MARK MACDONALD
BRITISH COLUMBIA – Carbon taxes are the latest in a long line of “sin taxes” that governments use to extract more taxes from constituents.
Cigarettes, liquor, even soda pop. Carbon’s time is here, under the not-so-subtle guise of cleaning up the environment. And if that’s not enough to justify piling another levy on the masses, heighten the conversation to apocalyptic levels, suggesting that without measures like these, man’s existence on earth will cease with a generation or so.
It couldn’t be yet another case of government creating either the problem or the narrative, and voila, coming up with the solution, could it? Of course not. . .
Whatever it is, a good question to ask is: Does the carbon tax work in terms of actually preventing pollution and increasing the longevity of life on this planet?
The answer is a plain and straightforward no. It is not. In fact, the most effective thing the federal carbon taxes – which are going up again in 2023 – does is fill government coffers. 74 per cent of carbon tax revenue goes straight to general revenue on Ottawa’s books. 14 per cent goes back to taxpayers, somehow. Most still can’t figure out how any individual receives more money through “instant” carbon tax rebates than what it pays out through direct fuel tax at the gas pump, or via increases in the cost of goods and services because the businesses providing them are subject to the carbon tax.
Have you received a carbon tax rebate check from Ottawa? We certainly haven’t. I’d love to hear from someone who has such a thing in their possession.
This fall I attended a Fraser Institute seminar in Vancouver, which I found very helpful and informative. The Fraser Institute is a well-respected economic think-tank that measures and reports on numerous important Canadian issues from a fiscal standpoint. For the record, the Fraser Institute is unequivocally not a conservative organization, as some try to paint it into a corner, isolating it as an obtuse Conservative vantage point. Which allows make-believe groups like the Canadian Centre For Policy Alternatives, a real-life NDP/Socialist apologist agency to paint themselves as legitimate economic thought projectors. Except their conclusions are simply “wrong”. Conversely, in most things economic, the Fraser Institute is “right”, as in correct, because their summaries are the result of lengthy, accurate measurements and calculations. The CCFPA is policy and ideologically driven and is more a wish list for the way they want things to be, as opposed to what is. Which is why their diatribes are immediately whisked to the email trash bin.
Elmira Aliakbari, Director of Natural Resource & Environmental Studies at the Fraser Institute, led the Carbon Tax session at the Vancouver gathering, and provided a thorough and thought-provoking analysis of the subject.
While identifying that the purpose of carbon taxes is to save the environment, Aliakbari disclosed she was in favor of the measures, to some degree.
“If Canada does its part, we are hoping that others follow us. We need other countries to follow suit,” she said. “At least we are doing something.”
Except as facts and figures were shared, it became clear that it wasn’t doing that at all. Have emissions been reduced? Has new, “earth saving” technology created that makes air cleaner and water purer been developed? No. In fact, it could be viewed as unfair to subsidize companies doing such work on the backs of other businesses. Playing favourites, if you will, which is never a good message for governments to share.
One can’t leave out the fact that Canada’s contribution to “global warming” is negligible, due to its less than 40 million people who are spread out across the world’s second largest country land mass. Any significant advance or curtailment is immediately drowned by emissions in true global powers like China, India, Russia and the United States.
Aliakbari noted that no country has created a well-designed carbon tax, and offered the following observations:
- The federal carbon tax plan, even with most of the revenues being refunded to households, will impose substantial costs on the economy.
- Real household consumption will decline in every province, which highlights the challenge the federal government will face in achieving their goal that most Canadians will be made better off by the plan.
- If the government intends to refund the revenues as planned, it will go into deficit since there will be revenue losses elsewhere in the tax system.
Further, she noted that this tax will shrink Canada’s economy by 1.8% if it results in reducing carbon output by 25%. It will reduce employment by 1.1% in Alberta, and household income by 2.5%. Total job losses are projected to be a staggering 184,377.
This policy will shrink Canada’s economy, reduce jobs, raise $10 billion less revenue from income tax (where the federal government receives the lion’s share of income), and produce significant deficits.
Aliakbari pointed out that “Even if Canada shuts down, it won’t have a material impact on global carbon dioxide emissions.”
As Scott Moe, Premier of Saskatchewan, opined recently: “The Carbon Tax doesn’t reduce emissions. It reduces jobs.”
As I mulled and mused the presentation, I wrote down my own summary, then spoke it out loud: “Is the real, unstated goal of the carbon tax to slow the economy? And by so doing, through less productivity, create less carbon?”
There was no response.
Mark MacDonald is President of Communication Ink Media & Public Relations Ltd. and Author of the book “It Worked For Them, It Will Work For Me: The 8 Secrets of Small Business I Learned From Successful Friends”, which can be obtained by reaching him through: mark@communicationink.ca
