Atlantica Centre for Energy’s ‘Wimpy Argument’
Stephen Macmackin of the Atlantica Centre for Energy, in a guest column in your pages on April 19th (“Let’s see some innovation, not taxation”), attacks the federal carbon tax and argues that we should focus on innovation instead of on taxation. To his credit, Macmakin agrees with the need to decarbonize our sources of energy but argues for the abolition of the carbon tax.
I am reminded of the character Wimpy in the Popeye comic strip whose catchphrase was something like, “I will give you two hamburgers tomorrow for one hamburger today.” The person he was addressing was being asked to give up the hamburger in his possession for the uncertain promise of being repaid two hamburgers tomorrow.
This seems to be the argument being advanced by the Atlantica Centre for Energy. We are being asked to reject a policy that is already in place, and that seems to be working, for the promise of a better one in the future. This undefined better policy would arrive by way of “innovation.”
The innovative suggestions that Mr. Macmakin identifies in his article — energy efficiency and clean-energy technologies, in particular — are not being hampered or prevented because of the presence of the carbon tax. In fact, there is already a great deal of research and development being undertaken in these areas at a time when the carbon tax is in effect.
One might even argue that the carbon tax will accelerate innovative activity in these areas since people are likely to be more willing to adopt alternatives to fossil fuels (that is, to adopt innovations) as the price of fuel rises. And so, it is not an either-or choice (innovation or taxation) but more likely a causal link (innovation because of taxation).
Macmakin also mentions the “Atlantic Loop” as an innovation or as something that will enhance innovation. I assume that he is referring to the hydroelectric power emanating from Muskrat Falls. If that is, indeed, the case, the increase in clean electricity supply should encourage the purchase of electric vehicles in the region. Again, the increase in fuel prices related to the carbon tax (along with the creation of a network of charging stations) should increase the adoption of such vehicles. While this may appear to be a utopian dream to some Atlantic Canadians, for Norwegians, it is the current reality.
Macmakin also mentions “advanced small modular reactor development” as a possible innovation in Atlantic Canada. If this refers to atomic energy, one can expect a very long adoption period, if such technology is ever adopted at all. This doesn’t seem like a realistic option as an imminent innovation, with or without a carbon tax.
In addition to the “Wimpy Argument,” Macmakin advances the “divide-and-conquer” argument, by alleging that Atlantic Canada will suffer three to five times more than the rest of the country because of the federal carbon policies. This is obviously an exaggeration since the carbon policies are already in effect and Atlantic Canada has not witnessed anywhere near this negative impact. This overreach brings the rest of his argument into question.
He rightfully states that the region is more rural than other parts of the country and therefore people have to travel farther to obtain the services they require — and therefore consume more fuel. But Atlantic Canada is not the only rural place in the country and the federal government will have to avoid alienating rural areas if it wants its carbon policy to succeed. The demographic and political weight of rural Canada will ensure that rural areas — including those in Atlantic Canada — will not be discriminated against by the carbon tax.
The federal carbon tax was a policy decision and, like all policy decisions, there are pros and cons. But it seems to be an effective way to address the existential threat of climate change.
If the Atlantica Centre for Energy disagrees, let it advance a better alternative. But if you want me to give up my hamburger, give me a replacement one today, and not the promise of two tomorrow.