I am getting more and more convinced that eventually the CPC and now the NDP will have to propose a real alternative and more effective carbon reduction approach than the federal back stop. I don’t believe that in today’s world the “let the planet burn” will be acceptable to voters.
We will have two summers before the next election (likely). Or perhaps I should say forest fire seasons. Last year had 10x the average forest fires. Will we have the same this year? More? And next year?
If large parts of Ontario and Quebec (including the major cities) are covered in smoke for weeks, would voters accept a carbon reduction plan that has no meaning whatsoever?
I think you might be underestimating how long "eventually" might cover. They obviously don't need a plan to win at the moment. So that gets them four years. They'll absolutely spend those four years going "we're working so hard to clean up Trudeau's mess that it's not a priority..." and there's a pretty good chance that buys them another four years.
If the Liberals really bomb the next election, it could easily put us a decade behind not only addressing climate change, but in being an economic leader in addressing climate change.
Maybe it is wishful thinking, but with all the focus on “axe the tax”, eventually the question will come, perhaps during the election campaign, what is your plan? I don’t think that voters that Poilievre will need will accept a no plan approach.
Personally I think the Liberals should counter with the slogan “Do the math”. Create a simple calculator that will allow people to determine if they get back more than they pay in carbon price. Run an extensive ad campaign with “have you done your math?”
"Ive done the math Mr Trudeau: we have [unemployment rate], [number of young couples that want to start a familiy but cant afford a home], [a ~decadeish of low economic growth], and [%of people using food banks]. Canadians dont need to look at your tax payer funded carbon tax app to tell them what the carbon tax costs them, they can just look at their savings account and then they can ask themselves: can I afford EVEN MORE of Justin Trudeau?" or somesuch
My problem with the present carbon tax is that it is symbolic rather than an effective measure. It is much too low. As a result, I have seen no diminution in SUVs and four-door pickup trucks (which are really passenger vehicles in disguise). I have seen no diminution of vehicles idling in shopping centre parking lots where the driver keeps the interior warm in winter and cool in summer while the passenger goes inside to shop. I have seen no decline in demand for far-away cottages to and from which people commute.
Yes, there are now some EVs, but the increase in demand is slowing down. Yes, people are installing heat pumps, but that is largely due to direct government subsidies, not carbon pricing. Carbon pricing is changing very little.
To be effective, the carbon tax should at least triple. That would cause pain. But without pain, the bulk of people will not change their behaviour, and so their energy consumption. Unfortunately, the average Canadian has said in survey after survey that the willingness to incur this pain is very, very small.
I think that the only way to get people off fosille fuels is to make alternatives cheaper, not fossil fuels more expensive. Nuclear would be a good start. So would improved solar panels, geothermal, and so on. Subsidies are the politically feasible way to go.
FWIW I tore up my NDP party card some time ago. I'm not the only one.
And who is going to pay for these subsidies? And how is this going to be more effective and cheaper for people?
I agree the carbon price needs to go up further to create a stronger effect. You only have to look at Europe to what higher fuel prices do. EVs and hybrids are everywhere. But the good news is that this is going to happen in Canada as well. And it is not unreasonable for the government to give people time to adjust.
It is really simple. Present a better a plan than the federal backstop. If you cannot, then you are either supporting “let the planet burn” or the current federal back stop.
Federal government could start by redirecting the $40+ billion it is giving away to lithium battery manufacturers. I'm sure there are other envelopes of money that could better be used to fund research and especially development. If Canada succeeds in coming up with better, cheaper non-carbon alternatives, we could export them world-wide. Not only would that repay our investments in the R&D, it would help other countries achieve their objectives too.
Of course, the R&D effort might fail. That is a risk. But continuing down the present path, albeit with much higher carbon taxes, is political suicide. Or we could continue with the gentle increases in carbon taxes that are presently planned. This won't reduce emissions very much, but it will irritate many of our fellow Canadians. Is that what we want?
I am afraid the $40B is not available here. These $40B are in the form of tax breaks on future corporate income tax. Without this incentive, these factories would not be in Canada. In other words, it is not cash that is leaving the government bank account and cannot be allocated to other purposes.
Regarding subsidies for R&D, who is going to decide what R&D should be funded? The government? Or do you prefer a market system where a higher price on carbon will let the market decide which technologies to develop?
