A carbon tax makes sense in principle. There are environmental costs from greenhouse emissions that aren’t currently accounted for. A true capitalist system accounts for the full cost of an item. Taxes are also the simplest way governments change behaviour by creating a collectively agreed upon disincentive.
There are also good reasons to be skeptical of the application of carbon taxes. From the carbon taxes proposed thus far it’s not clear that the tax is applied consistently and fairly. The NDP’s carbon tax is a good example. Some industries were exempt, others not. People don’t like taxes. They especially don’t like taxes perceived to be unequal. It wasn’t clear if the carbon tax hurt domestic industry while sparing foreign business. There was disagreement with how to use carbon tax revenue.
Furthermore, meeting international emission targets, like the Paris Accords, will likely involve much higher carbon taxes than currently discussed. Liberals have proposed a tax of $50/tonne by 2022. But to achieve the Paris targets will require significantly higher carbon pricing. That means a significant reduction in our standard of living. All major federal parties are praying that some magical technological breakthrough will save them from asking us to make that type of sacrifice.
It will take time to bridge these two sides. Any solution lacking bipartisan support faces an uphill battle. I’d rather wait a few years for jointly agreed action than watching successive governments implement, then repeal carbon taxes.
Remember, recognize and respect.
There must be more sensitivity to the oil and gas industry. Every societal good that Canadians enjoy today can be traced back to oil. Our modern lives are full of comfort and convenience. None of it would be possible without cheap energy. That convenience does not come easily. It comes from hard work, often in remote brutal conditions for long stretches of time away from families.
To bask in the comfort and safety of a world leading economy and country built on the back of this energy and its workers or to accept billions in equalization money while criticizing the industry that supplies this money is the height of hypocrisy. To not remember this history, to not recognize what we owe to the oil and gas industry and its workers is disrespectful.
Considering the wealth this industry has created for the country, if carbon tax policies are to move us away from this industry, much more attention should be spent considering how to alleviate the pain for those affected. The majority of whom are Albertan.
More pressing problems
There is another good reason why the major federal parties all essentially pay lip service to climate change.
Matt Gurney wrote in Maclean’s about the current view among Canadians. “Abacus recently published numbers showing that 27 per cent of voters are “extremely” worried about climate change. Another 56 per cent of Canadians are “very” or “quite” worried. This is a super-majority of voters: 83 per cent. But only 12 per cent of Canadians identified it as their top issue—more than half of the people who are “extremely” worried are still more worried about something else.”
Climate change may be a long term problem, but most people have more pressing worries. Take Medicine Hat for example. Since 2014 the amount of investment in the Albertan oil and gas sector has dropped in half.
Medicine Hat has/had 4x the national average of jobs in oil and gas extraction. We have 8x the national average for oil and gas supporting jobs. When that investment dried up so did a lot of local jobs. A lot of our neighbours are worried about their next paycheck, not some far away problem. Here’s a good article on how many Albertans are struggling.
Another scary statistic. Half of Canadians live paycheck to paycheck. That so many people in one of the richest countries in the world live such precarious lives should be a warning. Carbon taxes will likely involve a reduction in standard of living and many Canadians aren’t prepared to absorb increased costs. There maybe good reasons why people can’t seem to save. We need to understand those reasons.
Long term planning
But long term societal planning is about suitable risk mitigation. If there is a good likelihood of certain things happening, prudent planning would address these increased risks. Even climate change deniers admit that the costs from severe weather events is climbing. Even if weather events weren’t increasing in intensity (they are increasing, but for the sake of argument let’s say they’re not), increasing development puts more infrastructure and property at risk. In that light the effects of extreme weather warrants some response now.
Preparations for the Anthropocene:
Mitigation and Adaptation
The left and right disagree on a lot, so let’s instead focus on solutions that both sides might agree to. Focusing on mitigation rather than on decreasing greenhouse emissions is a place to start. Part of that is looking at the potential effects of extreme weather from a non-alarmist view. Here’s what we can expect in Medicine Hat.
The South Saskatchewan river is a good proxy for climate effects. Local river flows illustrates that Mother Nature has huge amounts of natural variation. Climate change will increase that unpredictability, but the amount of variation due to climate change won’t be significant until later this century. In simpler terms, the peaks and valleys of weather events (floods, droughts, storms) will continue to grow and be more extreme.
The climate has been unusually stable for the past 10,000 years, a geological period known as the Holocene. It looks like this stability might end. Since we’re likely locked in to further environmental strain in the medium term we should prepare for the types of events we’re likely to see more of.
The Arctic will continue to open up as sea ice melts. Canada will need to aggressively assert our sovereignty in the north, especially over the Northwest Passage. It is concerning that even the USA does not recognize Canada’s sovereignty and considers this an international passage. It is not, this is Canadian territory, but as we learned in high school—sovereignty must be exercised or lost. This requires more funding for the military—with a focus on protecting our interests in the North.
Increased research and development into agriculture to prepare our crops for changing weather patterns and to safeguard our food supply. Agriculture also accounts of a quarter of greenhouse emissions—more R&D would also help solving this challenge.
Better forest management will be needed as more forest fires and insects threaten this vital resource.
Encourage people to move away from shorelines as storms are likely to get worse. Begin by removing insurance for properties in high risk places. Our collective insurance shouldn’t have to protect expensive beachside houses in risky areas. Don’t protect vulnerable areas with expensive reinforcements. When houses are destroyed by storms and floods pay people to build elsewhere in less risky areas. Fighting Mother Nature in the long term isn’t a winning proposition. Those that remain in risky areas can take steps to better protect themselves. People living near dry forests can protect themselves through fire mitigation strategies.
Update the Species-at-Risk Act. We won’t be able to save all endangered species and should give up trying. Most species live in very narrow geographical ranges and are extremely sensitive. We should concentrate on protecting keystone species and focus on good land management rather than species protection. Take the sage grouse for example—ensure we have the best land management policies that provide the best chance for the endangered sage grouse (and other species to survive). But if the sage grouse doesn’t survive we should move on. We should be clear headed about the hard choices facing us.
Developed countries have a much easier time dealing with natural disasters than poor countries. Until we figure out a more sustainable path to industrialization for developing countries they should continue to develop and will need some fossil fuels (not all fossil fuels are created equal). Fossil fuels remains unmatched as a useful energy source and while it is causing the increased climate problems, it’s also the best way to mitigate its effects.
We don’t have enough renewable energy to replace fossil fuels right now. Until we do, it makes sense that we prioritize the most efficient extraction, delivery and use of our fossil fuels. Canada is a leader in the energy sector and should work to remain one. We’ll need more pipelines to both coasts, perhaps prioritizing LNG pipelines. We should maximize the return on our oil and gas resources as we’ll need the money to fund these policies.
The world is going to get more dangerous and disruptive. Avoiding divisive solutions in favour of mutually shared ones will help safeguard our faith in government and in collective action. Environmental problems will strain political systems around the world. It’s also important to set a good example with our own governments.
Until we make progress on building consensus on our environmental problems these are common sense steps to mitigate the effects of climate change.