Alberta’s Carbon Tax: does the cost justify the results?

Dear Editor,

The Alberta Carbon Tax Program will collect nearly $10 billion over five years. According to news reports, about $3 billion will be spent subsidizing low income people or otherwise be directed toward rebates. That leaves $6 billion for the government to spend on green energy schemes. It’s important to note three things. First, that Alberta is headed down a road that Ontario has been on for some years. Second, a tax, and a reduction in carbon dioxide, are not necessarily the same thing. Third, before any of us buy something we inquire about the cost. Then we weigh the cost against the perceived benefit. Governments need to do the same.

The Toronto Sun in a news story showed an 88-year-old pensioner whose two-month electrical bill is near $1700. A recent story on Global spoke of a low income individual near Ottawa who shuts off her water heater during the day, never uses air conditioning, and hangs her wash on an outdoor clothesline— avoiding the dryer. Her power bill is still over $300 month and she can’t pay it. In Ontario, people are being driven from their homes because they can’t afford electricity.

Ontario manufacturers are also leaving. They can’t afford the electricity. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. The Ontario government says it is stopping climate change. Homeowners are asking at what price? No matter how concerned any of us may be, it’s a fair question. One Ontario policy organization recently said that decade over decade electrical bills have gone up more than 300%, and that they will continue to rise. Ontario’s Auditor General says by 2032, Ontario electrical consumers will have needlessly OVERPAID for electricity by roughly $170 billion due to provincial energy policy. (The equivalent of about $160,000 for every family of four in Alberta).

Ontario and now Alberta are shutting down efficient coal plants, yet a story in the London Times says there are 2,500 new coal plants worldwide either coming on stream, or being planned. It’s happening in China, India, and elsewhere.

A Congressional Hearing in Washington pointed out that if the United States eliminated all of its coal-fired electrical plants, global CO2 would be reduced by two-tenths of one percent. In response, one Congressional participant asked the head of the US Environmental Agency if the cost of destroying the American economy, which gets nearly 40% of its electricity from coal, to obtain a 0.2% global reduction in CO2 was a good trade off. The question is reasonable.

A Troy Media article by energy analyst Ken Green, said: “Alberta’s new climate plan, by the government’s own admission, will not lead to significant greenhouse gas reductions for many years, if it ever does.” Green’s point is that a tax is a tax whether you call it a carbon tax or a sales tax. To assume that calling it a carbon tax automatically results in climate change reductions or taxing conditions that are different than any other sales tax, is a misnomer.

Stuart Taylor, Hinton