The Worst Part of the CPC’s Climate Plan is not the Carbon Tax

A lot has been written about the recently revealed Conservative Plan to Combat Climate Change. Most of that (including my own first take) focused on the carbon tax part of […]
Published on May 23, 2021

A lot has been written about the recently revealed Conservative Plan to Combat Climate Change. Most of that (including my own first take) focused on the carbon tax part of the plan, which is just another rhetorically packaged tax-and-rebate scheme that has become the norm for carbon-tax implementation. Governments levy a tax on GHG emissions in some form and rebate some of the revenue to the public in some other form, generally oblique and opaque—direct rebates seem unpopular across the political spectrum for some reason.

But while the carbon tax aspect of the new plan may be newsworthy because of the political optics surrounding the embrace of the “T-word,” the rest of the plan is more interesting from a public policy standpoint, because it also embraces most of the same non-tax climate policy ideas that have been extensively shown to be ineffective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (much less influencing the climate). They are economically inefficient in terms of achieving cost-minimization (in line with a lower tax economy), economically harmful and to use a popular term, inequitable. They impose costs on people generally without regard to that person’s contribution to the unwanted activity of generating greenhouse gas emissions. Worse still, many of these non-tax carbon policies are also regressive, impacting lower income people more than they do those who are better off. We have space here for only four examples, but there are more.

Electric Vehicle Mandates: Setting aside the general understanding that it is bad public policy for the government to be picking technological winners and losers in market economies (even mixed-market economies), electric vehicle mandates are inherently inequitable and regressive. They use tax dollars to heavily subsidize the costs of purchasing electric vehicles primarily for the economically better off, at the cost of raising transportation costs for those who can’t afford still-pricey boutique electric cars that are mostly of use for white-collar commuters in highly developed countries. Worse still, they export the environmental nightmare that accompanies production of critical elements used in electric car manufacture to developing economies plagued by lax environmental standards, and horrific child-labour economies. See also Cobalt.

Low-Carbon Fuel Standards: A low-carbon fuel standard is basically just another form of carbon tax: the government is going to mandate that manufacturers produce goods using more expensive forms of energy than are otherwise available, passing that cost on to the consumer. Worse still, like other schemes that create markets for offset credits, manufacturers can purchase in lieu of buying the higher priced low-carbon fuels. The government creates a massive arena for fraud, graft and corruption as has been seen with carbon offsets and energy production.

National Energy Strategy: The history of industrial policy is a very ugly one and it will not be prettier as it is applied to the use of energy. Modern industry is virtually all about transforming resources with energy, as it always has been. Perhaps it has gone unnoticed by our governing class, but Canada has a rather wide variety of climates, industrial capabilities and access to energy resources, including access to trade routes (cough, pipelines) and proximity to nearby lower cost import. Situations like Canada’s call for more use of local markets to develop and distribute power at the price, and with the reliability characteristics people need in any given place, not less. Government simply cannot process the knowledge of place and time in a competent way to manage a power grid that spans a vast continent of wildly different climatic and energy-resource regions.

Clean Buildings: The new Conservative Plan to Combat Climate Change also embraces the idea of having the government promote (through a variety of means) the building of more energy-efficient buildings, and to encourage consumers to make their homes more energy efficient. Again, experience shows these ideas perform badly in the market, with program costs far exceeding any benefits of reduced energy use either in the commercial or residential markets. In other words, costs exceed benefits, the ultimate fail of bad public policy.

The new Conservative Plan to Combat Climate Change is remarkably similar to pretty much every past plan to combat climate change, whether dressed in conservative or liberal phrasing. The problem is, underneath the can-do language of determination to control climate change are a raft of policies that have been shown, time after time, to constitute bad public policy that waste money, are economically inequitable, and in many cases do more harm than good to the very things they claim to be protecting: the global climate and human well-being.

 

 

Kenneth Green is a research associate at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash .

Featured News

MORE NEWS

The 15-Minute City: An Extraordinarily Bad Idea

The 15-Minute City: An Extraordinarily Bad Idea

The latest urban planning fad to sweep across Canada is the 15-minute city, which proposes to redesign cities so that all urban residents live within an easy, 15-minute walk of schools, retailers, restaurants, entertainment, and other essentials of modern life. This...

Why Did They Kill the Schools?

Why Did They Kill the Schools?

Why did they bludgeon the schools to the point of being nonfunctional while robbing a whole generation of normal education? I cannot stop asking this question. It’s the ultimate example of liberalism eating itself. The pandemic response was morally egregious and...