Carbon tax does not need to be perfect to help

How both the Liberals and Conservatives are wrong about the carbon tax, April 27

As an American who has spent the past eight years asking Congress to enact a carbon fee and dividend, I read this opinion piece with great interest. Unfortunately, I disagreed with the argument.

The writer is correct that the “Axe the Tax” campaign is based on incorrect information, and that most economists support a price on carbon to reduce carbon emissions. But his proposal to tax rich Canadians much more heavily on their use of fossil fuels is a moral argument that lacks political realism.

In the U.S., the effort to enact a carbon price has failed partly because of this lack of political realism. Some of this political failure has been on the Republican side, involving efforts to support the fossil fuel industries and to reject modern science, resulting in rejection of almost all climate solutions. But on the Democratic side of the aisle, some legislators have rejected the concept of the carbon dividend, preferring a carbon price that is not refunded at all, but rather used by Congress to fund climate research or climate projects. The consequence of such an approach would be a carbon price that would lose political support rapidly, as citizens would see their energy prices rise, but receive no refund.

If the Canadian carbon price law is amended to place a much larger financial burden on the richest citizens, what will be the political consequence? The wealthiest citizens have always held disproportionate political power. If they abandon climate market solutions, will the poor have the political clout to keep the law in place?