On full considerations

Max Fawcett is right to a point in discussing the need to acknowledge the political problems with carbon taxes as matters stand now. But there's a serious problem with the conclusion he tries to draw.

It's true that carbon taxes were originally - and understandably - pitched as the form of greenhouse gas emission reduction which fit best with laissez-faire economic theory. And there are still a few lingering aftereffects of that outlook, including the British Columbia tax which remains on the books after being implemented by the right-wing Campbell Liberals. 

But if the opportunity for a consensus has been lost, we shouldn't pretend that has anything to do with carbon taxation as a theory.

Surely we're past the point where anybody will pretend for a second that the oil lobby and its servants on the right will engage in good faith with any type of proposal which might cut back on the profits linked to dirty energy.

For the most egregious example, remember that it took approximately two minutes for the Liberals to abandon a carbon tax after the 2008 federal election. And as soon as that happened, Stephen Harper's Cons in turn started slamming a cap-and-trade system of the type included in their own election platform as being a carbon tax in order to try to capitalize on their existing line of messaging.

Likewise, Doug Ford's PC government in Ontario scrapped a cap-and-trade regime which served as a substitute for the federal carbon tax - only to go to court to challenge the federal system it volunteered to join.

Moreover, even as the political environment for all types of climate policy has worsened, so too has our global climate outlook.

Policies which might have been sufficient to rein in climate change on their own if implemented twenty years ago will be insufficient to turn matters around in the next decade from a far worse starting point. And even a strict regulatory crackdown on industries alone would leave a dangerous amount of carbon pollution untouched, as households have historically represented a substantial percentage of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

In sum, the effort to avoid climate breakdown needs to include all available tools. And we can't afford to let a group of manipulative arsonists-for-hire dictate how we're supposed to avert a future conflagration.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rupert Neate reports on the latest Credit Suisse study showing that wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of a few ultra-rich individuals. And Lawrence Mishel and Julia Wolfe take note of a similar trend for U.S. wages, particularly when it comes to the soaring amount being claimed by CEOs.

- Sharon Treat discusses how the USCMA only figures to put large corporations even further beyond the reach of any regulation in the public interest. And Marie Aspiazu points out its effect on digital rights, including its extension of already-excessive copyright terms.

- The Star's editorial board takes a look at the costs of Doug Ford's cancellation of Ontario's cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. And both Lars Osberg and the C.D. Howe Institute make the case for full fee-and-dividend systems - though it's still worth raising the value of ensuring that some money collected as a result of carbon pollution actually gets applied to reducing the scope of the problem.

- Finally, Simon Enoch argues that climate sanctions may be needed to ensure that the worst offenders don't undermine any effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And George Monbiot writes that in the absence of sorely-needed government action to avert a total climate breakdown, there looks to be little alternative but civil disobedience.

New column day

Here, on Brad Wall's appalling admission that the Saskatchewan Party's plan for a low-carbon economy is to move into Ontario's basement rather than pursuing sustainable development in Saskatchewan.

For further reading...
- Wall's comments and other provincial positions in the lead up to this week's premiers' meeting can be found here.
- Geoffrey Vendeville reported on the earlier cap-and-trade agreement between Ontario and Quebec. And Yasmine Hassan discussed the massive Quebec climate change rally.
- The Saskatchewan greenhouse gas bill which has been passed but never proclaimed in force can be found here (PDF).
- Joe Romm reports on the new cost-effectiveness of electric car batteries here. And Tom Randall and John Lippert both point out that storage costs are also plummeting for solar power generation.

The big lie and the bigger truth

Yes, it's inevitable that Tom Mulcair will have to answer the Cons' (however farcical) talking points about some nonexistent carbon tax. But there's more to the story than the "big lie" currently being pointed out by Mulcair - and the best way to turn the issue back around on the Cons is to take them at their word from four years ago.

After all, the Cons' commitment to a cap-and-trade system in 2008 doesn't just make them hypocrites for bashing the same idea now. Instead, it also looms as a massive broken promise in an area where the Cons have so often gone out of their way to prove they can't be trusted. And it also serves as a signal as to what the Cons really value rather than the best interests of Canadians.

Yes, Harper has pretended to agree with greenhouse gas emission regulation for the purpose of deflecting from the environment as an election issue. But he's only been willing to feign support for whatever policy seems furthest from being implemented - with the apparent goal of making sure that no single form of regulation gains enough momentum to be seen as an inescapable consensus.

Moreover, in government Harper has consistently refused to implement any policy which actually results in the oil sector (rather than the general public) taking responsibility for the damage unregulated greenhouse gas emissions can do to Canada's environment and the global climate. And the fact that a majority Con government is managing to be even more reckless than the previous minority versions only drives that point home.