But this is not uncommon. As soon as people make an honest effort to come with a better approach, it turns out actually to be really hard to come up with one that is better than the current Federal backstop.
Foregone tax revenues and direct spending have similar impacts on the deficit, i.e. they are fungible (except perhaps for redistribution issues).
Spending on R&D is risky -- we may not make any breakthroughs. But subsidizing battery plants is risky too. The market is proving to be highly competitive, and locations in northern Mexico may beat ours hands dow, given wages and environmental rules. In additon, technology in this field is evolving very quickly, and our battery plants may become obsolete before production actually starts.
In theory, I'm all for relying on a carbon tax to provide the proper incentives for consumers and producers, for researchers and for developers. But to be effective, a carbon tax would have to be much, much higher than it is now planned to be. That is politically infeasible. Subsidies, and the general revenue increases to pay for them, are largely invisible. So these are doable. I'm not even counting the positive externalities of successful R&D, which could have an impact well beyond our borders.
Do you realize you are contradicting yourself? You are making the case for a stronger price on carbon.
And really how hard is it to understand that without the break on future corporate income tax these factories there would be no factories at all in Canada (they would be in the US). So, no, it is not the same as deficit spending.
Mr. Singh's problem is that there is no discernible difference between his party and the LPC right now. So why support a party in 3rd place when you can vote for a party that actually holds office? The CPC has a much better chance of getting the blue collar vote.
Scrimshaw is right about Singh. He’s a flake, who thinks his base are dimwits that need to be constantly lied to. This is beyond a failure of leadership, which extends across the political spectrum. It is a betrayal of representative democracy, where informed consent is a bedrock principle. When politicians (and parties, including the Liberals and Cons) decide winning by deceit and/or misinformation is paramount, we aren’t in a democracy, we are in an ersatz autocracy.
Second, the NDP aren’t an environmental party (ex. BC and AB provincial parties). They are a protest party that barely understands labour or how to talk to the public intelligently about poverty, declining social/economic mobility, the cost-of-living crisis, monopolies, monopsony, or how trade deals (i.e., corporate globalization) have harmed them. Again, they think we are all too daft to understand basic macroeconomics and how 40-years of neoliberalism have been detrimental to overall growth, collective prosperity, and democracy.
It is a party that should be at 40% in the polls, but is run by gimmick mongers that would rather play footsie with the Conservatives on matters of existential survival (i.e., climate crisis) than explain why environmentalism is a prerequisite for future survival.
Regardless of whether or not Singh is up to the politics-as-a-game-above-all-else horseshit that probably alienates the majority of people enough that they don't even bother voting (which, on balance, might be preferable to the horde of "low-information voters") he's still saving all our asses as long as he's signed on with the Liberals, bottom line, which is consummate leadership and WHY stuff, i.e. actual governance is able to happen.
Except that if those alienated people are responsible enough NOT to vote because they don't feel they KNOW enough, many would probably vote AGAINST THE CONS, which is truly the ONLY rational thing to do.
If the media and all the pundits and opinion writers would just outline how voting has never been simpler or more straightforward since CPC denies climate change with a slogan like, "voting is easy as ABC" and did it as often as the braying idiot with his rhyme, we might GET somewhere.
The most sane thing of all under these tedious circumstances would be if formal talks would start on uniting the left, taking a page out of the idiot's on the right book. We are supposed to be the smart ones here after all, but don't seem to have mastered basic math.
The challenges facing the NDP are far from new. In the 1993 election, their 45 MP caucus was cut in half, mostly because B.C. seats flipped to Reform, a protest vote against Ottawa elitism. Other than the Layton blip (personal popularity rather than ideas), they have struggled ever since. Their two-party essence originates in 1961 when the NDP formed by joining organized urban labour with CCF farmers. It's always been a delicate balance, and the tensions have now evolved into a clear urban-rural divide that is affecting all our parties and politics. It's disheartening, although unsurprising, to now watch Singh succumb to possible short-term gains from anti carbon pricing rhetoric, when the NDP should be helping to explain and promote this minimalist climate policy measure. "$2 a month to help the planet" is all they need to say. Simple comms to counter Poilievre's slogans. But I presume the NDP is desperately trying to save the furniture. Lack of leadership, of ideas, of courage -- yes, all true, but not new, sadly.
