Not just Scheer, Moe who say free money won’t stop emissions

Can anyone recall a time in our history when giving people free money to spend as they pleased caused fewer environmental problems?

Yes, government rebates are nice, but they go against the entire history of civilization suggesting we sacrifice our environment for our wealth. So it would seem a little perverse to think giving people free money this time will suddenly change bad environmental behaviour.

Support for the federal government’s carbon pricing ($50 a tonne by 2022) went into full press mode Monday with the release of the Canadians for Carbon Dividends report commissioned by Canadians for Clean Prosperity, which provides a household cost-benefit analysis on how households will fare after the federal government rebate.

The report suggests a Saskatchewan low-income household earning between $20,000 and $40,000 in 2020 will pay an average $356 for carbon pricing (higher gas prices, more expensive food, etc.). However, all Saskatchewan households will be getting back $1,567, yielding a net benefit of $1,211 for the lowincome household.

The report assumes the wealthier you are, the more you spend on carbon-consuming items. So higher-income-earning households will keep less of their dividend cheques. For example, a $60,000-to-$80,000 Saskatchewan household in 2020 would pay $468 in carbon-tax related expenses, but would keep $1,099 of its $1,567 in rebates. A $100,000-to-$150,000 household would keep $1,006 and $150,000plus households would keep $919.

Those who feel both their planet and their stake in this debate have been under siege by the overwhelming sentiments in this province that it’s just not economically feasible for any of us to cut greenhouse gas emissions (GHGS) are absolutely giddy over finally having a counter argument in an academic report suggesting households may actually make money from a carbon tax.

But let’s consider for a moment: Will struggling Saskatchewan farm families whose livelihood depends on the massive amount of fuel their operations consume be so lucky? Will those whose food on the table comes from jobs in northern mines or southern potash mines come out ahead? What about oilfields where rigs might just move south of the border and produce as many GHGS while instead employing American riggers in Donald Trump’s United States?

How will small businesses that pass the carbon price on to their customers do? Will any of us even get as much as the carbon dividend suggests, given that if this program is successful at reducing CO2 emissions, it just means less money to Canadian households?

These will be talking points from federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, but it’s more than conservative-minded politicians raising serious questions about Canadians for Clean Prosperity’s assumptions.

“The problem is the modelling is goofy,” said Aldyen Donnelly, a University of British Columbia economics grad. Donnelly describes herself as a “greenie” from Vancouver who drives an electric car and is an adamant environmentalist. But she also says she’s “quite familiar” with models in the Clean Prosperity study, which she believes have “unrealistic assumptions that are hardwired into the modelling.”

For instance, small businesses will not be able to pass through 25 to 50 per cent of new CO2 tax costs, she said, an assumption she said has been disclosed on the Alberta government’s website. Government agencies and public services like schools, universities, hospitals, social housing and municipal providers will be further hit with “carbon tax” costs that must be passed on.

Every jurisdiction that has a carbon tax — including B.C., Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands — has seen things like payroll taxes and health-care premiums massively increase within a year of a carbon tax rate hike.

Most relevantly, the world’s historic environmental success stories, such as reducing tailpipe lead emissions, have always come from demanding that industry adhere to government-imposed standards — not by giving people more money they are likely to spend on things that pollute.

So how do we reduce pollution by government rebates? “I don’t know why more people aren’t asking that,” Donnelly said.