Shifting sands

Susan Riley discusses the parties' respective positions on the Libs' planned carbon tax:

The NDP leader has been at pains, lately, to emphasize his plan for tackling climate change - notably, tough caps on greenhouse gas emissions and a carbon trading system. Not that he is changing course. In a speech yesterday on poverty, he added a last-minute swipe at Dion: "Advocates of a carbon tax suggest that by making the costs for certain things more expensive, people will make different choices. ... But Canada is a cold place. Heating your home is not a choice."

That is a time-honoured message...It is also the strongest argument against a carbon tax: It hurts those on fixed incomes, those dependent on fossil fuels to heat their homes, farmers and small town dwellers with no access to public transit. Before you force people to change their behaviour (one of the goals of a carbon tax) you should ensure they have a choice.

Now, the NDP's position shouldn't come as much surprise. But Riley's take on why the Libs have decided to push the carbon tax approach offers an interesting point of comparison:

In fact, the strongest selling point for a carbon tax - one that apparently changed Dion's mind - is that it can be implemented fairly quickly. It could start the tax-shift toward rewarding sustainable, instead of wasteful, behaviour on an individual level, while government works out a regime for big industry. As it is, a cap-and-trade system (which Liberals also support) has been debated for more than a decade. There are already carbon markets in Europe and some experimental projects in North America, but Dion argues it will take years to implement a functioning market here, and that global warming requires urgent attention.

Even leaving aside the obvious point that much of the foot-dragging took place under the Libs and Dion, it's worth remembering that a cap and trade market was also part of the amended C-30 agreed to by the opposition parties, and that Layton's own C-377 also includes the groundwork for a cap and trade system. Which means that it's entirely possible to set up such a market through opposition cooperation even with the Cons trying to stall any progress.

But even accepting the point that urgent action is needed, a plan to influence consumer-level behaviour through massive increases in the price of needed goods looks to have plenty of downsides worth criticizing. And while the NDP's point about the unfairness of putting the onus on those with the least means to make radical changes offers one reason why any benefits are outweighed by the costs of a carbon tax, there's also reason to doubt that a carbon tax would serve its intended purpose in any event.

After all, as Dion pointed out himself during the Libs' leadership race, there's little reason to think that theoretical future price increases caused by a carbon tax would be expected to result in wholesale changes in behaviour where actual increases based on oil prices haven't. And with real fuel costs having gone through the roof in the time since the leadership race, the evidence is only stronger now for the view that price signals alone won't get the job done.

In contrast, a concerted effort toward a more efficient Canada along the lines of the NDP's Green Agenda hasn't yet been tried. And if the focus indeed stays on the parties' respective environmental plans, the NDP will presumably be glad to point out and explain how its solutions would lead to positive results in the short term.

Which isn't to say the Libs can't make some argument for their own carbon tax as a potentially quick fix. But there's every reason for the NDP to both doubt its environmental effectiveness, and point out the social costs of imposing deliberate price shocks on those least able to deal with them.