Province loses carbon tax high ground with rejection of GHG issue

The biggest news at the Saskatchewan Party annual convention might have come from Sunday morning’s bear-pit session, when Premier Brad Wall revealed it’s unlikely the federal government has time to immediately impose its carbon tax.

Unfortunately, that same bear pit and other recent Sask. Party political developments demonstrated this governing party is illprepared to deal with whatever comes next.

Responding to a carbon tax question at the accountability session, Wall said he doubted Ottawa had time to pass legislation imposing next year’s $10-a-tonne carbon tax (increasing to $50-a-tonne by 2022).

“I don’t know what they can do by regulations. We’re watching it carefully,” Wall said, adding that he believes the federal government has “been playing a bit of chicken here.”

This should come as great news for a party at ground zero in opposing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s levy. But it also comes as great news to a province whose livelihood is derived from the oil industry, which is largely the source of the carbon/greenhouse gas emission problems, or emitting industries like farming, mining and coal-fired electrical generation.

The biggest problem with the carbon tax — as repeatedly pointed out by Wall and the Sask. Party — is the simple reality that it won’t bring down Saskatchewan’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a province where 44 per cent of our electricity comes from coal-fired generation.

Moreover, Wall already announced two years ago his government’s plans to be 50-percent renewable by 2030. If ever the cliched, made-in-Saskatchewan solution (now being called for by both the Sask. Party and the NDP) applied to an issue, it would appear to be this one.

However, herein lies the series of problems:

Regardless of whether the Trudeau deadline is a false one imposed for purely political reasons, it still might be imposed. As the NDP here noted in Tuesday’s question period, even Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative environment minister is now saying: “If we say no, we get Trudeau.” Saskatchewan needs a response.

While the Sask. Party government may still hold the higher ground in this debate for now, it loses that position if it doesn’t offer signs of good faith in taking the GHG emission issue seriously. But sadly, there are all too many signs the Sask. Party isn’t serious about this issue.

Also at Sunday’s bear pit, Saskatoon Meewasin delegate Ed Hudson complained about newly appointed Gov.-Gen. Julie Payette “mocking my Christianity” and “also mocking my belief that I am not responsible for man-made global warming; that I do not believe that man is causing the environment to become more warm.”

“I would like for us to quit being concerned about trying to reduce carbon and accept the fact that carbon is good and that a warmer Earth is good for us,” Hudson said.

Wall responded that “Here, we respectfully disagree” and this is “a party where people can have a different view,” but it is government’s view that man-made climate change is real.

The problem, however, is the Sask. Party government clearly isn’t sure what its plan should be. This was evident Monday when Duncan stumbled while responding to SaskPower president Mike Marsh’s comments from Friday that extending the $1.5-billion carbon capture and storage plant at Boundary Dam 3 to Boundary Dam 4 and 5 was not likely economically feasible.

The next Sask. Party premier after the Jan. 27 leadership vote needs a strong, alternative commitment to the environment if he or she plans to stop this carbon tax. Instead, we saw this weekend leadership hopefuls dog-whistling climate change deniers like the aforementioned Sask. Party delegate.

“Carbon isn’t a villain we need to be concerned about it; we need to better manage our emissions, we need to reduce them, we need to ensure we understand the impact of our environment,” Alanna Koch told reporters after Saturday’s debate.

Such a comment from the supposed front-runner is decidedly unhelpful in the long-term fight to stop this carbon tax.

We need to start seeing an alternative plan to deal with

GHG emissions.