The Liberals have finally come up with a broad climate change policy. Adam Radwanski writes:
For five years since their Paris Agreement commitment to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 30 per cent by 2030, it was never clear how that was supposed to happen – not with the government mostly dabbling in green policies that didn’t add up to nearly enough.
Now, Canadians have a credible answer, courtesy of the climate-policy plan for the next decade that Ottawa released on Friday, and it’s contentious enough that it could easily be a pivotal question in an election next year. Having in their first term introduced a national carbon price too low to have much more than a symbolic impact, the Liberals now intend to raise it sharply enough to really change the ways we behave.
The carbon price is to rise by $15 per tonne each year after 2022 – up from the current $10/tonne annual increases, which most carbon-price advocates were just hoping would be maintained – until it reaches $170/tonne in 2030.That’s not so far off from the $210 a tonne that, according to a report last year by the pro-carbon-pricing Ecofiscal Commission, would be sufficient to hit 2030 emissions-reduction targets absent much other new policy.
The inescapable takeaway from what was announced on Friday is that the Liberals have come down on the side of a market-based solution strong in economic theory, but mostly untested in political practice. And they have done so somewhat at the expense of other, more-interventionist climate-related measures.
The political theory is going to be where the rubber hits the road. The plan is
a far cry from the calls by environmental groups for the government to commit in excess of $50-billion – or in some cases more than $100-billion – toward a green economic recovery. And the plan’s relatively restrained tone on future spending, coupled with the market mechanism that is its centrepiece, shouldn’t leave those groups holding their breath.
Ottawa also has to attempt some manner of fresh consultations with the provinces, as promised before the past election prior to any future carbon-price increases. The premiers of the provinces challenging the existing policy aren’t exactly going to be receptive. They’re likely to chafe at plans to reopen provincial equivalency agreements on industrial carbon pricing (which is different from the fuel price paid by consumers) that they only recently signed. They may have some company from other premiers who feel blindsided by Friday’s news.
The conventional wisdom is that there will be an election in the spring:
There is still very big political risk in campaigning on a policy that would ultimately add roughly 40 cents a litre at the gas pumps; that requires trust in government that revenues are actually being returned; that demands faith in economic theory at a time populism might more easily triumph.
So it appears that the die has been cast. The forces of denial will be primed and ready. We shall soon know how serious we are about our planet.
Image: cheezburger.com
12 comments:
I've been in a couple of countries where the price of gasoline at the pumps was near $3:00 (Canadian). There were no large SUVs or pickups. People drove small vehicles with small engines. Speaking of pickups, the world beyond North America uses little ones that are designed for work.
It makes no sense to have a carbon tax that is "revenue neutral." A carbon tax should hurt enough to encourage consumers to make better choices. It also makes no sense to have a carbon tax while continuing to subsidize the carbon extraction industries.
The only way to decrease carbon emissions, Toby. is to make them too expensive to tolerate.
There is another way, Owen. Ban 'em.
"Denmark to EU: Ban sale of internal-combustion engine cars come 2040"
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/denmark-eu-ban-gas-diesel-cars/
One way or another our politicians have to get out of the carbon business.
That's another way, Toby. But when one of your provinces is Alberta, things get problematic.
Our politicians can't even be serious about eliminating the spread of a deadly disease and we're supposed to believe they'll take climate change seriously? No way.
Our leaders are into managing problems not solving them. That means half-assed measures to reduce problems instead of serious efforts to eliminate them. That's what we have with Covid and that's what we'll get on climate change. Just kicking the can down the road to the next election.
Cap
One way or another our politicians have to get out of the carbon business.......
But first we have to have politicians that are not financed by the fossil fuel industry.
Electoral financing is an issue, more so in the US than Canada.
TB
COVID should be a wake-up call, Cap. Half measures don't work. Unfortunately, lots of us in the general population don't understand that either.
Public financing of our elections would be a significant step forward, TB. But -- as Mr. Harper and Mr. Ford have proved -- we've got a long way to go to get there.
I followed Marc Jaccard (SFU/IPCC) for about 8 years now since I heard him speak. His recommendation (at that time to that crowd - at the Degrowth meeting) was to never build another pipeline. Because of the 50-100 year timeframe they be paying back sunk cost requires a long life span and we ain't got the carbon budget for it.
He equivocates this position in public, I've noticed.
Additionally, he saw how carbon pricing is politically problematic and said the same can be accomplished by (the inferior) mechanism of regulations which are more politically palatable. In fact he has written a book (or books?) on it.
He is impressed & bullish on this new move ...
"if climate-sincere gov has the fortitude to implement a rising carbon price (with full rebates), us climate policy experts must help by exposing lies about it being economically inefficient and punitive - both untrue."
I note the the mainstream press is no longer bullish on TMX (or Site C!!).
These are currently embryonic victores, vulnerable to shifting political winds but I'll celebrate them as stocking stuffers for my pandemic Xmas.
The tide is going out on fossil fuels, POV. Unfortunately, there are millions of people who are paying no attention to the tide.
If they're really serious about "carbon footprints" then how come there are so many drive-thru COVID testing sites and drive-thru food banks?
Couldn't the resulting pollution levels be just as detrimental to public health as the COVID-19 virus?
I agree, Tal. The biggest problem is still the internal combustion engine.
Post a Comment