So the real story isn't merely that the Cons are lying - it's that they're lying in service to their tar-sands masters, and will say or do anything to ensure a continued flow of wealth from the Canadian public to oil barons. And the best way to highlight that lie is to focus on asking when the Cons will get around to making good on their 2008 promise - and forcing them to argue against their own words and platform.

On ready responses

Aside from the thoroughly ineffective spin from competing political parties, the other factor that's seen as having any potential to derail the NDP's national surge is the increased scrutiny on the party's platform. But Jack Layton took exactly the questions we'd expect to see on that point from Macleans' editors and writers - and it's hard to see anything in the answers that does anything other than confirm that the NDP is offering a responsible option for change:

Q. Part of the way you say you’d pay for the new spending in your platform is by cracking down on offshore tax avoidance. You say that will eventually net the government $3 billion a year. But Canada and other countries have been trying for years to prevent this sort of illegal tax dodging. What makes you think you can make big progress fast?

A. By being determined and by putting in resources into the Canada Revenue Agency, which is had its resources cut as opposed to increased. If the CRA was a business, any CEO would be saying, look at the rate of return. Why aren’t we exploiting that business opportunity? Well you’re dealing with the rich and powerful, and maybe that’s an issue. That’s not an issue for me. I think that we should be trying to recover those funds and I think if it were done aggressively we could achieve those kind of targets.

We’ve also said, however, that in our platform, spending proposals need to be always analyzed against the fiscal capacity at the moment. That comes from the great traditions of Tommy Douglas administrations, Roy Romanow administrations. We’ve taken the same approach to it, and we’re taken modest steps, I think you probably may agree, compared to some past NDP platforms. We’re talking modest, practical steps when it comes to these different policy areas.

Q. So you’re if you weren’t able to get those revenue streams you wouldn’t do the spending.

A. That is precisely how we constructed our platform.

Q. Do you anticipate any reduction in business investment as a result of raising corporate tax rates?

A. It’s difficult to know. I know there’s predictions of doom and gloom by some, but our view is that we have to keep our tax rate competitive with the US, but it does not make sense to go dramatically go below where the Americans are.

Q. But do you model in any reduction in investment?

A. We anticipate that there could be some protests, maybe that would translate into some changes. But I believe that is counterbalanced by some of our platform, for example, calling an investment on investment in infrastructure in cities. And when you look at decisions to locate head offices, and to locate economic activities, the corporate tax rate is by no means the only economic marker. Quality of life, infrastructure, transportation capacity, all of these kind of things. If you’ve got good and affordable housing, then a place becomes more attractive. It’s getting the right mix really of policies, and I think we don’t have that right mix when it comes to Stephen Harper.

Q. As part of your promise to set up a cap and trade system to cut greenhouse gas emissions, you book $3.6 billion in revenues this year, 2011-12, coming from the sale of carbon emission rights. How could you possibly get a cap and trade system up so fast?

A. It would be tough, it would take some real determination, but we haven’t had anything like the determination that’s needed. We saw some real determination in some U.S. states, things were made to happen relatively quickly. In fact, there’s a system up and functioning with some American states that we could hook up to. Those discussions were well under way but we had zero enthusiasm, to put it mildly, from our national government. I think things could be made to happen a lot more quickly.

Sunday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- No wonder the Cons have fought so hard to suppress their Statement of Operational Requirements for F-35 fighter jets. After all, who would want to have to justify leaving out the part about engines?

- For more on the passing of Allan Blakeney, you'll find Malcolm's take here.

- Memo to Jessica Earle and anybody else buying the spin that a cap-and-trade system is political poison in Quebec: you'll want to check whether your sources said the same about the Cons' promise of the exact same thing in 2008. And if not, then you're peddling partisan spin rather than meaningful analysis.

[Update: See Kate Heartfield for an example of how it's done. Though the words "blatant lie" might be necessary for a truly descriptive story.]

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan rightly criticizes the cult of zero when it comes to corporate taxes:

Corporations benefit from public policy, public institutions and public services, without which profits would be far, far lower.

If the argument is that corporations should pay nothing for these privileges and benefits, it’s like saying they have rights but no responsibilities. And that flies against every principle of justice society holds dear.

A revolutionary war was fought and a nation was formed on the principle of “no taxation without representation”.

You can try, but any theory that suggests it is in the public interest for the most powerful entities in society to have representation without taxation is unlikely to pass the sniff test of democracy.

But while it's worth pointing out the extremes being demanding by the tax-slashing brigade, I'd think it's even more important to highlight the need for a real alternative.

After all, the main argument for perpetual corporate tax cuts is apparently that higher corporate tax rates in one jurisdiction might lead big businesses to shift their profits elsewhere to avoid it. But that does indeed lead to perpetually diminishing returns for every single jurisdiction competing for businesses.

