Any hope the Liberal Party had that their signature climate policy would cease to be an albatross has been dashed, as allies of the carbon price drop like flies and opponents ramp up attacks. For Liberal strategists, there’s little room left to manoeuvre.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has successfully soured the public on the price on pollution with a misinformation campaign paired with a steady drumbeat of “axe the tax,” calls for a “carbon tax election,” and efforts to tar high-profile Liberal insider Mark Carney with the moniker “Carbon Tax Carney.” Poilievre’s message discipline has ensured the false claim that the carbon price is driving the affordability crisis is at the forefront of the public’s mind.
While it’s true that the point of the carbon price is to make it steadily more expensive to use fossil fuels to encourage people to invest in cleaner ways to heat their homes and move around, it’s simply not true that the carbon price is a major inflation driver.
Last year, the Bank of Canada estimated the carbon price was responsible for 0.15 per cent of annual inflation. (Last year’s inflation was pegged around three to four per cent, and the year before it was about eight per cent, suggesting the carbon price was responsible for one-twentieth and one-54th of price increases respectively.) The major driver of inflation in recent years has been driven by corporate price gouging, climate change, and geopolitical instability. In fact, some research suggests carbon pricing has had a deflationary effect on food prices in Canada.
Regardless of the evidence, a narrative has taken hold that the carbon price is hurting Canadians, despite most people getting more money back through the Canada Carbon Rebate than they pay. Even in an affordability crisis, a significant number of Canadians now support ditching a policy that leaves them with more money in their pockets.
Carbon pricing is the federal government’s emissions reduction workhorse. The goal is to slash emissions 40 per cent by 2030, and the consumer-facing carbon price is estimated to drive just under 10 per cent of that target, while the industrial carbon price is expected to be responsible for 23 to 39 per cent of emission reductions by 2030, according to the Canadian Climate Institute. Together, carbon pricing is expected to drive one-third to one-half of the emission reductions the federal government has committed itself to under the Paris Agreement.
In an interview with Canada’s National Observer, Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault said he and his fellow Liberals are not giving up on the carbon price. He said “our numbers are showing us” more Canadians are paying attention to, and discussing the rebates, suggesting more now understand the policy.
“I still think we can shift the narrative and the public debate on this,” he said.
“Fighting climate change is difficult, and sometimes unpopular, but it's the right thing to do,” he said. “And I am finding it very disappointing to see progressive governments or parties give up on it because it's politically difficult.”
If the consumer-facing carbon price falls, the federal government would have to find another way to cut 19 to 22 million tonnes of CO2 from the country’s total emissions to meet its 2030 climate goals.
To do that the federal government could:
- Strengthen the forthcoming oil and gas emissions cap to require steeper emission cuts on a more rapid timeframe;
- Regulate the financial sector, using Independent Senator Rosa Galvez’s Climate Aligned Finance Act, to require Bay Street to aid the country’s energy transition;
- Introduce a more aggressive building retrofit campaign, offering higher rebates for heat pump conversions and retrofits, and a strong national net-zero building code;
- Close loopholes on fossil fuel subsidies, and redirect the money to renewable energy;
- Invest more money in public transit operations, rather than focusing on capital spending.
More aggressive climate action won’t necessarily be easier politically, given how many climate policies face provincial backlash and court challenges.
Guilbeault cited the forthcoming emissions cap as an example. If it mandated steep emission cuts that led to production cuts, “we would likely lose court challenges.” Even though the climate science is clear fossil fuel production will have to drop to avert catastrophic warming, “the cap has to show that what we're proposing companies do in terms of emission reductions is technically feasible, without affecting production,” he said.
“Climate is something the federal government can intervene [on], but it's not a magic wand, and we can't wave it as we wish. We have to tread lightly,” he said.
Realistically, this government is out of runway to revamp its climate strategy. It takes time to develop policy, and even more time for the policy to begin to have impact.
The 2030 goal is already slipping out of reach, which is why it’s alarming to see public attention so focused on tearing down existing climate policy, instead of strengthening existing policies or introducing new ones, experts tell Canada’s National Observer. Nonetheless, there are important lessons to learn that could inform future governments, or help the Liberals course correct.
Getting the order right
In an interview with Canada’s National Observer, Brendan Haley, an adjunct professor of sustainable energy policy at Carleton University, says Trudeau’s problems began at the very outset. The Liberals failed to properly consider the political dynamics of their climate strategy, he said.
“When they got elected in 2015, they spent the majority of their first mandate and their early term of government implementing the carbon price,” he said. It would have been better to lead off with major investments in public transit, decarbonizing heavy industry, or retrofitting homes to be more energy efficient –– initiatives with positive benefits that would be coming to fruition now.
