The Green Shift meets the yellow vests
One continually annoying feature of Justin Trudeau is his evident conviction the world’s eyes are always on Canada. As he told the CBC’s Rosemary Barton in an interview aired this past weekend, “Countries around the world are looking, with a lot of interest, at how Canada is moving forward on putting a price on pollution and supporting ordinary citizens through this transition.”
You really think so? Countries around the world may be looking at Canada and noting we have about eight different climate policies all operating at the same time, with some provinces running carbon taxes and others doing cap-and-trade and still others backing into or out of different micro-level supports for all kinds of unconventional and so far inefficient fuels, with the federal government moving in to fill holes in this Swiss-cheese model. But looking to us for policy leadership out of this shemozzle? Really?
I suppose if you flit from one international conference to another, you make lots of small talk with other countries’ leaders about their policies and, to fill any awkward silences, they ask about yours in return. So maybe that comes across as “world interest” in us. And, to be fair, a little later in the interview Ms. Barton says she saw Trudeau-branded socks and coffee mugs on a recent trip to New York, so perhaps it’s not surprising the PM feels the world really is watching him.
At the moment, however, the world is watching French President Emmanuel Macron much more. The yellow vest protests in France that started over a fuel surcharge designed to get the country to its Paris-accord carbonreduction targets have evolved to make Paris itself a literal target for any and all violence-prone opponents of capitalism, globalization, Donald Trump and so on. But carbon taxes were the spark.
France’s troubles have galvanized one aspect of Ottawa’s carbon policy. Asked about Macron, Trudeau said in his interview: “He didn’t ensure the second part of it: you put a price on pollution ’cause we want less pollution. But you also make sure that ordinary Canadians are going to be able to afford this transition towards a lower-carbon economy.”
To which Barton asks:
“So it’s the rebate that makes the difference?”
Trudeau: “The rebate, the support for families, because people are worried about the future, they are worried about climate change, they’re also worried about their kids’ jobs and their own retirement. Making sure that we are supporting families through this transition time is a fundamental responsibility for every government. That’s at the core of our approach …”
Trudeau uses the word “pollution” 15 times in his brief discussion of climate, which suggests he’s gearing up for a Great Canadian Pollution Election next fall. By contrast, most ordinary folk would have trouble with the notion that something the average human produces 2.3 pounds of per day just by breathing out — and up to eight times more than that if, like Mr. Trudeau, you’re very active — is “pollution.” Abstract from the agitprop, however, and we are back to Stéphane Dion’s original Green Shift plan: Raise taxes on undesirable activities, like carbon dumping, and lower taxes on desirable activities, like work and investment. Canadians rejected that plan in the 2008 election partly because Dion was an ineffective salesman (which is not a problem for Trudeau, the global brand) but also because his party hijacked the tax revenues, promising to spend them on child care and other progressive delights, thus conceding what millions suspected, that the carbon tax was just a tax grab. A decade later, Trudeau and his party seem to have gotten the message: If you plan to campaign on taxing carbon, you had better promise to give the money back.
We seldom have one-issue elections in our parliamentary system but it would be interesting to see a vote on that relatively straightforward election proposition: Charge for carbon, rebate the money. Trudeau is obviously confident that it’s a winner. It would be fascinating to find out.
But of course Trudeau’s interventionist DNA doesn’t let him stop there. As he outlined for Ms. Barton: “We’ve invested massively in public transit, we’re investing in cleaner energy sources, in renewable energies, in clean tech, and we’re making historic investments in making sure that the jobs in innovation, as we move towards a lower-carbon economy, are front and centre.”
That’s all just spendthrift busywork. And it contradicts the economics of pricing carbon. According to the theory behind Trudeau’s approach, if you raise the price of what you’re worried about, you can forget all the rest. The market (or “people responding to prices,” if you don’t like the m-word) takes care of it for you. No further justification for subsidies, tax credits, quotas, limits or any other statist tools. If he was willing to stake his government’s future and run only on that plan, the world really might watch.
TRUDEAU IS GEARING UP FOR A GREAT CANADIAN POLLUTION ELECTION.