That makes for a classic prisoner's dilemma which can only be solved through collective trust and action. So let's start pushing back with a call for to establish uniform corporate tax rates among the world's developed economies which eliminate the incentive to shift paper money around - lest the cult of zero otherwise make that the default rate.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Uncapped

Yesterday, I noted that the Libs' supposed cap and trade plan is utterly lacking in credibility since it doesn't include any targets to actually define a cap. But since the loudest response to the Libs' lack of any targets for the next 39 years has somehow been a series of high-pitched shrieks that the Libs' plan to do nothing is going too far, let's note how bizarre that response sounds coming from the Cons and their oil-patch allies.

After all, the Cons have been promising a cap-and-trade system from the day they took office, even if it's been coupled with a perpetual "wait 'til next year" message to delay any real action. In 2008, the Cons explicitly hyped "Developing a Cap and Trade System to Cut Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions" in their platform as their alternative to a carbon tax. Once Barack Obama was elected in the U.S., they started pushing a continent-wide cap-and-trade system. And they've continued to praise the idea when it's been raised at the provincial level.

So the Cons' overwrought response to the mere mention of a cap-and-trade system looks to make for a radical shift in position, from at least pretending to care about dealing with greenhouse gas emissions to portraying any action whatsoever as being out of the question. And while the Libs aren't doing much to offer an alternative, voters concerned about the environment should note that they do have choices who haven't yet decided to abandon the issue.

Either/or

In trying to defend their carbon tax, more than a few Lib supporters have made the point that a carbon tax and other plans like cap and trade aren't mutually exclusive. And in theory, that's a fair enough claim. But it might help if somebody informed Ralph Goodale of that fact, considering that his latest submission to the Leader-Post couldn't be much more clearly directed against the very idea of regulating greenhouse gas emissions:

What about Stephen Harper's plan? Harper is proposing a punitive regulatory scheme. It would involve quasi-criminal penalties against all energy utilities, like SaskPower and SaskEnergy, the oil and gas industry, IPSCO Steel, PotashCorp, Cameco, cement companies, chemical producers and many others.

In their public sales pitch, the Conservatives peddle the false notion that this scheme would be entirely cost-free. Nothing will impact investment or consumers, they claim. They'll just slap carbon regulations on "dirty" businesses spewing emissions.

But if those Conservative regulations are more than just a sham, they will indeed create new business costs to be passed along to consumers. Unlike the Green Shift, however, there will be no offsetting tax cuts of any kind. And a small army of bureaucrats will be required to enforce the Conservative regulations.

Remarkably, Goodale only hints at the virtual certainty that the Cons' intensity-based scheme will be next to useless in actually reducing emissions. Instead, he eagerly throws out loaded terms like "punitive", "quasi-criminal" and "small army of bureaucrats" to try to paint any effort to regulate emissions in as harsh a light as possible - and that analysis applies equally strongly to either the Cons' regulation-only approach, or the cap-and-trade system favoured by the NDP.

From what I can tell, there's absolutely no way to run a cap and trade system without exactly the elements which Goodale is criticizing. It's obvious that some public-sector resources are needed to monitor compliance with any system, and at least some real penalties are surely a vital element in ensuring that industry carries out its obligations to monitor and report on emissions.

Which means that either Goodale's latest screed reflects general Lib disdain for some of the required elements of any cap and trade system, or Goodale is trying to peddle a line which directly contradicts the position which other Libs are trying to use against the NDP in other parts of the country. If it's the former, then the NDP does stand alone as the only federal party looking to include Canada in the international consensus favouring cap and trade - and if the latter, then Canadians have one more reason to doubt anything the Libs say about the carbon tax.

Thoughtful

Shorter Gary Mason:
Don't let politicians do your thinking for you. After all, that's my job.

If you're after substantive discussion about the options available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in stark contrast to Mason's column), Devin has what you're looking for.

On hot air

If the Cons were looking to draw fire for their neglect of the environment, they could hardly have done better than John Baird's message today. As the rest of Canada debates the relative merits of cap and trade systems and carbon taxes, the Cons have apparently decided to signal their distaste for either means of actually reducing emissions, instead picking a fight with both Ontario and Quebec over their efforts to put the former together.

Of course, the problems with the Cons needlessly attacking Ontario in particular have already been well documented - and adding Quebec into the picture can only help to lose the Cons votes in the two provinces where they most need to try to pick up seats to have any hope of a majority. But Baird seems to have taken the image of bashing central Canada several steps further by coupling his unwarranted criticisms of cap-and-trade with inexplicable praise for Alberta's no-cap, no-trade, no-tax, no-meaningful reduction excuse for a greenhouse gas emissions strategy.

As a result, Baird's position not only shows just how far the Cons are from the real debate over Canada's choices in dealing with climate change, but also reinforces the image of Harper's government as firmly in the pocket of the oilpatch rather than willing to even look at national interests. And the opposition parties will be happy to have that example to point out as an indication of why it's long past time to end the Cons' stay in power.