Carbon pricing must become an election topic

Without vocal proponent, critical claims largely go unchallenged

Carbon pricing refers to any method of charging those who emit carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Typically, this means either a straightforward carbon tax (e.g. $15 per tonne of emissions) or a more complex cap-and-trade system whereby companies are allocated emission permits and may buy and sell them among each other.

A recent poll showed that 46 per cent of Saskatchewan voters oppose carbon pricing, while 36 per cent favour it. Even so, we haven’t seen much debate on the issue in the election campaign so far. Part of the problem is that there is no particularly vocal proponent of carbon pricing. While the Saskatchewan Party has made its opposition clear, the New Democratic Party’s position has been vague and its platform is silent on the issue.

Without a vocal proponent, critical claims will go largely unchallenged. Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, for instance, has asserted that carbon pricing will “kneecap” the already struggling oil industry and kill jobs. It is important to consider the opposing perspective.

Recent studies by Sustainable Prosperity (at the University of Ottawa) and the Nicholas Institute (at Duke University) have suggested that British Columbia’s carbon tax did not harm the economy. Actually, it has more industry and public support now than it did before it was implemented, and is associated with a substantial reduction in emissions.

Carbon pricing is almost universally supported by economists, since it is far more effective than standard regulation. It’s easier to get right, and provides an incentive for low-carbon technologies and practices. As well, there are many ways to use any resulting revenue, such as investing in renewables or providing tax reductions elsewhere. The newly formed Smart Prosperity coalition, which includes representation from oil companies and banks, is also in favour.

Given these true characteristics of carbon pricing, the fact that it finds support among even high-profile conservatives is not surprising. Both Preston Manning (at a Vancouver energy conference in 2013) and Michael Chong (at the recent Manning Centre conference) have supported carbon pricing. They know that full-cost accounting makes financial sense. People and companies shouldn’t be allowed to pollute without paying for the costs.

There’s also an underlying interest in the low-carbon economy that it would help facilitate. For example, Iron and Earth is made up of some Alberta oilsands workers who are interested in adapting their skills to work with renewable energy, acknowledging that the oil sector is unpredictable and may not recover. As well, the Canadian Labour Congress recently proposed a plan to create one million “climate jobs” nationally.

Given the extensive support for carbon pricing and a lowcarbon economy among many experts, politicians, companies and workers, it is surprising that it does not already have a vocal proponent in Saskatchewan. A broad effect of this conspicuous absence is that defenders of the fossil fuel economy are not strongly challenged, which can lead to careless policies.

For example, a 2010 report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development observed that Saskatchewan pays $300 million in subsidies to oil companies annually. These subsidies allegedly increase economic growth, but they do not return the government’s investment and do not create jobs — the two things we actually want from growth.

As well, the provincial government’s defence of fossil fuels led it to facilitate “critical thinking” presentations at universities and high schools by a well-known climate skeptic in October. It also overpaid for its “clean coal” project at Boundary Dam and, due to delays, is paying penalties to the company that is supposed to buy the sequestered carbon.

Most problematically, Wall took a strong position against carbon pricing at the First Ministers meeting on climate change this month, leading to a very weak national agreement. When we also consider that Saskatchewan’s per-person emissions are higher than any other province, and higher than in any other country, it is clear that what we do here could have national and international consequences.

Carbon pricing may not win over the majority of Saskatchewan voters anytime soon, but it merits a vocal proponent and genuine consideration. At this point in history, it would be irresponsible of us not to make it an election issue.