I am getting more and more convinced that eventually the CPC and now the NDP will have to propose a real alternative and more effective carbon reduction approach than the federal back stop. I don’t believe that in today’s world the “let the planet burn” will be acceptable to voters.
We will have two summers before the next election (likely). Or perhaps I should say forest fire seasons. Last year had 10x the average forest fires. Will we have the same this year? More? And next year?
If large parts of Ontario and Quebec (including the major cities) are covered in smoke for weeks, would voters accept a carbon reduction plan that has no meaning whatsoever?
I think you might be underestimating how long "eventually" might cover. They obviously don't need a plan to win at the moment. So that gets them four years. They'll absolutely spend those four years going "we're working so hard to clean up Trudeau's mess that it's not a priority..." and there's a pretty good chance that buys them another four years.
If the Liberals really bomb the next election, it could easily put us a decade behind not only addressing climate change, but in being an economic leader in addressing climate change.
Maybe it is wishful thinking, but with all the focus on “axe the tax”, eventually the question will come, perhaps during the election campaign, what is your plan? I don’t think that voters that Poilievre will need will accept a no plan approach.
Personally I think the Liberals should counter with the slogan “Do the math”. Create a simple calculator that will allow people to determine if they get back more than they pay in carbon price. Run an extensive ad campaign with “have you done your math?”
"Ive done the math Mr Trudeau: we have [unemployment rate], [number of young couples that want to start a familiy but cant afford a home], [a ~decadeish of low economic growth], and [%of people using food banks]. Canadians dont need to look at your tax payer funded carbon tax app to tell them what the carbon tax costs them, they can just look at their savings account and then they can ask themselves: can I afford EVEN MORE of Justin Trudeau?" or somesuch
Yeah. Much as I support many progressive policies, Trudeau’s actual implementations have left them very attackable.
My problem with the present carbon tax is that it is symbolic rather than an effective measure. It is much too low. As a result, I have seen no diminution in SUVs and four-door pickup trucks (which are really passenger vehicles in disguise). I have seen no diminution of vehicles idling in shopping centre parking lots where the driver keeps the interior warm in winter and cool in summer while the passenger goes inside to shop. I have seen no decline in demand for far-away cottages to and from which people commute.
Yes, there are now some EVs, but the increase in demand is slowing down. Yes, people are installing heat pumps, but that is largely due to direct government subsidies, not carbon pricing. Carbon pricing is changing very little.
To be effective, the carbon tax should at least triple. That would cause pain. But without pain, the bulk of people will not change their behaviour, and so their energy consumption. Unfortunately, the average Canadian has said in survey after survey that the willingness to incur this pain is very, very small.
I think that the only way to get people off fosille fuels is to make alternatives cheaper, not fossil fuels more expensive. Nuclear would be a good start. So would improved solar panels, geothermal, and so on. Subsidies are the politically feasible way to go.
FWIW I tore up my NDP party card some time ago. I'm not the only one.
And who is going to pay for these subsidies? And how is this going to be more effective and cheaper for people?
I agree the carbon price needs to go up further to create a stronger effect. You only have to look at Europe to what higher fuel prices do. EVs and hybrids are everywhere. But the good news is that this is going to happen in Canada as well. And it is not unreasonable for the government to give people time to adjust.
It is really simple. Present a better a plan than the federal backstop. If you cannot, then you are either supporting “let the planet burn” or the current federal back stop.
Gawd it’s not the liberals fault as it’s the fault of provincial conservatives and their oil shares
Federal government could start by redirecting the $40+ billion it is giving away to lithium battery manufacturers. I'm sure there are other envelopes of money that could better be used to fund research and especially development. If Canada succeeds in coming up with better, cheaper non-carbon alternatives, we could export them world-wide. Not only would that repay our investments in the R&D, it would help other countries achieve their objectives too.
Of course, the R&D effort might fail. That is a risk. But continuing down the present path, albeit with much higher carbon taxes, is political suicide. Or we could continue with the gentle increases in carbon taxes that are presently planned. This won't reduce emissions very much, but it will irritate many of our fellow Canadians. Is that what we want?
I am afraid the $40B is not available here. These $40B are in the form of tax breaks on future corporate income tax. Without this incentive, these factories would not be in Canada. In other words, it is not cash that is leaving the government bank account and cannot be allocated to other purposes.
Regarding subsidies for R&D, who is going to decide what R&D should be funded? The government? Or do you prefer a market system where a higher price on carbon will let the market decide which technologies to develop?