Liberal climate initiatives include new public transit investments, tax credits for clean tech, and forthcoming clean electricity regulations, but those benefits are not yet widely felt. While those policies roll out, the price on pollution continues to climb and is felt by everybody who pays a heat bill or fills a vehicle with gas.
UBC political science professor Kathryn Harrison said it's important to get the order right and offer complementary policies.
“You provide transit first before you make it really difficult for people to afford to drive. Make heat pump subsidies widely available before driving up the cost of gas heating,” she said. “We have had subsidies for electric vehicles, [and] subsidies for heat pumps, but those could be done on a larger scale.”
Politics is always easier in hindsight, said Guilbeault. The Liberals won two elections since the carbon price was put in place, so he doesn’t believe the timing of the policy is what turned so many people against it.
“It is really when Poilievre was elected that he decided to use this as a political wedge,” he said.
Feedback loops
Haley says carbon pricing does not lend itself well to building supportive political coalitions, because the costs are clear to the individual, while the benefits are widely spread out. Policies aimed at making building retrofits more affordable, or attracting investments in battery plants that create jobs, have “much clearer benefits,” and are more likely to mobilize political support, he said.
“We really need policies that build political coalitions to re-enforce them,” he added.
To last over the long haul, there must be a positive feedback loop that supports climate action, experts say.
Adam Scott, executive director of Shift: Action for Pension Wealth and Planet Health, told Canada’s National Observer there are a wide range of climate policies that directly improve peoples’ lives.
“A lot of climate policy seems punitive and negative, and… most people don't feel like these policies do anything for them,” he said. But “if you can link climate policy into other areas that make people's lives measurably better and more affordable, you're going to have more effective policy.”
A clear example is tackling energy poverty, Scott said. If a government policy can make homes more efficient, it can significantly reduce emissions, make peoples’ homes more comfortable, and protect them from high power rates. “But we don't have any well-designed federal programs that have done that,” he said.
To sustain public support, avoiding hypocrisy also helps, he said. The most notable example during the Trudeau era was declaring a climate emergency in 2019, and the very next day approving the Trans Mountain expansion project to aid the growth of the oilsands and the fossil fuel industry, now the country’s largest source of emissions.
“Trans Mountain was a generational betrayal for a lot of people,” Scott said. “You see the government bragging about its fairly small carbon price… at the same time as approving massive new long-lived [fossil fuel] infrastructure.”
“It just increases the cynicism across the board, and we've seen a number of [times] of just failing to get it,” he said.
Comments
The real problem isn't the tax on carbon but climate change as Jagmet Singh has pointed out. Mr. Poilievre's rage farming is proving very successful to the point where he doesn't have to lay out any policies except for vague hints that his party plans to hi-tech its way out of the problem. Carbon capture and storage is too expensive, will take too long and won't get us to where we have to go.
Pierre is so naive when it comes to his hi-tech way to solve problems. If he had paid attention to various EU carbon capture initiatives, he would know that the majority of the projects failed or failed to delivered expected results. Maybe he did notice, but being the "Snake Oil Salesman" he is, choses to only use what suits his rage farming disinformation campaign.
The Liberals should push back at Pee Pee and ask him to enlighten Canadians with his solution that would be more effective than the carbon measures. So far Pee Pee's empty words, are just that, empty words.
Maybe the Liberals should remind Pee Pee that his buddy Stephen Harper was the one who suggested the carbon measure in the first place.
Not sure that 'naive' is the right word here. 'Cynical' might be better. Poilievre might be a long term politician with few legislative accomplishments, but he's not stupid, just nasty.
A well written article. As to the recommendations as to what should have been done, I'm not sure that transit should have been any more of a spending priority than it has been. This is mainly a provincial responsibility, and provinces by and large have not a good job re transit. Federal money would not have changed that, and, given the timelines, there's not much likelihood of any great success in emissions reductions between then and now. And someone has to propose battery plants before govts can support them; there weren't any proposals until recently. The 'axe the tax' momentum is due to a conflation of carbon pricing with the cost of living. That's not correct, but the Feds have done a poor job of selling carbon pricing to voters.
The article makes a convincing argument that there must be a short term benefit to consumers. An example is the P.E.I. heat pump program:
"Installing a heat pump can help you save money on your energy bills and make your home more comfortable. Islanders with an annual household net income of $100,000 or less may be eligible for a free heat pump and electric water heater for their home, and those who heat with oil may be eligible for heat pumps systems and other benefits, based on household size with an income threshold of up to $129,000 for larger families.
The Government of Prince Edward Island has finalized agreements with the Government of Canada to deliver the Oil to Heat Pump Affordability Program (OHPA) benefits through the Free Net Zero Program. If you have already received a free heat pump and use >500L of oil per year, you may still be eligible for more energy efficient equipment.
Applicants who are approved for the Oil to Heat Pump Affordability Program on Prince Edward Island will also receive a one-time payment of $250 from Natural Resources Canada. This payment will automatically be mailed to you after your successful participation in the program. Any questions or concerns please contact [email protected](link sends e-mail).
Another could be an agreement with Ontario to axe the sates tax on EV's, designed to simultaneously improve the market of the batteries that both government are investing in."
"For Liberal strategists, there’s little room left to manoeuvre."
When all else fails, try the obvious.
Defend your signature climate policy.
Let Trudeau & Co. take five minutes out of their busy schedules to debunk the falsehoods tossed around by the Conservatives across the aisle.
Trudeau & Co. have spent far more time and energy defending the purchase and construction of the TMX pipeline. What does it say when the government declares a climate emergency one day and then approves a major oilsands export pipeline the next?
When the IPCC issued its latest report, then-Environment Minister "Wilkinson reaffirmed Canada's commitment to phasing out fossil fuels and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but said achieving that target will require money generated by fossil fuels."
"Ottawa says it must maximize revenue from the Trans Mountain pipeline to fight climate change" (CBC, 2021)
Trudeau's messaging on climate has been weak, ill-timed, and contradictory. In 2022, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Jerry DeMarco called out the Liberals on their "policy incoherence" on climate.
How many tens of billions of dollars is Trudeau prepared to waste on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the O&G industry? Tens of billions of dollars more on EV battery factories. Even 1% of that colossal sum spent on education and advertising could have gone a long way towards fighting the Conservatives' disinformation campaign.
If you want to win, you have to show up on the battlefield.
What have the Liberals done to defend their signature climate policy? Granting an exemption on heating oil to assuage Atlantic Canada voters simply confirmed the Conservatives' claim.
Why not take ten minutes on national TV to explain the carbon levy and rebate program; how it benefits Canadians; and how it puts more money in the pockets of 80% of households? Put an economist or six in front of the camera to explain why carbon pricing is the most efficient and least expensive way to reduce emissions.
All this should have been done five years ago.
Suppose Poilievre axes the consumer "tax" but retains the industrial carbon price. As the industrial carbon price increases, consumers will feel its increasing burden — but without a rebate to counter its effects.
Demand that Poilievre show Canadians the evidence that supports his claims around the consumer carbon price. In particular, the claim that the carbon "tax" causes economic misery but an industrial carbon price does not. How is that possible? Canadians have protection from the consumer carbon "tax" in the form of rebates — but there will be no such protection from an increasing industrial carbon price.
Point out that axing the tax will hurt the average Canadian but benefit the rich. Energy hogs, rejoice.
What Poilievre is doing is not just a 'misinformation campaign'. In persisting with a 'steady drumbeat' advancing 'the false claim that the carbon price is driving the affordability crisis' in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, he has taken a leaf from the Nazi playbook, by repeating endlessly the Big Lie.
Exactly.
Poilievre has no problem misleading and deceiving Canadians to try and further his self-serving political ambitions.
Investing in public transit and clean energy are great things that will have future benefits, though I wonder how many of the people complaining about the carbon tax would celebrate or use such things anyway. They don't seem to understand much of anything or have any aspirations to live more wisely. Many just want unconstrained consumerism and need to blame the federal government for their inability to afford the same level of consumerism during several global crises which have affected prices everywhere.
This is ultimately a story about the media. I don't see how anyone can get the majority of the public to believe lies, no matter how often he repeats them, if the media fails to play along. So clearly the mainstream media in this country is happy to pass along Pierre Poilievre's transparent lies as if they were reasonable things to say. Frankly, this is because that media is largely owned by right wingers whose chosen electoral vehicle in Canada is the Conservatives. There is a slant.
The Liberals spent so many years with the slant largely working for them, and identify themselves so solidly as the establishment (by virtue of being the centre) that they have been slow to realize, much less face, the fact that the establishment is now hard right and doing their politics by making use of the loony-tunes right, and so their media environment is now hostile in the way that it always has been for the NDP.
If the Liberals were smart they'd dig up some old copies of the Kent Royal Commission on newspapers, update it to include TV and internet stuff, and basically anti-trust the hell out of the media. The best time to do it would have been four years ago just after the last election. If they did it right now, it wouldn't save their chances this election, but it might give them a less un-level playing field next time.
No. Switching to some other policy is NOT a successful solution. We have very powerful interests fighting to keep the oil and gas industry. If they get away with this lie, they will just lie about the next policy. The only way to win is to fight the lies.