Honesty on all sides would be appreciated by this humble voter. Conservatives on provincial and federal scenes aren’t putting forward climate plans, so are being fundamentally dishonest with Canadians: they welcome voters to conclude that climate change is a hoax, or not so bad, or somebody else’s problem but not yours. Liberals are like Belgians: always waffling 😂: just as you say Paul, why not really go for a price on pollution? $85 a tonne doesn’t even register. A Saudi prince with the hiccups has more impact on the pump price. If climate change is The Big Problem, then tax every vanity pick-up truck at 100%, make gas $5 a litre, and make public transit free, frequent and comfortable.
But no. There will be no honesty in the offing. Just slogans all the way to 2025 and Kingdom come.
Great to hear from that part of the population. What's your rough number for the ratio of old-but-functional pickup trucks around there that do real work, versus those "vanity pick-up trucks" mentioned?
From the West End of Vancouver: I'm starting a photoblog of all the big iron around here that looks like polished Xmas ornaments, and have almost no tire wear.
The minute that the Liberals peddled a carbon tax rebate greater than what most Canadians would pay up front, the moral high ground was conceded. Add to that the GST cynically charged on top of the carbon tax and it becomes a shell game sham.
If the Liberals were serious about carbon taxes and the role that they play in climate action there would be NO rebates. Perhaps the carbon tax sleight of hand is necessary because most people have no way to finance the green energy proposals that would truly reduce their carbon footprint. And for larger fuel consumers, the technology doesn’t even exist for energy alternatives.
Finally, I suspect that the government is doing quite nicely by the carbon tax. Far better than they might admit. If that is true, then suspending the carbon tax increase isn’t very palatable for a government awash in red ink.
I think the rebate scheme comes from what BC did. When they implemented the carbon tax they included a rebate and that made it more palatable. That his talking points are laughably false is another matter.
Yes. Talking points like: “the rebates allow Canadians to make better choices to reduce their carbon footprint and keep more of the rebate money.
BS. The rebates go into the family black hole for survival.
What the rebates are is an income redistribution scheme, and while the government likes to boast that many families get more back than they spent, there is no attention paid to the people who are paying more than they get back. Hmmm. Where is that money going?
Did you know how effective the BC Carbon tax has been?
"
Six years after the policy was instituted, BC's fuel use is down a whopping 16.1%. Its economic growth has kept pace with the rest of Canada. And its personal and corporate income tax rates are now among the lowest in Canada. In short, the numbers indicate that BC’s carbon tax shift has been a remarkable success, environmentally and economically."
The scheme originally set up in B.C. by the B.C. Liberals (an anti-NDP Liberal/Conservative coalition that has existed in B.C. since the 1940’s in one form or another) originally reduced income taxes by the same amount the tax brought in. When the NDP came to power (who once opposed it because they considered it a regressive tax) they cancelled the income tax and moved all revenue from the carbon tax to a green slush fund.
It's in your first sentence, and you have many 'likes', but I'm taken aback that you are apparently saying that a progressive tax - one which "takes from the rich and gives to the poor" - is inherently of low moral ground. Outside of Libertarians, nobody else agrees with that in public. (Extreme conservatives agree with it in private.)
Hi Roy. You inadvertently confirmed my point. The carbon tax and the rebate regimen was never meant to satisfy the lofty goals of carbon reduction in the atmosphere. That is just the sales pitch meant to distract from the real goal which is to redistribute wealth amongst Canadians. The new talking points coming from Ottawa confirms this too.
Rather than frame the discussion around what “polite” people can say out loud, let’s call spades for their colours. If the goal is to redistribute wealth, say so and let us have a fair debate about that.
BTW: progressive thinkers don’t have the market cornered on compassion for those who are struggling.
A policy can be more than one thing at once. It is both. Indeed, I believe it is three things:
1) The economists' choice way of reducing carbon usage by economic pressure, with minimal economic damage, as the free market automatically shifts priorities away from carbon usage in a societally-optimal manner.
2) A pigovian tax, like tobacco - where one taxes things one disapproves of and wishes to reduce.
3) Unlike tobacco taxes, which shift dollars from the poor to the rich (because the wealthier smoke less), it has the side-effect of moving money from the guy who can afford a $75K SUV to the one with the $25K subcompact.
We already did have the discussion on progressive taxation, about income tax, over a hundred years back. The concept is considered moral by the overwhelming majority. And this is only a "side-effect" progressive tax, since the high-income individuals are the ones with the option to dodge it with heat pumps and eVs.
