We should seek to govern our nation based on facts, not on ‘feel-good’ gestures divorced from reality.
Over and over again, the Liberals claim Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre doesn’t have a “climate plan.”
This is an attempt to make him appear out-of-touch, and make it seem as if the Liberals are the only party that is serious about addressing climate change.
This is also the main Liberal justification for the carbon tax, which is constantly promoted as something that is essential and foundational to any attempt to address climate issues.
In a recent Tweet, or whatever Tweets are called now that Twitter is ‘X’, the Liberals continued to push that messaging:
“Our price on pollution makes life more affordable, fights climate change, and builds a stronger economy for all Canadians.
But Pierre Poilievre wants to make pollution free again. He has no plan for the environment or our economy.”
Our price on pollution makes life more affordable, fights climate change, and builds a stronger economy for all Canadians.
But Pierre Poilievre wants to make pollution free again. He has no plan for the environment or our economy. pic.twitter.com/7Cw5DAY0Ho
— Liberal Party (@liberal_party) July 24, 2023
Yet, none of what the Liberals are saying on the issue of the carbon tax is actually true.
To start with, the idea of a ‘climate plan’ is subjective. It’s a marketing term. For example one of the most popular policies of the Harper-era was the home renovation tax credit. Many homeowners made use of the credit to modernize their homes in ways which enhanced energy efficiency.
Another popular policy was the public transit tax credit, which incentivized the use of public transit – something often seen as environmentally friendly.
Could those ideas have been packaged together and promoted as a ‘climate plan’?
Of course.
Also, support for the Canadian energy sector – particularly LNG – can also be considered a ‘climate plan,’ given that Canada has better environmental regulations than many other large oil producers, and given that increased Canadian LNG production could displace higher-emitting coal production around the world.
Canada doesn’t need a carbon tax
The point here is that we don’t need a carbon tax to address climate issues.
I’ve shared this information before, but it’s worth sharing again and again:
As you can see, Canada’s per capita emissions declined under the Harper Government – all without a carbon tax. The decline was similar under the Liberals, especially when we account for the fact that the 2019-2020 emission reductions were due to a global pandemic, not anything the federal government did.
The point is that there is actually no discernable difference when we look at the actual per capita emissions picture under the Harper Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals.
For all their talk of ‘climate action’ and a ‘climate plan,’ they’ve done no better than the previous federal government.
In a rational world, you would expect this to have some influence over the political/policy debate in Canada. Faced with clear evidence that Canada can bring down per capita emissions without a carbon tax and while still growing our per capita GDP (as we did under Harper), it would stand to reason that we should reject a Liberal approach that has resulted in economic stagnation and a higher tax burden.
Unfortunately, much of the debate over climate issues in Canada is now centred around ‘feel good’ gestures. Many like to hear that the government is ‘doing something,’ regardless of whether that ‘something’ gets results.
This has led to our nation embracing policies that damage our economy and expand regional divides, while doing nothing for the climate.
The fact remains however that a Canadian climate plan could easily be based upon incentives rather than tax hikes, and could easily be nothing more than the government stepping back and empowering the Canadian entrepreneurship and innovation.
Liberal rhetoric on climate issues has become significantly divorced from reality, and nobody in this country benefits from remaining trapped in the Liberal framing of this issue.
Spencer Fernando
