NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh walks on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa, on Sept. 16, as members of Parliament return from summer break.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
A wave of magical thinking is sweeping over Canadian politics, with politicians on the right and now the left fantasizing that there is such a thing as a pain-free way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre (and his kindred spirits in provincial conservative parties) has been on the leading edge of that wave, for years decrying the federal fuel charge as an onerous burden. But he has yet to say exactly what he would do after axing the carbon tax.
Not to be outdone, the NDP is now joining in on the fantasy of a painless climate policy, or at least one that does not pinch “working people.”
Last Thursday, federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said his party no longer supports the Liberals’ carbon-pricing policy of levying an escalating fee on fossil fuels, while returning around 90 per cent of the proceeds to households in payments every three months.
“We want to see an approach to fighting the climate crisis where it doesn’t put the burden on the backs of working people, where big polluters have to pay their fair share, have to pay the price of their pollution, but it shouldn’t be on working people’s shoulders,” he told reporters, speaking four days before Monday’s by-elections.
He remained artfully vague about what he would instead propose, or exactly who qualifies as “working people.”
If lower-income households are Mr. Singh’s concern, he should have no qualms about endorsing the current federal fuel charge. Those households are clear beneficiaries under the Liberal’s carbon tax, receiving more in quarterly payments on average than they pay in tax. Perhaps Mr. Singh is worried about the highest-income households, who do indeed, on average, bear a net cost.
Of course, the federal Liberals have done a lot all on their own to damage the case for the carbon tax. Last fall’s exemption of heating oil from the levy, a nakedly political move aimed at shoring up the party’s support in Atlantic Canada, undermined the Liberals’ argument that most households are better off under the policy.
Later last Thursday, British Columbia Premier David Eby – weeks ahead of a provincial election – said he will scrap his province’s fossil-fuel charge if Ottawa scraps the law requiring it. He said the provincial NDP would ensure “big polluters are paying their fair share,” echoing Mr. Singh’s language.
Mr. Singh and Mr. Eby have gotten one thing (inadvertently) correct: big polluters should indeed bear their fair share of the costs of reducing Canada’s greenhouse-gas emissions. But their rhetoric runs aground on this hard fact: those big polluters are … everyday Canadians.
Emissions from transportation accounted for 22 per cent of the national total in 2022, the most recent year for which data is available. That was second only to the oil and gas sector, with 31 per cent of total emissions. Emissions from buildings were close to 13 per cent of the total, while electricity generation accounted for nearly 7 per cent.
Added together, transportation, buildings and electricity were responsible for just over 41 per cent of emissions in 2022.
There is no plausible way to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint without decreasing emissions in those sectors. Even if the entire oil and gas industry were to be shut down – and ignoring the ensuing economic catastrophe – Canada would still be well short of meeting the 2030 goal of reducing national emissions by at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels.
Meeting Canada’s greenhouse-gas targets requires collective action, and will result in collective pain. This space has consistently argued that an escalating levy on fossil fuels is the least painful option, since it allows individuals and businesses to decide how to reduce carbon emissions.
Any other alternative will end up being more costly, not less. That added expense may be necessary to ensure the political durability of climate-change policies. But it is ludicrous to assert, as do Mr. Singh and Mr. Eby, that “big polluters” will be the only ones to pay.
Yes, the industrial carbon levy could be ramped up, or regulations could be enacted that mandate specific reductions. But the added expenses, either in taxes or regulatory burden, would be passed through to consumers, without the benefit of offsetting payments.
The only way to avoid those expenses is to do nothing about climate change – a policy sleight of hand that would be the most costly choice of all.