As to "deceptive marketing", I'd refer you to Gerry Butts bragging about how he sold it, on the Volts podcast I recommended above:
"I can tell you from what we were doing internally, within the government, that there was a 25-point difference among voters in support for a carbon tax and a carbon tax with a rebate. Twenty-five points. "
...in short, he *sold* it on the progressive side-effect, far from hiding that.
Unfortunately, you didn’t mention where, in the original marketing for a carbon tax regime that it plainly stated that the tax collected would be redistributed in the economy to mainly lower income households to help them along.
That’s deceptive marketing, and the basis for my opinion about “moral high ground”. If government taxes people for a stated purpose but is just cover for hidden objectives, that lacks a moral foundation for taking money from citizens.
I'm happy to leave this discussion to subscribers, but I did want to chime in on one question: If there's a rebate, doesn't that make the carbon tax ineffective? My answer is that *in theory,* it sure doesn't.
Say I get $100 rebate and I pay $80 in taxes. But if I heroically compress my carbon use, I can get that $80 down to $30, and I still get a $100 rebate. So now I'm pocketing $70 (100 minus 30), instead of $20 (100 minus 80). The rebates are generic, they're not calculated based on individual use.
The other questions are whether the tax bites enough to drive that sort of adaptation, and whether alternatives to your current consumption habits are available. You can argue those a bunch of different ways, as we're seeing on this comment board.
In theory, that first part sounds right. But, as Yogi Berra once put it, "In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. But in practice, there is".
The question is why the theory doesn't correspond to the practice - or, as you ask, whether the tax bites enough to drive the right sort of adaptation would work.
The answer lies in the fact that, for the past century or so, we have been building a society and economy that depends on stuff that is made with fossil fuels. So gasoline, natural gas, heating oil, and a bunch of other things are price elastic. We need them so much we will continue to use them even if the price goes up.
That relationship would begin to break down at very high prices. But by that time any government that imposes such punishingly high prices would be out of office and watching from the sidelines, replaced by someone who promises not to do that.
Since everybody knows that, the price won't be raised that high, the price increases will be only token amounts, to virtue signal, and the adaptation won't happen, and we will continue to have fires and floods, as well as droughts, and warm winters.
There may be some policy that drives the adaptation to a post carbon economy, but this isn't it.
Such is the fate of people born in interesting times.
I don’t want to get too much into the weeds on this but…all Trudeau’s nattering on most “voters” getting more back in rebates (!) ignores the fact that the carbon tax applies to numerous costs in the entire supply chain where there is no rebate(!). That is DEFINITELY increasing the cost of living! Sheesh! Oh silly me….
Yes, that's true, but my understanding is that the carbon tax accounts for less than 0.5% of the increase in grocery prices. I'm assuming that percentage increase would apply across the board on most other items.
So the carbon tax is neither the pricing catastrophe that opponents say it is & it's not a significant cost savings that proponents think it is. On average, it's a wash for most people. But I don't doubt that the cost is much more significant for those living in remote/rural areas.
It was designed to be a wash for the average family (that doesn’t detract from its effectiveness). And I do doubt that the cost is much more significant for those in rural areas — most of the home oil heating families in the east were made better off by the carbon tax/rebate and eliminating it will make them worse off.
Too bad we’re not a more numerate society then we could all compare our carbon tax payments vs rebates.
Taxes are hard. Most people want to believe the worst about them and discount all the positives.
I should say close to a wash for an average family.
The rebates are fixed for any given family so an individual family still has an incentive to make lower carbon decisions (they’ll get taxed less).
It wouldn’t work if the rebate was geared to how much tax you paid. The key is the rebate is fixed while how much tax pay can vary depending on your decisions.
I think it is more costly for those in rural areas mainly because there are few/no public transit options, even if you live in a town. That means you have to drive everywhere. And gas/diesel is often more expensive in those areas. A number of years ago I drove from Hamilton to Winnipeg. Once I got north of Barrie, it seemed that gas was a penny or so higher in pretty much every town.
That’s very possible and it was the rationale for the 10% rural top-up for provinces under the federal rules — now increased to 20%.
Throughout this whole period it’s quite notable that carbon tax opponents haven’t published the calculations for actual families, theirs or others. That’s because it would show that most of them are indeed better off.
surely it is noteworthy that in an article about the politics of environmentalism no mention is made about the disastrous inadequacy of any and all official government interventions in the country for same, regardless of who is popular or who thinks they are unpopular.
the country in question having burned for months last summer, where fires have already started, and where all the fire prone areas that are plagued by drought are as dry as ever.
a bit too much political-analytical finesse here. we have no idea how unpopular a government will have to be eventually in this regard and how resistant the constituents will probably continue to be. while they get torched no less.
the issue here is not political style relative to government intervention and more like the rather obvious suicidal behavior of political leaders AND their constituents as they casually slide deeper into the apocalypse that has begun.
my point was precisely that things like the carbon tax were essentially useless, that at some point some government/s will need to make extremely draconian moves that will essentially make the question of popularity moot.
