Taxes, axes and silence on alternatives

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/09/2024 (350 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In a recent national caucus meeting, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre told his MPs that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to increase the carbon tax to $170 per tonne by 2030 would trigger an economic “nuclear winter.”

“There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high … our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter,” Poilievre said at the Ottawa meeting. “Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.”

Of course, there is no evidence to support that scenario.

As it stands right now, the Liberal government’s carbon tax charges $80 per tonne of fossil fuel, with some variations based on the type of fuel. (The levy currently adds 17.6 cents on each litre of gasoline, 21.39 cents on each litre of diesel, 12.38 cents per litre on propane and 15.3 cents on each cubic metre of natural gas.)

To date, studies by economists have shown carbon taxes have had a negligible impact on the rate of inflation, and on key consumer goods such as food. While it would definitely have a larger impact six years from now, the overall economic impact is largely mitigated by rebates that go to every Canadian living in a province that is applying the federal levy. In most instances, Canadians receive more in rebate than they pay in actual carbon tax.

Further mitigating the impacts of the tax are aggressive government programs to encourage the development of clean energy from things like wind, and to incent Canadians to drive electric vehicles and to convert to air-source and geothermal heating devices.

How does Poilievre defend his assertions, which fly in the face of all the economic data and seemingly ignore all of the rebates and incentives? By not defending them.

Poilievre does not do interviews with journalists to defend his logic. He does not meet with environmental or industrial lobbies that have a keen interest in the policies he would pursue instead of a carbon tax.

Poilievre’s strategy has been to make absurd claims about carbon taxes without actually offering contrary evidence or an alternative plan for reducing emissions. It should also be noted that while he has promised to axe the tax for consumers, he refuses to offer a corresponding pledge for industry.

No matter. “Axe the Tax” has proven itself to be so wildly successful as a political strategy, Poilievre is under no pressure to offer alternatives. He is merely living within the current realpolitik, which dictates that any allegation, made often and loudly enough, will eventually resonate with voters.

In the United States presidential election, former president and Republican nominee Donald Trump continues to allege that Democratic governors are executing unwanted newborn babies and that legal Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are “illegal aliens” who are eating family pets. Trump has continued this attack despite the fact that no state allows the execution of newborns, the Haitians were legally admitted to the U.S., and there are no confirmed cases of pet-eating.

No matter. These false allegations are repeated often on social media and seem to be helping keep Trump very much in the race for the White House.

The only antidote for false assertions and allegations is knowledge. Educating ourselves about the reality of political issues would help us sort through the bluster and get closer to some form of the truth.

On the other hand, those “Axe the Tax” T-shirts are pretty cool.