The Carbon Tax Is Good for Canadians. Why Axe It? | The Walrus
thewalrus.ca
Pierre Poilievre’s sloganeering is based on a false premise. But the Liberals fumbled a smart policy

The year 2023 was by far the warmest in human history. Climate extremes now routinely shock in their intensity, with a direct monetary cost that borders on the unfathomable. Over $3 trillion (US) in damages to infrastructure, property, agriculture, and human health have already slammed the world economy this century, owing to extreme weather. That number will likely pale in comparison to what is coming. The World Economic Forum, hardly a hotbed of environmental activists, now reports that global damage from climate change will probably cost some $1.7 trillion to $3.1 trillion (US) per year by 2050, with the lion’s share of the damage borne by the poorest countries in the world.

And yet we fiddle.

In today’s Canada, there is deception, national in scope, coming directly from the right‑wing opposition benches in Ottawa. In 2023, the populist Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre adopted “Axe the tax” as his new mantra and has shaped his federal election campaign around that hackneyed rhyme.

    • delirious_owl@discuss.online
      10·
      2 days ago

      On December 11, 2008, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said that a carbon tax is preferable to a cap-and-trade program which “inevitably introduces unnecessary cost and complexity”. A carbon tax is “a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach”. Tillerson added that he hoped that the revenues from a carbon tax would be used to lower other taxes so as to be revenue neutral.[13]

      Wtf, how is this possible? If your carbon tax doesn’t convince your biggest polluters to divest from fossil fuels, you’re doing it wrong.

      The whole point is that it is not revenue neutral

          • lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca
            4·
            2 days ago

            But it doesnt work. Grocery stores raise their prices to cover the carbon tax on deliveries, and the consumers pay more. Its not like we can choose to buy only bananas that were delivered by an electric truck.

            • delirious_owl@discuss.online
              21·
              2 days ago

              If it costs you $30 to buy a banana delivered by fossil fuels and $1 to buy a banana that was delivered by sail boat, which would you buy?

              • lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca
                3·
                24 hours ago

                I have neither option option. All bananas are delivered to my landlocked town via the same truck.

                Bananas are probably a bad example because they are so perishable. They have to be transported in a very controlled environment. Theres no way youre getting bananas from Guatamala to Canada via sailboat and still having them be saleable.

          • Mushroomm@sh.itjust.works
            4·
            2 days ago

            No…it let’s the large companies continue to pollute while passing the penalty off to those who can’t afford to move the needle even slightly. This needed protections against this before the tax was levied but good fuckin luck getting legislation against Canada’s ogliarchs that actually effect their bottom line

        • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
          2·
          2 days ago

          And their customers (e.g. manufacturers, transportation providers) factor in both those price hikes and the carbon taxes that they themselves need to pay, and pass those costs on to their customers, and so forth until finally end consumers are paying for several rounds of carbon tax that’s priced into more expensive goods and services.

          In many cases, there’s nowhere for market forces to displace the inefficiency, so things just get more expensive without changing supply chains much.