Liberals Refuse to Answer Key Questions on Carbon Tax

Obviously, the government does not want to get into the details of their program. It is likely far more costly than projected, and the actual reductions likely far less, given the track record of governments worldwide to continuously miss carbon promises.


0
2.6k shares
Canada Environmental Assessment
Donate All donations go towards promoting independent journalism and this month's charity.

Earlier this week, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa, Manitoba, Robert Sopuck, asked the Liberal Minister of Environment a simple question.

“How much would Canada’s emissions be reduced under $50 a ton carbon tax?”

The Honourable Minister’s response?

First, a shout out to the coal phase-out that occurred in Ontario. Seemingly forgetting that Ontario residents now get the highest bill each month in the country as a result of their poorly managed, highly regulated, and “clean” energy.

Then an awkward tangent on how their government believes in “math”, and finally a note that the largest economies with the best support in our province mystically continue to be the fastest growing areas in the country.

Seemingly forgetting that the Carbon Tax made our nation less competitive overall, and that national numbers, alongside Alberta’s growth figures, would make far more sense to look at when discussing its destructive effects.

Here we see a completely different trend, where the Canadian economy is slowing down, actually contracting in January, and investments are halting to an 8 year low as new outside investments simply fail to materialize.

Who would have guessed that in these fairly stagnant circumstances Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Montreal would still be a better place to invest than P.E.I?

Maybe the Minister believes that if we are all poor, we stop noticing inequality?

Who knows, but the Minister’s response continued by simply not providing any real numbers or basis to how much the Carbon tax will actually reduce the carbon footprint of Canadians.

I suspect I know why.

According to the National Post, the Carbon Tax could cost the average Canadian household $2,569 in new taxes when in full effect.

While carrying a fairly heavy cost its effects may be minimal on the global playing field.

Canadians as a whole represent a very small portion of global greenhouse gas emissions, we only create 1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The Trudeau government’s own carbon emissions target for 2030, would bring Canada’s total annual emissions down from 748 megatonnes (Mt) this year, to 524 Mt by 2030.

Assuming we can meet that target and that’s a massive assumption Canada’s total annual emissions would drop by 224 Mt.

In comparison, China’s existing policy will see annual carbon emissions rise to about 13,600 Mt in 2030 from it’s current 10,540 Mt. That means that in less than one month Canada’s entire carbon savings would be countered by gains from new Chinese carbon producers.

Obviously, the government does not want to get into the details of their program. It is likely far more costly than projected, and the actual reductions likely far less, given the track record of governments worldwide to continuously miss carbon promises.  

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not a climate change denier. I simply do not believe in the way we are currently combating climate change in a meaningful and non-harmful way.

At this moment you have a scenario where homes in our major cities are becoming so expensive that vast amounts of Canadians are moving to the suburbs.

Many of these individuals commute daily to Toronto or to their specific regional hubs by car as their local public transportation systems are utterly terrible. These people are by no means wealthy, and they are facing the brunt of our poorly managed carbon tax regime.

The solution is to research and develop better technology in Canada through a free market, instead of forcing unready and expensive solutions on the entire population.

Ontario did make “strides” in 2003 by removing coal plants, but it also put far more of its population into a scenario where they had to choose food or hydro, and that is simply not fair.

The former leader of the NDP perhaps broke this problem down the best:

“Those advocating a carbon tax suggest that by making the costs for certain things more expensive, people will make different choices,” Layton said.

“But Canada is a cold place and heating your home really isn’t a choice.”

Heating your house in weather dipping below -30 degrees Celsius, driving your car in cities that lack public transportation and poor housing options, and trying to compete against low-cost foreign production are not real choices when the other options is not freezing to death, not having a home, or not having jobs.

It’s time we discussed climate change and the current carbon tax openly and fairly, understanding that we do need to take action, but that the current strategy is simply wrong, misguided, and hurting Canadians.

What do you think? Let us know below!