I can't help but wonder if the Prime Minister was not responding to this week's CBC's "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" segment in which Chris Wilson portraying PM Justin Trudeau in a "I'm Justin" - as "I'm Just Ken" Parody, has the character saying, "The only thing I care about is being liked."
As for the excess carbon in the Earth's atmosphere, I am still baffled how a carbon tax paid by Canadians is expected to control Mother Nature globally. If the intent is that we emit less carbon, then perhaps encouraging changing some of our polluting habits and leading by example would make more sense. For instance, rather than hopping a carbon spewing jet and preaching that the carbon tax is a deterrent and most of us will be reimbursed, perhaps our leaders should stay home, wear sweaters, drive smaller vehicles, and generally live less less extravagantly resulting in a lower carbon footprint?
Another grip about the carbon tax. The rebate to businesses is being reduced which means the businesses must charge their customers more to cover for this additional operating cost. Will this not be inflationary?
" Reason for becomming a paid subscriber to Paul Wells " :
To say thank you to Mr. Wells for his writing. And, maybe, so he can have a " rye and ginger on his current travels, put his feet up and take a step back from " the pot is calling the kettle black" hypocrisy of Canadian politics.
Exact what was wrong with that photo? The fact she wasn't wearing a ring, that some of the clothing was a bit off? Good Lord, the smiles were what I saw!
By June 13, 1993, Mulroney was just days away from having his successor in place - earlier in the year, February 24th, he informed his party that he would not stand for re-election. This was a sad day for some of us. While low in the polls, Mulroney had delivered two majority governments (not done by a Conservative leader since Sir John, and not done since). And national majorities. Many wanted him to stay. But he thought otherwise. So to me, The Post piece was a long form interview for DC big wigs. Young family. Mouths to feed. Etc.
What that was yesterday was something else. Not sure what. But something else.
Below is a post from Paul’s last piece. My thoughts on back-to-back majorities. Short version - it’s really hard to win back-to-back majorities and even when you do, it may not be because you did everything right.
I think much of what we are seeing finds its roots in the first mandate. They over promised, feverishly ‘implemented’, got to 2018 and discovered they needed to wedge their way into maybe a majority, maybe not.
Low-bridging the climate plan implementation in the first mandate - hope folks get comfortable with it come the re-elect - made a lot of political sense. Secure a second majority and test the waters for more, faster. But they cashed in their chips to drive wedges for meagre advantage (the fabled ‘efficient vote’ pundits and others say to explain why a party with 31% popular vote get to run the country). What they did is the opposite of building policy consensus. Building something durable. Lasting. Difficult for your successors to repeal - like a free trade agreement or a goods and services tax.
So what was yesterday? I said in another place that it may be generational, but I knew inflation to be the thing that ends governments. So at the very moment the word became a big part of life, they should have slowed their role on climate policy. Got busy looking like you’re not the problem. But having wedged their way to power, they couldn’t figure out any other way and kept going. And we are where we are.
So knowing he now owns a losing hand, perhaps he too is just a guy doing an interview with The Post. But 2024 style - a different order. After all, there’s still snow on the ground in Ottawa and he’s not going until the grass is green. And no doubt he would have spoken to MBM days prior to his passing. And that too is on his mind.
Here’s my take on back to back majorities.
(I’m going to exclude Chretien from this broad generalization. From day one - given the centre-right split - he was headed for reelection. Majority number was 155 seats. He got ~two-thirds of the way there in Ontario alone. And did so three times.)
Majority governments have ample opportunity to sow their own re-election fate. Standing astride a magnificent country with all the levers, it’s only the bedevilling politics that you need to worry about.
But my life time, there has only been one PM who mastered majority government politics: Brian Mulroney. And his is a cautionary tale.
(I worked in the trenches as a lowly Private in MBM’s army in his first majority. I have enormous respect for him and amongst those saddened by his February 24th, 1993 decision to leave.)
Much has been said and written of regarding his celebrated successes, particularly free-trade and the GST. Both, best I can tell, did not feature in election plans and re-elecion plans.
That is to say, sworn-in as an opponent to free trade and four years later campaigning for his life to save a free trade deal is something to behold. You could make a similar point regarding the GST - not in the platform
In ‘84 and baked into the 1988 campaign a year earlier with the ‘87 White Paper.
Some would rightly make the argument that ‘they kept big promises and earned reelection’. Ending the NEP is the most obvious. Repealing FIRA is another. But many of these same people would go on to say that elections are all about ‘what are you going to do for me?’ not ‘what have you done for me?’ This tracks for me as does acceptability of your opponent factor. In the case of MBM, he was facing Turner and few doubted his ability to do the job.
Which brings me to the caution. Mulroney, swept to power with breakthroughs across the country and a government known for deep, meaningful changes but barely a clue on how they would win reelection.
‘Managing change’ was the call to action. (Comically, the beta version was ‘hard work’ as in ‘they may not be perfect, but they are working hard.’ It was rejected when Crosbie assured the campaign that where he came from, no one had an interest in hard work. ‘We want nothing to do with it. And we certainly won’t vote for it!’ he informed the Big Blue brain trust.) So in ‘88, after a low bridge PC launch of ‘land is strong‘ 2.0 ads, Turner took the fight to MBM. The PC campaign team that said ‘free trade will not be an election issue’ spent most of the post-debate days saying just that over and over. Until Mulroney ended their nonsense by sidelining them. The light had gone on one tour day in Vancouver when he shared the stage and a spirited defence of free trade with the PC candidate for Vancouver Centre. His network had also told him that the bottom was falling out and he needed take control. He did. He won.
So it seems clear to me, in terms of all the others who failed to secure back to back majorities failed because they lacked a sufficiently audacious reelection bid on offer.
Paul’s ‘no game some 2018’ regarding this government can be said of the Harper government in 2012. The angry Joe Oliver outburst in January of that year began their descent into the sore-winner category but spoiling for reelection largely because the alternatives were not acceptable. Not ready, they said.
The other common thread, some might say, is the corrosive byproduct of central control. When you only like your ideas, you run off people with ideas. These two things might be connected.
We’ll see if the next ‘first majority term Prime Minister’ will add their name to a short list of one. And it may be a record majority itself. But the real test will be reelection. Even the one success was bedeviled by the politics of mastering a second majority.
I wish that Canada would have followed the example of countries in Europe on how to tackle the question of Climate Change. Norway is a good example, do not impose a tax, simply take away taxes from people who go electric. That would be a popular one with the public. Making those who refuse to go along pay more and more. The public would quickly go for other alternatives. It is important also to stop the squabbles with Provincial Premiers. It can be done but requires effort and less partisan politics. I honestly do not believe that PM JT has what it takes and neither do his advisers.
No one is being forced. More like nudged. There are plenty of gas powered cars that use a reasonable amount of gas. I don't think anyone out there driving a Prius is paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax every year! (and before someone starts yelling that not everyone wants to drive a Prius, I'm just using it as an example)
Tax the people who don't go along more and more? Many people cannot afford to go along and buy EVs, install charging stations, install solar panels, retrofit their homes. Some of us are just trying to make ends meet. I say just tax the people who say we should all go along.
Good job Paul. I support the carbon tax the principal of it -the goal of it. But Trudeau's messaging on it has been horribly weak...with conflation. But axe the tax is moronically short- sighted.
I wish there were carbon tax rebate graphs showing province by province amounts, frequency and income threshold required to receive. Here in BC, individual, couple and family income governs who receives a rebate cheque four times per year. I have read but do not understand how the rebates work in Quebec or in the Northwest Territories, another excluded federal rebate area. The cries of opposition to the Carbon Tax would increase significantly if citizens knew what the rebate story is across the country, I suspect.
I think we now know who helped Princess Kate with her Photoshopping. Keep your day job, Paul. :)
Honesty on all sides would be appreciated by this humble voter. Conservatives on provincial and federal scenes aren’t putting forward climate plans, so are being fundamentally dishonest with Canadians: they welcome voters to conclude that climate change is a hoax, or not so bad, or somebody else’s problem but not yours. Liberals are like Belgians: always waffling 😂: just as you say Paul, why not really go for a price on pollution? $85 a tonne doesn’t even register. A Saudi prince with the hiccups has more impact on the pump price. If climate change is The Big Problem, then tax every vanity pick-up truck at 100%, make gas $5 a litre, and make public transit free, frequent and comfortable.
But no. There will be no honesty in the offing. Just slogans all the way to 2025 and Kingdom come.
That's great for cities, I live in a small rural town!
Great to hear from that part of the population. What's your rough number for the ratio of old-but-functional pickup trucks around there that do real work, versus those "vanity pick-up trucks" mentioned?
From the West End of Vancouver: I'm starting a photoblog of all the big iron around here that looks like polished Xmas ornaments, and have almost no tire wear.
http://brander.ca/dora/20231025.html
And better for some cities like Montreal which has an excellent public transit system. Then there is Toronto…..
The minute that the Liberals peddled a carbon tax rebate greater than what most Canadians would pay up front, the moral high ground was conceded. Add to that the GST cynically charged on top of the carbon tax and it becomes a shell game sham.
If the Liberals were serious about carbon taxes and the role that they play in climate action there would be NO rebates. Perhaps the carbon tax sleight of hand is necessary because most people have no way to finance the green energy proposals that would truly reduce their carbon footprint. And for larger fuel consumers, the technology doesn’t even exist for energy alternatives.
Finally, I suspect that the government is doing quite nicely by the carbon tax. Far better than they might admit. If that is true, then suspending the carbon tax increase isn’t very palatable for a government awash in red ink.
I think the rebate scheme comes from what BC did. When they implemented the carbon tax they included a rebate and that made it more palatable. That his talking points are laughably false is another matter.
Yes. Talking points like: “the rebates allow Canadians to make better choices to reduce their carbon footprint and keep more of the rebate money.
BS. The rebates go into the family black hole for survival.
What the rebates are is an income redistribution scheme, and while the government likes to boast that many families get more back than they spent, there is no attention paid to the people who are paying more than they get back. Hmmm. Where is that money going?
That money is going to pay for the bureaucracy set up to distribute these rebates.
The rebate in BC is received according to income threshold. Not everyone receives it even though taxes on groceries affects everyone.
Exactly!
Rebates are targetted to help the needy.
Did you know how effective the BC Carbon tax has been?
"
Six years after the policy was instituted, BC's fuel use is down a whopping 16.1%. Its economic growth has kept pace with the rest of Canada. And its personal and corporate income tax rates are now among the lowest in Canada. In short, the numbers indicate that BC’s carbon tax shift has been a remarkable success, environmentally and economically."
https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/content/just-facts-please-true-story-how-bc-s-carbon-tax-working#:~:text=Six%20years%20after%20the%20policy,among%20the%20lowest%20in%20Canada.
The scheme originally set up in B.C. by the B.C. Liberals (an anti-NDP Liberal/Conservative coalition that has existed in B.C. since the 1940’s in one form or another) originally reduced income taxes by the same amount the tax brought in. When the NDP came to power (who once opposed it because they considered it a regressive tax) they cancelled the income tax and moved all revenue from the carbon tax to a green slush fund.
It's in your first sentence, and you have many 'likes', but I'm taken aback that you are apparently saying that a progressive tax - one which "takes from the rich and gives to the poor" - is inherently of low moral ground. Outside of Libertarians, nobody else agrees with that in public. (Extreme conservatives agree with it in private.)
Hi Roy. You inadvertently confirmed my point. The carbon tax and the rebate regimen was never meant to satisfy the lofty goals of carbon reduction in the atmosphere. That is just the sales pitch meant to distract from the real goal which is to redistribute wealth amongst Canadians. The new talking points coming from Ottawa confirms this too.
Rather than frame the discussion around what “polite” people can say out loud, let’s call spades for their colours. If the goal is to redistribute wealth, say so and let us have a fair debate about that.
BTW: progressive thinkers don’t have the market cornered on compassion for those who are struggling.
A policy can be more than one thing at once. It is both. Indeed, I believe it is three things:
1) The economists' choice way of reducing carbon usage by economic pressure, with minimal economic damage, as the free market automatically shifts priorities away from carbon usage in a societally-optimal manner.
2) A pigovian tax, like tobacco - where one taxes things one disapproves of and wishes to reduce.
3) Unlike tobacco taxes, which shift dollars from the poor to the rich (because the wealthier smoke less), it has the side-effect of moving money from the guy who can afford a $75K SUV to the one with the $25K subcompact.
We already did have the discussion on progressive taxation, about income tax, over a hundred years back. The concept is considered moral by the overwhelming majority. And this is only a "side-effect" progressive tax, since the high-income individuals are the ones with the option to dodge it with heat pumps and eVs.
As to "deceptive marketing", I'd refer you to Gerry Butts bragging about how he sold it, on the Volts podcast I recommended above:
"I can tell you from what we were doing internally, within the government, that there was a 25-point difference among voters in support for a carbon tax and a carbon tax with a rebate. Twenty-five points. "
...in short, he *sold* it on the progressive side-effect, far from hiding that.
Here is how the BC carbon tax works in reducing emission (redistribution aside).
https://www.bccic.ca/bc-carbon-tax/#:~:text=Numerous%20studies%20that%20have%20looked,emissions%20by%205%20to%2015%25.
Great comments.
Unfortunately, you didn’t mention where, in the original marketing for a carbon tax regime that it plainly stated that the tax collected would be redistributed in the economy to mainly lower income households to help them along.
That’s deceptive marketing, and the basis for my opinion about “moral high ground”. If government taxes people for a stated purpose but is just cover for hidden objectives, that lacks a moral foundation for taking money from citizens.
I'm happy to leave this discussion to subscribers, but I did want to chime in on one question: If there's a rebate, doesn't that make the carbon tax ineffective? My answer is that *in theory,* it sure doesn't.
Say I get $100 rebate and I pay $80 in taxes. But if I heroically compress my carbon use, I can get that $80 down to $30, and I still get a $100 rebate. So now I'm pocketing $70 (100 minus 30), instead of $20 (100 minus 80). The rebates are generic, they're not calculated based on individual use.
The other questions are whether the tax bites enough to drive that sort of adaptation, and whether alternatives to your current consumption habits are available. You can argue those a bunch of different ways, as we're seeing on this comment board.
Time to examine some data: How effective has the BC Carbon Tax been?
https://www.bccic.ca/bc-carbon-tax/#:~:text=Numerous%20studies%20that%20have%20looked,emissions%20by%205%20to%2015%25.
Paul:
In theory, that first part sounds right. But, as Yogi Berra once put it, "In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. But in practice, there is".
The question is why the theory doesn't correspond to the practice - or, as you ask, whether the tax bites enough to drive the right sort of adaptation would work.
The answer lies in the fact that, for the past century or so, we have been building a society and economy that depends on stuff that is made with fossil fuels. So gasoline, natural gas, heating oil, and a bunch of other things are price elastic. We need them so much we will continue to use them even if the price goes up.
That relationship would begin to break down at very high prices. But by that time any government that imposes such punishingly high prices would be out of office and watching from the sidelines, replaced by someone who promises not to do that.
Since everybody knows that, the price won't be raised that high, the price increases will be only token amounts, to virtue signal, and the adaptation won't happen, and we will continue to have fires and floods, as well as droughts, and warm winters.
There may be some policy that drives the adaptation to a post carbon economy, but this isn't it.
Such is the fate of people born in interesting times.
I don’t want to get too much into the weeds on this but…all Trudeau’s nattering on most “voters” getting more back in rebates (!) ignores the fact that the carbon tax applies to numerous costs in the entire supply chain where there is no rebate(!). That is DEFINITELY increasing the cost of living! Sheesh! Oh silly me….
Yes, that's true, but my understanding is that the carbon tax accounts for less than 0.5% of the increase in grocery prices. I'm assuming that percentage increase would apply across the board on most other items.
So the carbon tax is neither the pricing catastrophe that opponents say it is & it's not a significant cost savings that proponents think it is. On average, it's a wash for most people. But I don't doubt that the cost is much more significant for those living in remote/rural areas.
It was designed to be a wash for the average family (that doesn’t detract from its effectiveness). And I do doubt that the cost is much more significant for those in rural areas — most of the home oil heating families in the east were made better off by the carbon tax/rebate and eliminating it will make them worse off.
Too bad we’re not a more numerate society then we could all compare our carbon tax payments vs rebates.
Taxes are hard. Most people want to believe the worst about them and discount all the positives.
But if it’s a wash for them why would they reduce their carbon consumption?
I should say close to a wash for an average family.
The rebates are fixed for any given family so an individual family still has an incentive to make lower carbon decisions (they’ll get taxed less).
It wouldn’t work if the rebate was geared to how much tax you paid. The key is the rebate is fixed while how much tax pay can vary depending on your decisions.
I think it is more costly for those in rural areas mainly because there are few/no public transit options, even if you live in a town. That means you have to drive everywhere. And gas/diesel is often more expensive in those areas. A number of years ago I drove from Hamilton to Winnipeg. Once I got north of Barrie, it seemed that gas was a penny or so higher in pretty much every town.
That’s very possible and it was the rationale for the 10% rural top-up for provinces under the federal rules — now increased to 20%.
Throughout this whole period it’s quite notable that carbon tax opponents haven’t published the calculations for actual families, theirs or others. That’s because it would show that most of them are indeed better off.
