yet to hear or read any media questioning his position. It is his main talking point, so is it not time to take the gloves off and press him to explain exactly what he means? Poilievre is on shaky ground because he clearly does not understand why a price on carbon is essential. He cannot refute the arguments in favour of the carbon levy and rebate, as stated by knowledgeable economists and scientists, and he has no clue of what a better, more effective alternative might be.

Teresa Ganna Porter, Newmarket, Ont.

Most people who do not understand the carbon levy, or don’t want to be bothered finding out what it is all about, would rather listen to the other guy at the coffee shop who appears to have read the headline “Axe the Tax” which should read “Axe the Facts.” What does your rebate cover for you? What do you spend it on? Can you balance your budget without it? If you can’t then do not support Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s drive to cancel the levy and rebate. Poilievre is not offering us anything else to fight climate change. And if you are complaining about the gas prices, remember the price of gas always jumps up and down. It isn’t driven solely by carbon pricing. 

Beverly Northeast, Goodwood, Ont.

How refreshing to read the truth about carbon taxation in Canada. Studies have shown most Canadians receive more money in rebates than they pay out in carbon tax. How is this not embraced enthusiastically? We get money from the government and feel good about doing our bit for climate change. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pulled the wool over many Canadians’ eyes just to get elected. 

Claire Barrey-Junop, Quinte West, Ont.

It has been said that if a lie is repeated enough times, it becomes the truth. It therefore falls to those of us who can think and don't salivate at the sound of the dog whistle to set the record straight.

Is A Carbon Tax More Effective Than Cap And Trade?

Truthfully, I don't know the answer to that question, although some might say that any action is better than none on the climate-change file. In any event, a Star reader offers his thoughts on the matter:

Provinces can lead the way on global warming, April 7

The fact that the Ontario government’s decision to endorse cap and trade was leaked to Canada’s leading business newspaper confirms my worst fears. This decision is a victory of Bay Street over Main Street.

Clearly, we need a system of carbon pricing if we’re serious about making the polluters pay. Cap and trade offers many benefits for corporations, lawyers and consultants, but there is no evidence that it has been successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas there is clear evidence that the carbon tax in B.C. has already resulted in a 10 per cent reduction in GHGs.

Cap and trade is an excuse for inaction that appeals only to those sectors of the corporate community that profit from pollution. It is losing its appeal to the insurance companies and enlightened business leaders who have to pay the price of inaction on climate change.

It has no appeal to the rising number of environmentally conscious Canadians who want to see our government regain respect in the world community.
Even those who invented the cap and trade system prefer a carbon tax for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Cap and trade works in theory but not in practice — the United Nations says it has worked badly or not at all. It is complex and difficult to co-ordinate across different jurisdictions; it requires constant tinkering, constant political will and a large bureaucracy. It creates synthetic, government-backed assets that are vulnerable to manipulation and speculation. In short, it is a highly indirect, economically inefficient and expensive way of curbing GHGs.

We need a carbon tax. It could be spun as a fee and dividend system in order to gain political support, if done with two caveats.

1) A portion of the revenues should be invested in a climate change fund that would finance mitigation and adaptation. For example, 40 per cent might be invested in renewable energy, rapid transit and energy efficient housing; and another 10 per cent devoted to disaster management — not only here in Ontario but in those countries where climate change will be most disastrous.

2) Rather than give each citizen an equal share of the revenues, with a half-share for children, we need to take special steps to lessen the impact of a carbon tax or fee on low-income households and on rural and remote communities. We can do this via tax credits or lump sum payments that are indexed to match increasing carbon levies.
Opting for cap and trade will clearly be putting Bay Street ahead of Main Street.

David Langille, Toronto