Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
This is apparently how the carbon tax ends in Canada: not with a bang but a surrender. Last week, B.C. Premier David Eby acknowledged his government wouldn’t maintain the province’s long-standing consumer carbon tax — one that predates the federal version by a decade — if a future federal government eliminates its own. The desperate promise may yet revive his faltering re-election campaign, but it effectively declares the time of death for Canada’s biggest climate policy.
It didn’t have to end like this. It was, after all, a conservative government in B.C. — the confusingly-named BC Liberals — who introduced the first consumer carbon tax in 2008. A year earlier, meanwhile, Alberta implemented its own modest carbon price on large industrial emitters. Even the Stephen Harper Conservatives were talking favourably about carbon pricing back then.
Alas, this emerging consensus was far more brittle than it might have seemed. After the Alberta NDP brought forward its own consumer carbon tax in 2015 and the Trudeau Liberals largely copy and pasted its contents into their own 2018 legislation, most Canadian Conservatives abandoned their previous interest in conservative solutions to climate change, like markets and prices, in favour of a combination of do-nothing whataboutism and outright deceit and disinformation.
But while the principal architects of the collapsing carbon tax consensus are Canada’s conservative politicians and pundits, progressives deserve plenty of the blame. After first failing to communicate its carbon tax and rebate to Canadians and then, giving Atlantic Canadians a transparently political exemption on it, it’s clear the Trudeau Liberals did about as poor a job as they possibly could. The belated opportunism on the part of the federal NDP, which is abandoning its longstanding support of the federal carbon tax and rebate without offering up any alternative plan, doesn’t make it look much better.
First, the good (or at least less bad) news here. When it comes to climate change and Canada’s commitment to reduce its emissions, the elimination of the consumer carbon tax isn’t necessarily fatal. The industrial carbon price, the one being paid by large emitters, does most of the heavy lifting on Canada’s emissions reductions. It may yet survive the current conservative onslaught if only because big business understands the necessity of competing on carbon in the 21st century.
There are other ways to reduce emissions, from consumer subsidies and incentives to industrial regulations. As Simon Fraser University economist Mark Jaccard has been arguing for almost a decade now, regulations can achieve similar reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without the attendant political trials and tribulations. As I’ve argued in the past, when it comes to climate policy, this isn’t necessarily a hill we have to die on.
But when it comes to our politics, maybe it is. That’s because the Conservative campaign against the carbon tax has overwhelmed the best efforts of this country’s leading economists and climate policy experts. Those of us who pay attention to the facts already knew Conservative claims about the carbon tax’s supposed impact on inflation and the economy were massively (and deliberately) overstated. Most of us probably believed, perhaps naively, that the truth would win out in the end.
We were wrong.
The carbon tax was a litmus test for our collective ability to sort fact from fiction and put the interests of future generations ahead of our own. On both counts, we have failed miserably. The inevitable demise of the carbon tax is proof that the best ideas don’t automatically win the day, and truth is no defence against weaponized deceit. It’s also a victory for a kind of political nihilism that is ascendant across the Western world right now, one that doesn’t bode well for our ability to meet or manage the challenges that surely lie ahead.
As former prime minister Brian Mulroney said in a 2019 speech, “Leaders are not chosen to seek popularity. They are chosen to provide leadership. There are times when voters must be told not what they would like to hear but what they have to know. They must realize that there still is a place for daring in the Canadian soul.”
Alas, our current set of political leaders doesn’t seem all that interested in the verdict of history. They’re interested in their own immediate futures, whether that’s staying on as prime minister in the face of impossible odds, abandoning their party’s support of the carbon tax to win back working-class voters they never should have lost or lying incessantly to Canadians to make (and keep) them mad. If good climate policy has to die so their political careers can continue living, well, that's apparently a sacrifice they're willing to make.
We don't get off the hook here completely, though. If there’s an overarching lesson from climate policy over the last decade, after all, it’s our collective indifference to the future and unwillingness to make the sacrifices required to actually improve it. Yes, many of us say that we value action on climate change, but only if that means someone else is actually the one taking the action. Unless and until that changes, we’ll continue to be vulnerable to politicians who promise to make others pay the cost — or worse, pretend that it doesn’t even have to be paid in the first place.