But again, when it comes to taxes the heart has its reasons which reason knows not. This is what Mark Jaccard warned about https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2016/want-an-effective-climatepolicy-heed-the-evidence/
surely it is noteworthy that in an article about the politics of environmentalism no mention is made about the disastrous inadequacy of any and all official government interventions in the country for same, regardless of who is popular or who thinks they are unpopular.
the country in question having burned for months last summer, where fires have already started, and where all the fire prone areas that are plagued by drought are as dry as ever.
a bit too much political-analytical finesse here. we have no idea how unpopular a government will have to be eventually in this regard and how resistant the constituents will probably continue to be. while they get torched no less.
the issue here is not political style relative to government intervention and more like the rather obvious suicidal behavior of political leaders AND their constituents as they casually slide deeper into the apocalypse that has begun.
Some evidence in your rant that the carbon tax will stop climate change in any meaningful way would be nice.
my point was precisely that things like the carbon tax were essentially useless, that at some point some government/s will need to make extremely draconian moves that will essentially make the question of popularity moot.
Thank you for spelling out what SHOULD BE OBVIOUS!!
Beware when a PM who admitted he does not understand basic math tells us his carbon rebate scheme is just 'basic math".
Superb photochop job! Hilarious, too!
"My job is not to be popular..."
I can't help but wonder if the Prime Minister was not responding to this week's CBC's "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" segment in which Chris Wilson portraying PM Justin Trudeau in a "I'm Justin" - as "I'm Just Ken" Parody, has the character saying, "The only thing I care about is being liked."
As for the excess carbon in the Earth's atmosphere, I am still baffled how a carbon tax paid by Canadians is expected to control Mother Nature globally. If the intent is that we emit less carbon, then perhaps encouraging changing some of our polluting habits and leading by example would make more sense. For instance, rather than hopping a carbon spewing jet and preaching that the carbon tax is a deterrent and most of us will be reimbursed, perhaps our leaders should stay home, wear sweaters, drive smaller vehicles, and generally live less less extravagantly resulting in a lower carbon footprint?
Another grip about the carbon tax. The rebate to businesses is being reduced which means the businesses must charge their customers more to cover for this additional operating cost. Will this not be inflationary?
" Reason for becomming a paid subscriber to Paul Wells " :
To say thank you to Mr. Wells for his writing. And, maybe, so he can have a " rye and ginger on his current travels, put his feet up and take a step back from " the pot is calling the kettle black" hypocrisy of Canadian politics.
“Photoshop is one of the things I’m worst at, so this is the best I could do on short notice.”
Still arguably a better job than the Princess of Wales.
Exact what was wrong with that photo? The fact she wasn't wearing a ring, that some of the clothing was a bit off? Good Lord, the smiles were what I saw!
By June 13, 1993, Mulroney was just days away from having his successor in place - earlier in the year, February 24th, he informed his party that he would not stand for re-election. This was a sad day for some of us. While low in the polls, Mulroney had delivered two majority governments (not done by a Conservative leader since Sir John, and not done since). And national majorities. Many wanted him to stay. But he thought otherwise. So to me, The Post piece was a long form interview for DC big wigs. Young family. Mouths to feed. Etc.
What that was yesterday was something else. Not sure what. But something else.
Below is a post from Paul’s last piece. My thoughts on back-to-back majorities. Short version - it’s really hard to win back-to-back majorities and even when you do, it may not be because you did everything right.
I think much of what we are seeing finds its roots in the first mandate. They over promised, feverishly ‘implemented’, got to 2018 and discovered they needed to wedge their way into maybe a majority, maybe not.
Low-bridging the climate plan implementation in the first mandate - hope folks get comfortable with it come the re-elect - made a lot of political sense. Secure a second majority and test the waters for more, faster. But they cashed in their chips to drive wedges for meagre advantage (the fabled ‘efficient vote’ pundits and others say to explain why a party with 31% popular vote get to run the country). What they did is the opposite of building policy consensus. Building something durable. Lasting. Difficult for your successors to repeal - like a free trade agreement or a goods and services tax.
So what was yesterday? I said in another place that it may be generational, but I knew inflation to be the thing that ends governments. So at the very moment the word became a big part of life, they should have slowed their role on climate policy. Got busy looking like you’re not the problem. But having wedged their way to power, they couldn’t figure out any other way and kept going. And we are where we are.
So knowing he now owns a losing hand, perhaps he too is just a guy doing an interview with The Post. But 2024 style - a different order. After all, there’s still snow on the ground in Ottawa and he’s not going until the grass is green. And no doubt he would have spoken to MBM days prior to his passing. And that too is on his mind.
Here’s my take on back to back majorities.
(I’m going to exclude Chretien from this broad generalization. From day one - given the centre-right split - he was headed for reelection. Majority number was 155 seats. He got ~two-thirds of the way there in Ontario alone. And did so three times.)
