WhatFinger


Neither Prime Minister has a coherent and consistent position on carbon pricing

Tony Abbott, Stephen Harper, and Climate Change



The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is currently in Canada visiting with the Canadian PM Stephen Harper. Apparently the topic of conversation has turned to climate change and carbon taxation.
As I demonstrated recently, Harper is in tough waters regarding his credibility -- or lack thereof -- on climate change skepticism and opposition to carbon taxation. The simple fact is that since assuming office in 2006, Harper has brought into force many forms of effective carbon taxation in Canada, such as regulations on vehicles, renewable fuels, and the electricity sector with the explicit aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to thwart supposed anthropogenic climate climate. These regulations have increased the cost of living and doing business in Canada over the past number of years when compared to the alternative "do nothing" approach. And such measures have undoubtedly harmed Canada's economic growth. Perhaps that is at least part of the reason why between 2006 and 2012, Canada's real per capita GDP increased by only one percent. One percent total growth! Over six years! Early news in 2014 suggests this current economic year for Canada may be equally bad to the previous seven, perhaps even headed backwards when normalized for both inflation and population growth. What should the Harper administration do? They should remove each and every one of those economy and job killing climate regulations that are already in force and/or planned. With a majority government, this roll-back process would be trivial. If the Conservative Party of Canada is serious about real economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians, they will do this. If they are not, they won't. The choice is simple.

Support Canada Free Press


Principled conservatives simply don't speak in such double-talk

Sadly, there remains a large climate credibility gap for Stephen Harper, but not with the left side of the spectrum. Rather, conservatives doubt his credibility on the topic. Witness these statements to the press and public by Harper during his meeting with Abbott:
"Harper told reporters he feels the same pressure 'that we all feel' to make progress against climate change, and said measures taken by U.S. President Barack Obama don't go nearly as far in the electricity sector as Canada's measures. 'It's not that we don't seek to deal with climate change. But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth, not destroy jobs and growth in our countries. And frankly, every single country in the world, this is their position,' Harper said."
Principled conservatives simply don't speak in such double-talk, and it clearly isn't working. Since mid-2011, polling support for Harper's Conservative Party has fallen like a rock. Why? Because much of the conservative base has lost trust in the Conservative Party of Canada. We heard promises of real conservatism for many years leading up to the majority win in 2011, and then simply didn't see principled conservatism put into practice after the mandate was given. This leads to the deep suspicion that Harper is just trying to rally the base for the upcoming 2015 election, but that if he wins another mandate he will just return to even more pseudo-liberal wishy-washy policies, including and especially on the climate file. In his speeches during Abbott's visit, Harper praised the Australian PM for his fight against carbon taxation:
"Harper praised Abbott for his work as chair of the G20, as well as for ending Australia's carbon tax. 'You've used this international platform to encourage our counterparts in the major economies and beyond to boost economic growth, to lower taxes when possible and to eliminate harmful ones, most notably the job-killing carbon tax,' Harper said."
Fine, but then why did Harper give Canada multiple forms of effective carbon taxation himself? Any policy that is designed to reduce GHG emissions, and which increases the cost of a product or process above the non-GHG regulation alternative, is by definition a carbon tax -- regardless of whether you want to admit it is or not. A tax is a tax is a tax. So if carbon taxes are "job killing" (and they are), why does Canada have them at the federal level? Good question, and one with a simple solution: repeal all the effective carbon taxation regulations. Harper is now also caught in the web of his own hypocrisy. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that during Abbott's visit to Canada to meet with Harper, "in the face of President Barack Obama's push for action on climate change, the conservative leaders said the taxes are 'job killing' measures that would hurt their economies." OK, then why did Harper compliment Obama on his climate policies only one week ago?:
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted that Canada announced similar action [to the United States under Obama's latest climate plans] on coal-fired electricity plants in 2012, and he predicted the percentage drop in emissions from those plants is likely to be proportionately greater than those proposed by Washington. 'The NDP [New Democratic Party] praises the action today of the Obama administration, acting two years after this government acted and taking actions that don't go near as far as this government went,' Harper said."
At the same time as Obama was releasing his climate regulations last week, the Canadian media were reporting that "both Obama's new plan and the ensuing battle likely will have repercussions in Canada where Prime Minister Stephen Harper has linked the country's climate strategy directly with that of the U.S." Why was Canada's climate strategy ever linked to that of the United States under Obama, especially given how radical Obama's climate strategies always were since he assumed office in 2009? And, a better question, why does Canada even have a climate strategy? For Harper to ever link Canada's environmental policies to those of the Obama administration was a colossal mistake, and one that cannot be forgiven unless a complete reversal is undertaken. Consider the press release from Canada's Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq on June 2:
"We congratulate the Obama administration on proposing steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Our Government has already taken steps to regulate the electricity sector in 2012, and we are pleased that there will now be pan-continental regulations for this sector. The proposed U.S. rules will help contribute to a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in this sector over 2005 levels by 2030. Environment Canada estimates, in Canada, strict regulations on coal-fired electricity will help contribute to reductions of 46 per cent in this sector over 2005 levels by 2030. The Canadian rules on new units are in effect. The U.S. rules have not yet been finalized. Canada represents less than two per cent of overall global greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, the United States produces about 16 per cent of overall greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the coal-fired electricity energy generation in the United States produces twice the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire Canadian economy. It is important for major emitters to do their part, and we call upon other major emitters to do likewise. In the first 21 years, Canada's coal regulations are expected to result in a cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing some 2.6 million personal vehicles per year from the road. As a result of our regulations, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units ... Building on our record, our Government would like to work in concert with the United States on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector. The integration of our economies suggests our countries should be taking action together, not alone. This is consistent with our successful approach to align with the United States on emissions regulations for the transportation sector. In fact, an integrated approach in this sector means 2025 passenger vehicles and light trucks will emit about half as many greenhouse gases as 2008 models."
Just one week ago, Canada's Environment Minister under Harper was congratulating the Obama administration for its new radical climate policies and encouraging even more drastic regulations, along with bragging about banning "the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation" (i.e., intentionally raising electricity costs for Canadian residents and businesses -- thereby killing jobs and curtailing economic growth), and even going so far as to say the Conservative Party of Canada "would like to work in concert with the United States on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector" which "is consistent with our successful approach to align with the United States on emissions regulations for the transportation sector." It sounds like Harper and Obama were in bed together on climate policies up until last week. And now Abbott and Harper are united against Obama's climate plans? Sounds like a major policy flip-flop, or even some measure of past, present, or future deceit. One climate policy one week, an entirely different one the next week. Why should Canadians trust the Harper government on this file? It appears even Abbott is confused as to what carbon taxation really is:
"Speaking at a media conference on Tuesday from the Canadian capital Ottawa along-side the anti-carbon tax prime minister Stephen Harper, Mr. Abbott said the [sic] he was encouraged at the new US approach of requiring coal-fired power stations to cut emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, because it did not place a price on carbon but used regulation to cut pollution ... 'We think that climate change is a significant problem, it's not the only or even the most important problem the world faces but it is a significant problem and its [sic] important every country should take the action that it thinks is best to address emissions,' he said. 'I am encouraged that President Obama is taking what I would regard as direct action measure to reduce emissions, this is very similar to the action my government proposes in Australia.'''
Abbott thinks regulatory action requiring coal-fired power stations to cut emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 isn't putting a price on carbon? What nonsense. Coal is generally the cheapest form of electricity, and the only way to cut emissions at coal-fired power stations is by installing very expensive carbon capture and sequestration equipment -- thereby substantially increasing the cost of electricity from coal. Of course this is carbon pricing. To claim it isn't is complete intellectual gibberish. And it sounds like Abbott has the same plans for Australia, which is to say that Abbott is moving to enact further carbon pricing down under.

