Dion's Green Shift
Dion has finally revealed his plans for a Carbon tax, which will be part of the next election platform. I fully endorse this as this will give people strong incentives to cut back on actions that are environmentally harmful, while save people money who choose environmentally friendly ways of doing things. It is a revenue neutral tax, so it will not mean higher taxes for everyone, in fact for many, it will mean lower taxes. Pollution is what we call in economics an externality and in the case of negative externalities such as pollution you tax them, while you subsidize positive externalities (i.e. education). The carbon tax is simply putting a price on pollution and letting the market take care of the rest. It is hardly a socialist or left wing idea, especially consider BC, which has a centre-right government was the first province to introduce it and many centre-right parties in Europe favour such approach. Now I know some will argue that the centre-right parties in Europe are more like the Liberals than Tories, which is true on some issues, although certainly not all. In fact many centre-right parties in Europe are to the right of the Tories on certain issues. My biggest disappointment with Harper is not that he opposes this, but he takes the attitude that we should do nothing about the environment since it might be too hard. The cost of dealing with global warming now is far less than dealing with it later. Never mind, even here in North America, we have some centre-right politicians such as Arnold Schwartznegger, Brian Mulroney, Jean Charest, and Gordon Campbell who all suppport strong environmental action. In fact even McCain supports doing more on the environment than Harper does.
Now in terms of how this will play out, I would argue it is a risky strategy. Now this is not a bad thing in itself since risky can also mean gaining many seats as well as losing many. In many ways it is like buying a risky stock on the stock market as opposed to the a government bond. You are pretty much guaranteed to get the amount promised on a Canada government bond, but you are unlikely to make a lot of money from this investment strategy. On the other hand investing in risky stocks can result in making a lot of money, but also losing a lot. While playing it safe will ensure that the Liberals hold Harper to a minority at the most, it also means the Liberals won't do any better than a weak minority. Taking a bold move such as a carbon tax, may give Harper his much coveted majority, but it also might be what it takes to return the Liberals to their former glory. How well this goes depends a lot on how the plan is sold to the public as well as how Harper reacts. His over the top reaction and inability to bring about an alternative plan may help the Liberals here, but likewise the rising gas prices now could make this a bad time. Either way, I would rather the Liberals stand for something than have no principles other than winning at all cost.
Now in terms of how this will play out, I would argue it is a risky strategy. Now this is not a bad thing in itself since risky can also mean gaining many seats as well as losing many. In many ways it is like buying a risky stock on the stock market as opposed to the a government bond. You are pretty much guaranteed to get the amount promised on a Canada government bond, but you are unlikely to make a lot of money from this investment strategy. On the other hand investing in risky stocks can result in making a lot of money, but also losing a lot. While playing it safe will ensure that the Liberals hold Harper to a minority at the most, it also means the Liberals won't do any better than a weak minority. Taking a bold move such as a carbon tax, may give Harper his much coveted majority, but it also might be what it takes to return the Liberals to their former glory. How well this goes depends a lot on how the plan is sold to the public as well as how Harper reacts. His over the top reaction and inability to bring about an alternative plan may help the Liberals here, but likewise the rising gas prices now could make this a bad time. Either way, I would rather the Liberals stand for something than have no principles other than winning at all cost.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 4:43 PM
4 Comments:
The latest poll said the environment was not number one, they did not want a carbon tax.
Now the 3 northern leaders will not have anything to do with it. I would say people are very selfish, do not care about their grandchildren, or anything else but themselves, for that matter
Although the goal is good and shared by all the opposition parties, ie reduction of ghg emissions, I have always been concerned that the electorate would turn away from the carbon tax proposal of Dion's Liberals. I realize that committed environmentalists view those that are reliant on their vehicles as selfish and many are but many simply don't have a choice. Rural & Northern Canadians have no real access to efficient public transit and suburban commuters often can't afford to buy homes closer to their work and again have limited access to decent transit. Combine the rising fuel costs with the inevitable rise in food and heating costs and there will be a lot of Canadians who will feel very real economic pain. My fear is that voters will turn to the Cons because people will always put the needs of their children over the needs of future grand and great-grand kids.
Of course there are other ghg reduction plans. The NDP's cap and trade would set a hard cap on emissions, through the trade of credits give industry time to adjust to the new reality, provide government with revenue to put towards improved rail and transit, fund green collar job strategies, help individuals with rebates on green purchases (green cars, better heating/cooling systems, geothermal, solar, wind, etc.). This system combined with the rest of the NDP environment plan (conservation, support for local and smaller food production and distribution, water protection, etc.), IMHO is the most comprehensive plan of the political parties in the House of Commons.
All of us (environmentalists included) need a plan that balances the needs of the environment with the economy and the ability of the government to lead on the greening of Canada. If we don't get this balance right we risk having no effect on the environment (critics are already saying that Dion's plan will likely do little to reduce overall emissions) and/or harming the economy which could drive the average Canadian away from doing more the environment and/or a revenue neutral carbon tax will drain the government treasury and limit the federal government's ability to help municipal governments and individual's make better, greener choices.
All this to say, as a Canadian who cares about the environment I want a plan that has sticks and carrots for industry and lots of carrots for individuals. This is what I think will work and we need a plan that will work.
One other big issue - this could very well create a sense of western alienation to the level that they may threaten to separate from Canada.
Annie - I agree the carbon tax could be risky as mentioned, but I still think it is the right thing.
Jaybird - I don't think those who drive are selfish at all. I would argue part of the problem is the fact many gas guzzling vehicles are produced. For example, my mother has a hybrid SUV, so I think more hydrogen and hybrid cars could be a solution here. And you are right that the high prices of housing cause many people to live in the suburbs, however I think we could also have more businesses located in the suburbs. I noticed many company headquarters in Oakville and Burlington, so not all commute to the cities. Likewise higher housing prices also mean higher rent prices so many businesses too find it cheaper to locate in the suburbs where rent is lower.
The cap and trade plan is certainly an alternative plan which I should note Ontario and Quebec have chosen and even McCain endorses this in the United States. My problem isn't with the NDP on the environment, it is with the Conservatives who seem to be one of the few political parties in the Western World that still believes we should do nothing. Even most other conservative parties (that is those who are members of the IDU) believe in taking action on the environment. McCain, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and Sarkozy are all more progressive on the environment than Harper. Only Bush and Howard share his views and Howard was defeated last fall, while Bush will be leaving office in less than a year.
Anonymous - Maybe Alberta separation, but not Western separation. Considering that British Columbia was the first province to introduce this and the fact British Columbians tend to be even more supportive of environmental action than people in Ontario, I doubt it will hurt the Liberals in BC anymore than Ontario. In fact it might help them there. Likewise if done properly, I don't think Alberta will separate since even most Albertans want to take action on the environment. It will probably be a tough political sell there, but once implemented, I doubt it won't be anything like the National Energy Program. For one thing this targets all parts of Canada equally whereas the NEP singled out Alberta.
Post a Comment
<< Home