Debunking Sheer's Carbon Tax "Myth"

 Max Fawcett, columnist for the National Observer, wrote a thread debunking Andrew Scheer's 6 minute video on the "myth" of the carbon tax. 

First, a few caveats/concessions. He complains about the Liberal government insisting the carbon tax isn't a tax and promising not to raise it before then raising it. Those are fair criticisms. They don't make the carbon tax a "myth", but they're fair game. Now, onto the rest.

Scheer says that “the Liberals have missed every single one of the targets they set for themselves for greenhouse gas emissions”. But they weren’t in power when the Kyoto targets were missed. They weren’t in government when the Copenhagen targets were set. And while they've missed interim Paris targets, the real ones lie in 2030 -- well into the future. But guess where most of Canada's emissions growth is coming from? Yup, Alberta's oil and gas sector. 

The lack of emissions reductions brings Scheer around to a familiar talking point: “Emissions are going up. The tax is going up along with it. It’s not working.” This is, as they say, "a bunch of bollocks". Here's a good explainer of why. What Conservatives like Scheer are unintentionally saying is "the carbon tax needs to be higher". Which, guess what: it will be! I know this stuff is complicated, which is why this argument has lasted as long as it has. But it won't last much longer. 

Okay, on to the next argument: but China! Scheer: "What does the carbon tax actually do other than make things more expensive on the store shelves? It’s actually quite devastating when you follow through the logic.” Spoiler: he did not follow through the logic. Scheer's "logic" revolves around the concept of carbon leakage -- the idea that high-emitting industries will relocate to jurisdictions without a carbon tax. But guess what: the entire carbon pricing structure already accounts for that. They're called "output based allocations", and they were first created in Alberta -- and maintained by the current conservative government. It's good policy. It works. Scheer's "but China" argument here is also stale. There's a huge push for so-called "friendshoring" right now, whether that's in manufacturing or mineral extraction. And Europe just passed the world's first carbon border tariff. It won't be the last. In other words, the carbon tax could easily give Canadian exporters a competitive advantage in a world where carbon gets priced by the most coveted import markets. Remember, Andy: skate to where the puck is going. We're almost done, folks. 

Scheer rounds the bend to his final complaints. First: “The vast majority of Canadians will pay more in the carbon tax than anything they might hope to receive in a rebate.” Fact check: nope. He's citing the most recent PBO analysis, which says when you incorporate economic impacts of the carbon tax it will cost most households more than they'll get. But that very much doesn't mean they'll pay more in carbon taxes. Words do matter. 

Finally, there's the CPC plan. “Conservatives have a better way . . . a plan not to make traditional forms of energy more expensive but to make new innovative forms of energy more affordable. . . . Lowering the cost of alternative energies through research, development, and incentives." In other words: they want to use subsidies to pick winners rather than trusting the market to sort it out. That's not very conservative, and it ignores the fact that a carbon price is the best way to support said technology. It's a fig leaf for their real strategy: do nothing. 

Given the current state of the conservative movement, I'm sure we're going to keep having this same conversation for many years to come. Tune in next time when I have to debunk the same bad-faith arguments all over again.