Carbon pricing is carbon pricing, whether it comes in through the front door or the back door

One wonders which low-information voters are fooled by such silly word games. Carbon pricing is carbon pricing, whether it comes in through the front door or the back door. If your cost of living or doing business increases even one cent beyond the do-nothing counterfactual because of GHG reduction policies, you are on the receiving end of carbon pricing/taxation. Don't deceive yourself. The incoherence reaches new highs when reading that "Tony Abbott has claimed vindication for his stance on climate change by noting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also opposes a market mechanism, such as a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, to fight carbon emissions." Aren't these conservatives? If you are going to engage in carbon emissions reductions, then a "market mechanism" would be most efficient according to fundamental conservative ideology. Apparently Abbott and Harper want to use the likely least economically efficient regulatory path to carbon emissions reductions rather than the more efficient "market mechanism"? Huh? How is that something to be proud of? Ideally, neither leader would seek in any form to reduce carbon emissions, but if the fallback position is that they will move to lower emissions, surely a conservative would prefer a "market mechanism" to the terribly inefficient and undoubtedly unfair regulatory mechanisms the two leaders are espousing? In contrast, the left-wing parties are clear and uncompromising in their desire to reduce GHG emissions, generally via the more efficient market-based mechanisms. Rather ironic. Overall, rather than clarifying the waters, both Harper and Abbott have muddied them. Voters are unlikely to be impressed by the incoherence and hypocrisy. What is needed is a principled conservative position by both prime ministers, not the recipe for regulatory and economic disaster that appears to be headed our way.

Recommended by Canada Free Press



View Comments

Sierra Rayne -- Bio and Archives

Sierra Rayne holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry and writes regularly on environment, energy, and national security topics. He can be found on Twitter at @srayne_ca


Sponsored