Majority governments have ample opportunity to sow their own re-election fate. Standing astride a magnificent country with all the levers, it’s only the bedevilling politics that you need to worry about.
But my life time, there has only been one PM who mastered majority government politics: Brian Mulroney. And his is a cautionary tale.
(I worked in the trenches as a lowly Private in MBM’s army in his first majority. I have enormous respect for him and amongst those saddened by his February 24th, 1993 decision to leave.)
Much has been said and written of regarding his celebrated successes, particularly free-trade and the GST. Both, best I can tell, did not feature in election plans and re-elecion plans.
That is to say, sworn-in as an opponent to free trade and four years later campaigning for his life to save a free trade deal is something to behold. You could make a similar point regarding the GST - not in the platform
In ‘84 and baked into the 1988 campaign a year earlier with the ‘87 White Paper.
Some would rightly make the argument that ‘they kept big promises and earned reelection’. Ending the NEP is the most obvious. Repealing FIRA is another. But many of these same people would go on to say that elections are all about ‘what are you going to do for me?’ not ‘what have you done for me?’ This tracks for me as does acceptability of your opponent factor. In the case of MBM, he was facing Turner and few doubted his ability to do the job.
Which brings me to the caution. Mulroney, swept to power with breakthroughs across the country and a government known for deep, meaningful changes but barely a clue on how they would win reelection.
‘Managing change’ was the call to action. (Comically, the beta version was ‘hard work’ as in ‘they may not be perfect, but they are working hard.’ It was rejected when Crosbie assured the campaign that where he came from, no one had an interest in hard work. ‘We want nothing to do with it. And we certainly won’t vote for it!’ he informed the Big Blue brain trust.) So in ‘88, after a low bridge PC launch of ‘land is strong‘ 2.0 ads, Turner took the fight to MBM. The PC campaign team that said ‘free trade will not be an election issue’ spent most of the post-debate days saying just that over and over. Until Mulroney ended their nonsense by sidelining them. The light had gone on one tour day in Vancouver when he shared the stage and a spirited defence of free trade with the PC candidate for Vancouver Centre. His network had also told him that the bottom was falling out and he needed take control. He did. He won.
So it seems clear to me, in terms of all the others who failed to secure back to back majorities failed because they lacked a sufficiently audacious reelection bid on offer.
Paul’s ‘no game some 2018’ regarding this government can be said of the Harper government in 2012. The angry Joe Oliver outburst in January of that year began their descent into the sore-winner category but spoiling for reelection largely because the alternatives were not acceptable. Not ready, they said.
The other common thread, some might say, is the corrosive byproduct of central control. When you only like your ideas, you run off people with ideas. These two things might be connected.
We’ll see if the next ‘first majority term Prime Minister’ will add their name to a short list of one. And it may be a record majority itself. But the real test will be reelection. Even the one success was bedeviled by the politics of mastering a second majority.
I wish that Canada would have followed the example of countries in Europe on how to tackle the question of Climate Change. Norway is a good example, do not impose a tax, simply take away taxes from people who go electric. That would be a popular one with the public. Making those who refuse to go along pay more and more. The public would quickly go for other alternatives. It is important also to stop the squabbles with Provincial Premiers. It can be done but requires effort and less partisan politics. I honestly do not believe that PM JT has what it takes and neither do his advisers.
Why should we be forced to go electric if it is not a good choice for where we live?
No one is being forced. More like nudged. There are plenty of gas powered cars that use a reasonable amount of gas. I don't think anyone out there driving a Prius is paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax every year! (and before someone starts yelling that not everyone wants to drive a Prius, I'm just using it as an example)
Tax the people who don't go along more and more? Many people cannot afford to go along and buy EVs, install charging stations, install solar panels, retrofit their homes. Some of us are just trying to make ends meet. I say just tax the people who say we should all go along.
There’s very little evidence that digging up rare earth minerals with fossil fuels to build ever bigger batteries is particularly green.
Nor do the Provincial Premiers & their advisers :-)
Good job Paul. I support the carbon tax the principal of it -the goal of it. But Trudeau's messaging on it has been horribly weak...with conflation. But axe the tax is moronically short- sighted.
I wish there were carbon tax rebate graphs showing province by province amounts, frequency and income threshold required to receive. Here in BC, individual, couple and family income governs who receives a rebate cheque four times per year. I have read but do not understand how the rebates work in Quebec or in the Northwest Territories, another excluded federal rebate area. The cries of opposition to the Carbon Tax would increase significantly if citizens knew what the rebate story is across the country, I suspect.
Would be interesting to know the percentage of voters who are interested in doing the “right thing”….whether it’s a choice of survival or…?