But this is not uncommon. As soon as people make an honest effort to come with a better approach, it turns out actually to be really hard to come up with one that is better than the current Federal backstop.
Foregone tax revenues and direct spending have similar impacts on the deficit, i.e. they are fungible (except perhaps for redistribution issues).
Spending on R&D is risky -- we may not make any breakthroughs. But subsidizing battery plants is risky too. The market is proving to be highly competitive, and locations in northern Mexico may beat ours hands dow, given wages and environmental rules. In additon, technology in this field is evolving very quickly, and our battery plants may become obsolete before production actually starts.
In theory, I'm all for relying on a carbon tax to provide the proper incentives for consumers and producers, for researchers and for developers. But to be effective, a carbon tax would have to be much, much higher than it is now planned to be. That is politically infeasible. Subsidies, and the general revenue increases to pay for them, are largely invisible. So these are doable. I'm not even counting the positive externalities of successful R&D, which could have an impact well beyond our borders.
Do you realize you are contradicting yourself? You are making the case for a stronger price on carbon.
And really how hard is it to understand that without the break on future corporate income tax these factories there would be no factories at all in Canada (they would be in the US). So, no, it is not the same as deficit spending.
Mr. Singh's problem is that there is no discernible difference between his party and the LPC right now. So why support a party in 3rd place when you can vote for a party that actually holds office? The CPC has a much better chance of getting the blue collar vote.
Scrimshaw is right about Singh. He’s a flake, who thinks his base are dimwits that need to be constantly lied to. This is beyond a failure of leadership, which extends across the political spectrum. It is a betrayal of representative democracy, where informed consent is a bedrock principle. When politicians (and parties, including the Liberals and Cons) decide winning by deceit and/or misinformation is paramount, we aren’t in a democracy, we are in an ersatz autocracy.
Second, the NDP aren’t an environmental party (ex. BC and AB provincial parties). They are a protest party that barely understands labour or how to talk to the public intelligently about poverty, declining social/economic mobility, the cost-of-living crisis, monopolies, monopsony, or how trade deals (i.e., corporate globalization) have harmed them. Again, they think we are all too daft to understand basic macroeconomics and how 40-years of neoliberalism have been detrimental to overall growth, collective prosperity, and democracy.
It is a party that should be at 40% in the polls, but is run by gimmick mongers that would rather play footsie with the Conservatives on matters of existential survival (i.e., climate crisis) than explain why environmentalism is a prerequisite for future survival.
Regardless of whether or not Singh is up to the politics-as-a-game-above-all-else horseshit that probably alienates the majority of people enough that they don't even bother voting (which, on balance, might be preferable to the horde of "low-information voters") he's still saving all our asses as long as he's signed on with the Liberals, bottom line, which is consummate leadership and WHY stuff, i.e. actual governance is able to happen.
Except that if those alienated people are responsible enough NOT to vote because they don't feel they KNOW enough, many would probably vote AGAINST THE CONS, which is truly the ONLY rational thing to do.
If the media and all the pundits and opinion writers would just outline how voting has never been simpler or more straightforward since CPC denies climate change with a slogan like, "voting is easy as ABC" and did it as often as the braying idiot with his rhyme, we might GET somewhere.
The most sane thing of all under these tedious circumstances would be if formal talks would start on uniting the left, taking a page out of the idiot's on the right book. We are supposed to be the smart ones here after all, but don't seem to have mastered basic math.
The challenges facing the NDP are far from new. In the 1993 election, their 45 MP caucus was cut in half, mostly because B.C. seats flipped to Reform, a protest vote against Ottawa elitism. Other than the Layton blip (personal popularity rather than ideas), they have struggled ever since. Their two-party essence originates in 1961 when the NDP formed by joining organized urban labour with CCF farmers. It's always been a delicate balance, and the tensions have now evolved into a clear urban-rural divide that is affecting all our parties and politics. It's disheartening, although unsurprising, to now watch Singh succumb to possible short-term gains from anti carbon pricing rhetoric, when the NDP should be helping to explain and promote this minimalist climate policy measure. "$2 a month to help the planet" is all they need to say. Simple comms to counter Poilievre's slogans. But I presume the NDP is desperately trying to save the furniture. Lack of leadership, of ideas, of courage -- yes, all true, but not new, sadly.