14 Comments

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

  1. Any government misrepresenting, omitting or straight out lying about scientific reality is immoral. First consideration is that CO2 is not pollution and although emissions from energy industry are increasing CO2 levels, what is the actual anthropogenic factor and does it actually increase global warming at all? CO2 is still a trace gas I our atmosphere and is currently about 400ppm. Is the variance or 80-100ppm of CO2 really going to have a measurable affect on global warming? There is a lot of science suggesting CO2 responds to global temperature not causes it. At very least we need to be having these conversations pragmatically without slandering each other. Our Energy Minister calling doubtful Canadians “Deniers” is nothing more than childish name calling and is massively unbecoming of a Canadian MP. I don’t believe in calling people derogatory names, but I understand why people are calling her what they do. Basing massive taxation and the crippling of our energy industry on a narrative that is going to have zero affect on human CO2 is not only irresponsible, but it corrupt if the hidden motive is actually to extract higher taxation.

    The second point I want to make and really is the most important one is what is the alternative? Global population drives energy demand up, as well as the development of third world nations. Wind & solar are romantic, but despite being politically attractive are actually ineffective for any industrial level energy requirements. Current green energy is the most expensive energy options in the world and has a much higher environmental footprint than the green movement will admit. Of course we should invest in better energy alternatives, but we shouldn’t demonize and destroy the energy methods that humans rely on to provide a civilized existence until there is an actual viable alternative. The only ways to actually slow /reduce CO2 emissions from energy is to stifle, then reduce population growth and deny people in third world nations the affordable energy needed to develop their industrial markets. Is it moral to do either of these things? It certainly makes one understand why they don’t tell the truth about CO2 emission numbers and the realities of Canadian contribution to it in relation to the taxes they are asking us to pay.

    I believe a more responsible plan is to invest in finding better energy while we continue to upgrade scrubbing technology for fossil fuels. Particulate pollutants in the burning of coal and other fossil fuels are pollutants and those should be our immediate concern. Also we should use our foreign aid money to help ALL developing nations upgrade their scrubbing technologies for cleaner use fossil fuels.

  2. How many Liberal MP’s would have to cross the floor in order to remove the Liberal majority and democratically put a stop to this joy-ride of lunatics? Are there any Liberal MP’s who have enough integrity and backbone to stand up for Canada?

    1. Simple answer is, No, I don’t see any of them having the intestinal fortitude to cross the floor. I hate floor crossers. If they don’t agree with the anointed one they should step down or sit as an independent, which ever their constituency wants.

    2. No liberal mp has the courage to cross the floor! Plus the envelopes they get stuffed with cash keep then swinging on Trudeaus meat bat!

  3. Re: Growing global expansion. A reason that is often given for allowing immigrants into Canada is the fact that Canadian families are having fewer children.
    Research that for yourself.

    Step 1. Isolate which countries are increasing global population.
    Step 2. Ask why those countries have a higher percentage of children.
    Step 3. Then rethink carbon tax

  4. How about taxing people with no green space ? Like those who live in condos ,apartments etc. Rural people should be exempt. Ones who own acreages or farms or any property with green carbon sincs on it Why tax those who have viable solutions?

  5. How about taxing people with no green space ? Like those who live in condos ,apartments etc. Rural people should be exempt. Ones who own acreages or farms or any property with green carbon sincs on it Why tax those who have viable solutions?

  6. The article does have a lot of merit as well as the comments. The Governments did a knee jerk reaction with put any proper information or knowledge what would happen. This in Alberta is a PROBINCIAL SALES TAX no question about the NDP’S reasoning for it grab money and run. No thought or discussion on how Companies can reduce the Carbon emmision. Any trading partner we had has been lost. They have increase the cost and pass it on to buyer which will not at for increase

  7. Your point is well made, IF were something more than a small contributor, reducing our footprint would maybe make some sense. Comparing the population of Canada to our US neighbor, who are we trying to kid?

  8. It doesn’t matter if we’re creating 1.6% of the world’s greenhouse gases or 16%.We’re still responsible for 100% of whatever greenhouse gases that we create. That’s what we should be focusing on.

Ali Taghva

Business owner, former riding President, and Bachelors in Industrial Relations from Mcgill. Interested in the intersection of politics and culture. I firmly believe in a free media and work to push new stories to your door each day.

Choose A Format
Story
Formatted Text with Embeds and Visuals
Video
Youtube, Vimeo or Vine Embeds