Comments
"But when it comes to our politics, maybe it is. That’s because the Conservative campaign against the carbon tax has overwhelmed the best efforts of this country’s leading economists and climate policy experts. Those of us who pay attention to the facts already knew Conservative claims about the carbon tax’s supposed impact on inflation and the economy were massively (and deliberately) overstated. Most of us probably believed, perhaps naively, that the truth would win out in the end. "
It is time the Liberals push Pierre "Snake oil Salesman" Poilievre to provided Canadians with factual evidence that proves his faux claims. In fact all parties should be pressing Pee Pee to provide evidence he is right, economists are all wrong.
One thing with Pee Pee and his nutty convoy MPs, they spew a lot of unsupported garbage and yet, provide ZERO proof or policies to back their faux nonsense. I don't understand how Canadians don't see through the smokescreen Pee Pee has puts forth everyday.
I like your suggestion:
"It is time the Liberals push Pierre "Snake oil Salesman" Poilievre to provided Canadians with factual evidence that proves his faux claims. In fact all parties should be pressing Pee Pee to provide evidence he is right, economists are all wrong"
The Liberals should adopt your suggestion immediately, and continue using it again every time P.P. starts his Parliamentary "axe" act which now includes his best imitation of an Atlanta Brave's baseball fan "arm chop". Poilievre has quickly become an unwitting cartoon caricature of himself.
However, P.P. will have no problem (1) evading by ignoring (2) deflecting back to his rhetoric
(3) purposefully pushing more misinformation (4) citing some pseudo scientific / economic "proof".
And almost as bad is the fact that his core base are so easily led, that (similar to Trump supporters) they have already been so thoroughly duped that facts do not matter to them.
Nor does the future of their children, or their own economic self-interest.
Poilievre does not have to prove anything, he has bamboozled most of Canadians into believing his lies, exaggerations, and misinformation. The only positive thing to come is the remote possibility that all of Poilievre’s flim flam won't reduce or hasn't had a impact on inflation, on food prices or housing and whatever else he calls broken. When he starts reducing the federal government and its budget to concentrate on infrastructure and starts cutting social benefits like senior's pensions, child care, pharma care research by legitimate scientists, and throwing health care back at the provinces, maybe my fellow Canadians will wake up, but personally I doubt it
Yes it seems naive to think voters will look at facts. I would hope that independent journalists can help with promoting media literacy and fact checking. Government of Alberta press releases tell me that electricity bills for Albertans have been reduced by 60%. Alberta is a global leader in hydrogen is the headline for another. I have not seen any analysis regarding these claims in any media that I access.
How about an article on fact checking using a press release as the example? This doesn't need to be posted. Its a suggestion.
"When it comes to the carbon tax, the truth never stood a chance"
Only because our so-called climate leaders failed to defend it. Failed to explain it. Failed to justify it. And undermined it by granting exemptions for blatant political purposes.
Carbon pricing is alive and well in places like Norway. Places where the carbon price is far higher.
The Conservatives deliberately ignore the rebate side of the equation.
And journalists failed to challenge them on it.
Even Max Fawcett gives rebates scant mention above.
The rebate is what makes Canada's carbon price progressive climate policy.
Axing the tax means axing the rebate.
The winners are rich Canadians, energy hogs, and big polluters.
Not just all those fails but they also allowed the con owned press ( all the regular msm) and the new media to lie and disparage it.
Those lies have been burning into people s brains for decades now and they just accept them.
"The industrial carbon price, the one being paid by large emitters, does most of the heavy lifting on Canada’s emissions reductions."
The study by the Canadian Climate Institute (CCI) was widely reported, but not widely fact-checked. No one questioned its assumptions. Climate journalists reported CCI's results at face value.
In reality, Canada's industrial carbon pricing systems are the Swiss cheese of carbon policy.
Large emitters are subject to output-based pricing systems (OBPS), which price a fraction of total emissions, which effectively means a low carbon price on total emissions. Under Alberta's Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation (TIER) pricing regime, major O&G companies pay pennies on the dollar in carbon costs.
The purpose of the OBPS and its provincial counterparts is not to expose heavy emitters to the carbon price, but to shield them from it, so they can remain competitive in global markets. Large industrial emitters, including in Alberta's oilsands, effectively pay a fraction of consumer rates. Under Alberta's Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation (TIER) pricing regime, major O&G companies pay pennies on the dollar in carbon costs.
In Alberta, TIER dollars are effectively recycled back to industry to fund carbon capture technology and research. Projects industry should be paying for in the first place.
