If the Elected Carbon tax in Canada will quadruple in the next five years

Nikita Pradhan
Nikita Pradhan News
8 Min Read
Image From: < a href = https://unsplash.com/photos/red-love-neon-light-signage-qAQsVsSxp_w?utm_content=creditShareLink&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash

Last week, like a lot of Canadians, I received my quarterly carbon tax reimbursement. And similar to at least a few thousand of them, I comprehended their purpose.

To assert that the Trudeau Liberals have excelled in the dissemination of information regarding the carbon tax reimbursement — pardon, the “climate action incentive”—would be to call into question Trump’s dedication to the principle of law.

Their failure to disburse physical checks to individuals or even to ensure a uniform description of the deposits by banks has exacerbated the already arduous task of garnering support for their hallmark climate policy among Canadians.

To elucidate why recent polls forecast Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party of Canada to secure over 200 seats in the upcoming election, this serves as a pertinent point of departure.

The persistent resistance to the carbon tax in regions like Alberta and Saskatchewan is predictable. However, the statistics emerging from Atlantic Canada, where the federal tax and reimbursement officially commenced in July (following the inadequacy of provincial climate schemes), ought to be considerably more distressing.

A recent Postmedia-Leger survey revealed Atlantic Canada as the region most opposed to the carbon tax, with 48 per cent of respondents advocating for its complete abolition. The national figures offer scant solace, with merely 18 per cent of Canadians endorsing the continued escalation of the carbon tax and 68 per cent opposed to paying more for fuel to aid Canada in achieving its net-zero objectives.

Shocking News | Justin Trudeau Will Increase Carbon Tax

Yet, while it might be tempting for some within the Liberal faction to contemplate scrapping the policy, such action would constitute an admission of failure — and a mode of political self-destruction.

Instead, they would be wiser to intensify their commitment to carbon pricing. Primarily, they must undertake a significantly more effective endeavour to elucidate why individuals receive funds in their bank accounts each quarter and who bears responsibility for it.

This calls for exhibiting the utmost audacity, whether by dispatching counterfeit checks to every rebate recipient or devising alternative methods to underscore the reality of the reimbursement and its anticipated expansion.

Moreover, they must alter the electoral discourse surrounding the carbon tax. If the choice is between paying a tax (and receiving a reimbursement that far too many individuals still find perplexing) and paying nothing, the decision for numerous voters will be straightforward.

However, if the decision pertains to whether Canada’s immensely lucrative oil corporations should shoulder their equitable burden or ordinary citizens should assume it on their behalf,? Well, then, the political calculus might conceivably begin to favour the Liberal government.

They could achieve this by proposing a halt to the consumer segment of the carbon tax and coupling it with an augmented carbon tax on oil and gas extraction.

This was one of the two alternatives contemplated by the federal government before opting for the emissions ceiling that Steven Guilbeault still pledges to implement this autumn. His preference for a cap-and-trade system is hardly surprising, given that Quebec has long operated such a mechanism for its provincial greenhouse gas emissions.

Political Strategy: Rethinking Carbon Pricing

However, modifying the extant carbon tax in a manner that grants consumers and small enterprises respite while more effectively placing the burden on the oil and gas sector, which accounted for 27 per cent of Canada’s emissions in 2020, harbours considerably greater political advantages for his Liberals.

This is particularly true given the meagre contributions made by Canada’s major oil and gas companies toward their emissions. While ordinary Canadians bear the full weight of the carbon tax, large industries are subject to only a fraction of it due to a scheme known as “output-based allocations.”

These allocations serve to prevent so-called “emissions-intensive, trade-exposed” companies from simply relocating their operations to jurisdictions lacking a carbon price, a scenario detrimental to Canada’s interests. However, it is more challenging to justify this practice for oil and gas firms, considering they cannot feasibly relocate their existing wells across borders.

For instance, in 2020, Suncor Energy, Inc. remitted a mere $0.12 per barrel—indeed, that amounts to a trifling 12 cents—in carbon taxes and associated compliance expenses, while its 2023 Climate Report forecasts an average cost over the ensuing decade (2023-2032) of $1.70 per barrel for its production and $0.48 per barrel for its exceedingly lucrative refining operations.

They can, and ought to, contribute more substantially. Were they compelled to confront significantly higher carbon prices in the future, they might finally allocate some of their surplus revenue to the decarbonization initiatives they espouse.

We started a poll on our Scoop Canada YouTube Channel, seeking our subscribers to vote if they agree with Guilbeault’s claims that CARBON TAXES are helping decrease pollution and make life affordable. The majority of our subscribers disagree with this. If you feel the same give your valuable vote by clicking here

Scoop Canada YouTube Poll

Economic Impact: Revisiting Carbon Pricing Mechanisms

This approach is likely to perturb Canada’s contingent of environmental economists, who have always favoured the conceptual purity of a comprehensive carbon price. However, with all due deference to their sagacity, political resilience supersedes economic efficiency at present—and perhaps always has.

Carbon pricing is simply too intricate to elucidate and too susceptible to misrepresentation, particularly within a federal system wherein provinces like British Columbia can opt out if they have established their carbon pricing (and reimbursement mechanism).

Poilievre has capitalized on this in British Columbia for years, falsely asserting his ability to “eliminate the tax” when the federal government lacks such authority there, and the means-testing of reimbursements in British Columbia merely exacerbates confusion elsewhere.

It is time for Ottawa to streamline matters. By shifting the responsibility more overtly and transparently onto Canada’s most emissions-intensive industry, the Trudeau Liberals can help clarify the political stakes for voters in the forthcoming election.

Rather than inquiring whether they wish to pay a tax that others pledge to abolish, voters can decide whether Canada’s oil corporations should be compelled to adhere to their rhetoric.

Last Updated on by Nikita Pradhan

Share This Article
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *