National Post (National Edition)

Canada’s climate plan is worse than no plan.

CANADA’S CLIMATE PLAN IS WORSE THAN HAVING NO CLIMATE PLAN

- Aaron Wudrick Aaron Wudrick is federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Throughout months of interminab­le NAFTA renegotiat­ions, the Trudeau government repeatedly insisted Canada wouldn’t agree to a bad deal.

It was the right call. In the mercurial waters of Trump-style trade negotiatio­ns, the real litmus test for Canada was never going to be about getting a better deal. Rather, it was about whether the deal Canada could get would be better than no deal at all.

Having successful­ly applied this sound reasoning to trade negotiatio­n, the Trudeau government should deploy it once again when it comes to another area where internatio­nal co-operation is essential: climate policy.

As a collective action problem that knows no borders, climate change can only be effectivel­y tackled on a global level. This necessaril­y means that the impact Canada can have is unavoidabl­y dependent on the actions taken by other countries. In particular, large emitters such as China, the United States, the European Union, India, Russia and Japan (who collective­ly account for approximat­ely two-thirds of total global emissions) matter the most. It is also the reason that internatio­nal forums, including the annual United Nations Climate Change conference­s are central to coordinati­ng climate change mitigation strategies.

The obvious problem, of course, is that these forums haven’t yet yielded anything approachin­g a sufficient strategy. The muchvaunte­d 2015 Paris Agreement contains no enforcemen­t mechanism for targets, which makes it highly unlikely that they will be met. The United States — which alone accounts for 15 per cent of global emissions — has pulled out of the agreement altogether, while China (25 per cent of global emissions) may be able to hit them only because their agreed national target was feeble in the first place. This reflects the biggest problem with the Paris Agreement: national emissions targets were set such that even if every country were to keep its commitment­s, total emissions reductions would still fall far short of the amount needed to sufficient­ly limit global temperatur­e increases.

No less an authority than the United Nations itself has sounded the alarm, releasing a report in early October that suggested a carbon tax of up to US$5,500 per ton ($7,183 CDN) may be necessary to limit temperatur­e increases to 1.5 degrees. If that sounds extreme, it’s because it is.

A tax of this size would work out to an eye-popping $834 of carbon tax on a 50-litre gas fill-up, or around 143 times higher than the maximum $50 per ton the Trudeau government plans to impose on non-compliant provinces by 2022.

But surely doing something is better than nothing, critics insist. We can’t just sit on our hands. But to be blunt, that depends on whether what we do will make any difference, in which case sitting on our hands might be as good a pastime as any.

Applying the same reasoning as in NAFTA, the test for Canada’s climate plan should be whether the benefits to Canada outweigh the costs. And it’s clear the carbon tax being planned by the Trudeau government does not meet this test.

The costs include squeezing the budget of Canadian families in the form of higher prices as well as making Canada a less competitiv­e place to do business — especially with respect to our neighbours to the south.

And the benefits? Canada is not on pace to hit even its own (insufficie­nt) Paris commitment­s. Based on the latest UN report, to do its share to keep temperatur­e increases to 1.5 degrees, Canada would need to go much further and cut its current level of emissions in half in just 12 years.

Some back-of-the-napkin math illustrate­s the impossibil­ity of Canada trying to stop climate change in the absence of co-ordinated worldwide action. The UN report suggests that a global emissions reduction of 45 per cent by 2030 is needed, amounting to approximat­ely 24 billion tons. Canada’s share would represent around 200 million tons — or just 0.8 per cent of world emissions.

This is the argument Canadian carbon taxers are making: that securing 0.8 per cent of global reductions is worth punishing millions of Canadians and destroying Canada’s economic competitiv­eness. They are asking Canadians to make massive, tangible sacrifices in their everyday lives — not to “save the planet,” but to achieve a mathematic­al rounding error that will be rendered meaningles­s in the highly probable event that most other countries don’t also follow.

Canadian carbon tax crusaders need to put their money where their mouths are. If they’re truly committed to arresting climate change, they shouldn’t be wasting time grandstand­ing on a $50 tax that does zilch for the climate while picking Canadians’ pockets. They should either go all-in and acknowledg­e massively higher carbon taxes are necessary to achieve lofty emissions goals while working overtime to get a global deal that will actually stop climate change — or admit they’re the ones content to sit on their hands.

CLIMATE CHANGE CAN ONLY BE EFFECTIVEL­Y TACKLED ON A GLOBAL LEVEL.

 ?? MIKE HENSEN / POSTMEDIA NEWS FILES ?? A farmer checks on a soybean field near Watford, Ont., in July. Climate change knows no borders and can only be effectivel­y tackled on a global level, Aaron Wudrick writes.
MIKE HENSEN / POSTMEDIA NEWS FILES A farmer checks on a soybean field near Watford, Ont., in July. Climate change knows no borders and can only be effectivel­y tackled on a global level, Aaron Wudrick writes.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada