Alberta, Saskatchewan emit 48% of Canada’s emissions. Why not punish the bad actors?
It’s deja vu all over again. After disrupting (destroying?) Canadian public health with relentless campaigns against vaccines and masks, the freedom crowd has glommed onto the federal carbon tax. CPC Leader Pierre Poilievre (again) cozied up to them with his “Axe the Tax” campaign and conservative premiers jumped on the bandwagon for their own cynical political reasons. This is no way to run a country. Or national climate policy. Is there a better way?
Economists have promoted Pigouvian taxes for a long time. Yes, carbon pricing is the lowest-cost, most efficient way to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Respected academics like Professor Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary remind us of this ad nauseam.
But, economists have also warned that the effectiveness of carbon pricing may be lowered by political opposition. I first came across this argument three years ago while interviewing (see below) Stanford economist Danny Cullenward. Closer to home, energy economist Mark Jaccard has also made the point that many Canadians don’t like taxes, which means policymakers should also use what he calls “flex-regs,” i.e. other tools in the policy toolbox.
Unfortunately, having a rational discussion about adjusting or eliminating the federal consumer carbon tax (there is also an industrial emitters’ carbon tax) is made impossible by Poilievre’s deceptive “axe the tax” campaign that is supported by conservative premiers and various self-interested trade associations and astroturf groups.
By deceptive, I mean flat out lies. Only talking about how much Canadians pay, for example, while deliberately ignoring the generous rebates, enjoyed by a large majority of citizens. Or calling for the BC carbon tax to be axed, knowing full well that the program is entirely provincial, dating back to 2007 and a right-leaning government’s adoption of what is commonly considered a “market-based” policy.
To make matters worse, the “axe the tax” campaign has been embraced by the “freedom movement” – the anti-vax, anti-mask, conspiracy theorists and misinformation spewers who occupied Ottawa for three weeks in 2022. A group of them blocked part of the TransCanada Highway west of Calgary on Wednesday.
Hidden beneath this outrageous mendacity and the weaponizing of carbon pricing by unscrupulous politicos is a truth, hidden in plain sight, that needs a thorough discussion before Canada’s consumer carbon tax is eliminated.
Two biggest Canadian emissions offenders lead “axe the tax”
Alberta generates 38 per cent of Canada’s emissions, while Saskatchewan creates 10 per cent. Two provinces with only six million people out of 40 million, only 15 per cent of the population, are responsible for half of the problem. As of 2020, Canada has the second highest per capita emissions rates in the world thanks to Alberta and Saskatchewan.
By comparison, the two big hydroelectric provinces, British Columbia and Quebec, produce only nine per cent and 11.5 per cent of emissions, even though they comprise 12.5 per cent and 22 per cent of the population. Unsurprisingly, both provinces rank near the bottom in per capita emissions, in part because both have aggressive climate plans. They lead the country in electric vehicle adoption by a long shot, for example. Both punch well above their weight class.
BC and Quebec voters might well ask why they are being punished with federal climate policies while the laggards in Alberta and Saskatchewan oppose even the mildest mitigation efforts? Frankly, the rest of Canada might want to ask the same question.
Punish laggards, reward leaders
Astute readers will recall that during the last federal election campaign the CPC under Erin O’Toole also called for ending the national consumer carbon tax while retaining, perhaps even expanding, the industrial emitters’ carbon tax.
Here’s a question for Poilievre and the “axe the tax” crowd: Do you support the combination of ending the consumer tax while significantly beefing up the industrial tax to significantly drive down emissions from the oil and gas industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan?
This is simply a logical extension of the CPC’s own policy plank. And it would enable the Conservative leader to propose an alternative to the Liberal’s promised oil and gas emissions cap, which will layer a cap-and-trade system on the existing industrial tax, a cumbersome idea vehemently opposed by Alberta and the industry.
If Poilievre and company want to open up carbon pricing rules, it only seems fair that others get to propose different ways of lowering Canada’s stubbornly high (on a per capita basis) emissions.
Because let’s be very clear that doing nothing about greenhouse gas emissions is not an option. Developed countries like the USA and Europe are electrifying their economies, in part because of the climate crisis and in part because of the energy transition.
One way or another, the low-carbon future isn’t far off. Therefore, if Canada is going to weaken climate policy in one area, it must strengthen policy somewhere else.
Why not target the laggards, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and make it easier for the large majority of Canadians?
Be the first to comment