Federal and provincial industrial carbon pricing systems do not impair large industrial emitters' profits — or reduce their emissions.
Oilsands emissions do nothing but climb year after year.
CCI seems not to have noticed.
"Canada's biggest emitters are paying the lowest carbon tax rate" (Corporate Knights)
"Oil and gas producers pay among the lowest average carbon costs of any sector…
"There's a patchwork of OBPS policies across the country, and some provinces have implemented 'weak' or 'non-existent' systems that have let many big polluters off the hook."
"...Ottawa and most provincial governments grant heavy exemptions to a number of sectors, including O&G, chemicals, cement, steel and mining.
"But generous exemptions mean that how much of a firm's actual emissions are taxed varies widely by province, and, on average, companies end up paying for only 16% of the carbon actually produced.
"[In 2020, Suncor's] average carbon cost was roughly $2.10 per tonne, about one-14th of the full carbon price."
"[Ottawa's industrial carbon price] accounts for less than 0.5% of national emissions ...
"… The impact of a carbon price is greatly lessened by the relatively small proportion of emissions that are actually covered by the price.
"The federal OBPS and AB's TIER system levy the carbon price on roughly 10% of a large emitter's GHGs. At a $50 marginal price, producers pay less than $1 per tonne of CO2 equivalent on their total production." (Corporate Knights)
"Canada needs to make Big Oil pay their fair share" (Corporate Knights, March 7, 2022)
"Revisions to PBO's carbon tax analysis will 'vindicate' government, minister predicts" (CBC, May 29, 2024)
"Guilbeault says PBO report was 'flawed,' PBO says correction probably won't change conclusion"
"The PBO says that while it intends to publish a corrected version, its original conclusion — that carbon pricing will have a net negative impact on the economy — probably won't change.
"'It is not something that should or will alter the conclusions of the report because the industrial emissions are exempt at 80 per cent,' Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux told CBC's Power and Politics. 'For big emitters, it is only the 20 per cent that is subject.
"'So overall, the economic impact will still be negative.'
"… Now, in an update to that report, the PBO acknowledges that its economic analysis inadvertently included the industrial pricing system that applies to heavy emitters. The PBO says it will update its analysis in the fall to correct the error.
"But Giroux said that update may not significantly alter the findings because MOST INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM CARBON PRICING. MAJOR INDUSTRIAL EMITTERS ARE EXEMPTED because they face international competition from businesses that operate in jurisdictions without a carbon price."
As the PBO pointed out (May 2024), the industrial carbon price applies only to 20% of emissions maximum. 80% of emissions are exempt. For some industries, only 5-10% of emissions are exposed to the carbon price. (90-95% exempt.).
How can Canada's industrial carbon pricing "do more than any other policy to cut Canada's emissions" if 80% of emissions are exempt?
"… In Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick, big emitters accounted for about 25% of total emissions in 2019, but paid less than 10% of the carbon levies collected. Consumers and small businesses paid the rest.
"… 'The current large emitter programs provide a perverse long-term incentive,' the [2021 Canadian Climate Institute] report said.
"'They are explicitly rewarding the most emissions-intensive facilities in the country to not make the major investments needed to be prepared to compete in a carbon-constrained market.'"
"Biggest industrial emitters don't pay fair share for pollution, critics say" (CP, April 14 2022)
The same Canadian Climate Institute now claims that industrial carbon pricing will be the top driver of emissions reductions by 2030.
Good summary Max, the phrase "weaponized deceit" in particular.
I have read recently that in the States, having a woman running for the top job has resulted in the ongoing polarization coalescing around gender.
So the shambles of the once Grand Old Party has apparently been attracting young males in droves, probably mainly for the new, fun, GUY factor while the Democrats pull in the more threatened and so the even more serious than usual, policy-oriented women who I think will win the day.
Unfortunately abortion and its lame sanction, evangelicalism, is still on the conservative back-burner here so we're still just "little-dogging" it with the Convoy Party of Canada's pathetic, derivative attempts to make us "hell-bent for election" like the Americans, not to mention that all this is in the neon-lit context of Trump's imminent meltdown.
If the so-called progressive parties can just stall for time until that happens, or until November comes, maybe there's hope for sanity to return.
Once again individual selfishness rules the day, both by consumers and politicians. The hilarious thing is if the Convoy party wins the election and removes all Carbon pricing, we will end up having to pay it anyway. Eventually other countries will follow the EU and demand that products sold in their economy have some type of carbon pricing, otherwise a tariff applies. Canada would be at a major disadvantage. We will continue to pay the impacts of climate change, currently estimated at $700+ per household per year. The Convoy party has no plans, and is not a serious party. It will be entertaining and sad to watch them try to govern, when all they can do is create division.
Max is right, the progressives need to grow a backbone and stick to the efficacy of the policy, perhaps stating that in some way shape or form consumers will pay (directly or indirectly). I am really disappointed in the NDP trying to capitalize on the Convoys messaging for political gain.
I threw out the idea in a brainstorming session about water metering, late 1990s, in Calgary, that we couldn't push hard on flat-rate users until they fell below 50% - that the majority has to see them as the ones taking away money from them.
"No blaming majorities in a democracy" is the achilles heel of most progress.
Bring back a tax on natural gas when heat pumps are a lot more popular, gasoline tax when there are more electric vehicles. Especially, cheap electric vehicles so that the gasoline tax can be avoided by normal-income people.
While some people may simply be in an online misinformation bubble and don't know the truth, the notion that Canadians in general are willing to be honest about their role in the climate disaster or to do anything meaningful to reduce the harm the do to the world is hard to believe. Taking responsibility for the harms that one does in the name of money and consumerism is simply not a Canadian value, it's a country founded on destroying the environment and harming people and it's still who Canadians are.
There is also the element that many people are deeply embarrassed about their financial situations and desperately need a scapegoat. The simply reality is that the typical Canadian lifestyle is outrageously expensive and wasteful and doesn't hold up in the face of global financial turbulence like every country is seeing following the several recent crises. There isn't too much the federal government could have done about it besides maybe helping to facilitate affordable housing earlier (something that the cons would not do) and people shouldn't have chosen to live with so much overhead, or forced others to do so (in how we built our cities to be maximally expensive). They need to believe the fiction that somehow the carbon tax is largely to blame because if they don't, they have to blame themselves.
So while the government could have done a better job of arguing its case, there are enough people who are unwilling to hear the truth because it paints who they really are, financially and socially irresponsible consumerists, in a negative light.
And what is broken? Our political leaders in all parties are useless a d Trudeau was just slow to realize promises unfulfilled can catch up. I sure the major shakeup Poilievre will make will make us see that free markets without regulation only lead to higher poverty and a richer elite whom he supposedly dislikes, hah
North Americans are addicted to greed . As an old geezer who has worked since age 16 with a grade 9 education I was able to build a house on land given to me by parents at age 21 . It was a modest home at 1150 sq ft . I took out the mortgage from a credit union to build it .
I bought a brand new Ford truck for $2550 in 1968 .
I worked in construction for most of my life and I saw houses getting bigger and more elaborate over the years and prices rising so began wondering who could afford to buy them .
Even though I was making a decent wage I could not imagine buying one of the newer homes and putting two new cars in the driveway as I often saw as I worked in different places around Ontario .
Then more recently I saw the term "starter home " being used and "house flipping " became a thing as people started to use housing that was once a buyer to seller type market into a commercial enterprise that through " flipping , buy to rent ,etc. which drove up prices as houses were taken off the market and put into short term rentals .
There is a housing shortage for sure but why do we need 4000 sq ft houses ? Why not do what they did after WW11 and build small affordable homes and more rental housing ? Tax the house flippers and short term rental folks out of business ...If they want own short term rentals build a motel ....housing should not be a commercial enterprise and we don't need to have huge homes simply because it is not a sustainable practice .
We live in a modest house that I renovated a little at a time as could be afforded without borrowing money and doing most of the work myself ....don't know how to do that ...Utube it and have at it ...you can rent tools .
Don't want the carbon tax and believe PP's BS.....climate change is real and will tax you far higher than the tax you are trying to get rid of...property loss ..insurance costs going up or not available ...forest fires....if you are young you will not have observed the change first hand so it is easy for the PP crowd to convince you that it is fake news or not a problem .
I hope I live to be 100 because I want to see what is going to happen and it is certainly an interesting time to be alive .
The best way to defeat greed is to be thankful for what you have ....otherwise you will never have enough and slowly turn a Trumpish shade of orange.....
An admirable life well lived. I enjoy reading about you. May your wish be granted.
And I d be dividing those Monster Houses into apartments like they used to do in Europe. Have hated them as much as you do all along. I grew up in an old "century " farmhouse which was an enormous privilege I still cherish.