STEPHANE Dion has attempted to stake out Liberal territory on environmental policy issues with a new initiative called Green Shift.
Dion says the plan would collect $15.4 billion in carbon tax but remain revenue neutral because it would return the money to citizens and corporations through tax cuts, credits and poverty reduction.
While the plan has serious flaws, the principles behind it have merit. As the weight of scientific evidence points to climate change as a threat to future generations, society has to accept that carbon heavy practices must change and then devise a strategy.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
First the good news in the plan.
- If enacted it would be the first serious national effort to reduce CO2 emissions by taxing carbon polluters.
- It would send money to the poorest people to help them adjust to more environmentally friendly practices.
- It would return a portion of the carbon taxes levied against energy companies to taxpayers and businesses through income tax breaks and tax credits.
- There are incentives to encourage capital investment in green technologies.
Now the bad news.
- The plan would tax carbon polluters to the tune of $15 billion, yet there is only $1 billion set aside for research into more environmentally friendly technologies.
- The tax would be based on the amount of carbon emissions released. The plan indicates most of the revenue would come from 700 large emitters. The result is that the energy industry, concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan, would pay the most, resulting in a redistribution of wealth from the booming western economy to other regions.
- For political reasons, the plan does not assess the tax at the retail level, which would more fairly distribute the burden to consumers across the country.
- The plan is not as revenue neutral as Dion contends. Only about two-thirds of the new tax would be returned to Canadians through tax cuts, with almost $4 billion going into programs that have little to do with the environment, such as enrichments for universal child tax benefits and money to help the working poor and disabled.
- The plan recognizes that rural people are less able to reduce fuel consumption by giving a $150 per year rural tax credit, but it would likely end up costing farmers more because of higher fertilizer and diesel costs.
During the campaign to sell the plan, the Liberals maintain that any pains Canadians and energy companies might feel during a transition period would be short-term. Over the long haul, they would reap the financial rewards of being early adopters in greener technology, they say. Canadians who buy into this plan are placing a boatload of trust that this forecast is correct.
The flawed Liberal plan nevertheless compares favourably to the Conservative government’s almost nonexistent plan on carbon emission reduction. It should be noted, however, that the government last week did agree with other G8 nations to cut emissions in half by 2050 if 200 other nations also sign on.
So while the Liberals have a lot of revisions to do to make Green Shift palatable, it has at least started the nation thinking about the sacrifices needed to seriously address climate change.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
