By Hugh Holland
Our world is at a crossroads. Every day now, we hear about another devastating and costly drought, heat dome, wildfire, storm surge, flood, tornado, or just miserable weather.
Nobody, anywhere, rich or poor, will escape the ravages of climate change and the resulting mass migration of desperate people. So, we have some stark choices to make about what kind of future we want our children and their children to live in.
Will we choose a future in which our tax and financial systems fail to address climate change and leave everyone in fear of violent weather, shortages, and mass migration, even the very rich living in paranoia in secured bunkers, and others living in fear unprotected from increasing poverty?
Or will we choose a future in which everyone is considered human, and we use our now available knowledge and technologies to mitigate climate change, share available resources, and give everyone a fair and honest shot at a decent life?
Climate change is by far the biggest global and national threat, and the time to get control of it is fast shrinking. As climate change advances, extreme weather events are consuming more and more of our money, leaving less and less money for food, water, buildings, infrastructure, health care, education, and causing social unrest, clearly a losing proposition.
However, climate change, with its many causes, effects, and solutions, is a complex issue that is easily manipulated by uninformed or ambitious politicians. So, if we want our governments to effectively address climate change, we voters must educate ourselves and demand results from them.
The salary of an MP is $203,000 compared to the average salary in Canada of $63,013. To get elected, politicians try to both REFLECT AND LEAD the opinions of their supporters, and they succeed by coming up with slick storylines. Poilievre’s “Axe the tax” campaign is a dangerous example.
Recently, the COVID pandemic and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, on top of the rising costs and resulting mass migration from extreme climate events, have transformed the political debate into one of short-term economic sustainability vs. slightly longer-term climate sustainability. Short-term thinking seems to be winning, and we will all pay a big price for it in the long term.
The carbon tax is designed to motivate everyone, both producers and consumers, to mitigate climate change. It may help them get elected, but politicians are irresponsible in suggesting that the climate crisis can be totally solved by producers with no help or minor sacrifices from consumers. So, solutions take much longer, and climate impacts become more and more severe.
By wrongly claiming the carbon tax doesn’t work, Poilievre has managed to make it a wedge issue, even though people can use the rebate from one quarter to fund the tax for the next quarter.
Yes, there may be a few people who can’t make that work, but with a little imagination, most people can. We are truly in a world war against climate change, but until personally affected, many seem unwilling to make any changes or sacrifices as were made during WW1 and WW2.
Both the steam engine of the First Industrial Revolution of 1800 and the internal combustion engine of the Second Industrial Revolution of 1900 were met with great resistance. Now, in 2024, we are 20 years into the Third Industrial Revolution, which features the replacement of fossil fuels with clean electricity. It is the most consequential change since 1800. But once again, scientists and governments are facing heavy resistance to change.
Since 2007, various forms of carbon pricing have been implemented in 42 countries, including most of Europe, Japan, Australia, and China in 2021. Canada’s first carbon trading system was started by Alberta Conservatives. Like Buckley’s mixture – A carbon tax “Tastes awful, but it works”
However, Poilievre has twisted the facts to mislead Canadians. He claims Canada alone cannot make a difference by reducing emissions. All but the USA and China could say that. He claims 42 countries were wrong about a carbon tax because it is ineffective. That is pure misinformation. The key measurement is emissions per capita. Canada’s emissions per capita are now twice that of China, higher than the USA and second only to Saudi Arabia. Fortunately, they are finally starting to trend downward. The world’s best scientists and economists, along with some simple fact-checking, confirm that the carbon tax is indeed slowing the growth of emissions per capita and must be increased as planned to achieve a faster rate of emissions reduction.
Here is the good news: We now have all the necessary technologies and resources to achieve net zero emissions. But to engage and assist all sectors in all possible solutions, we need to gradually increase the carbon tax and use the revenue to accelerate the transition to zero-emission energy. If you are not burning fossil fuels, you won’t pay a penny of carbon tax.
The Liberals and NDP agreed to a small increase in the capital gains tax that will have no significant impact on the top 5% but will help to address some of the fairness issues for lower-income people. But, like Trump in 2016, Poilievre is obsessed with landing the top job and has no problem misleading lower-income voters to further enrich his more affluent supporters by cutting their taxes. Trump’s 2018 tax cuts increased US national debt from $21 trillion to $27 trillion in 2020 and continued to $30 trillion in 2022. It’s much easier to cut taxes than to reinstate them if needed.
Canada has all the technologies and resources it needs to lead the third energy revolution. If we lead the change, our old tech jobs will be replaced by new tech jobs in Canada. If we lag the change, we will still lose our old tech jobs, but the new tech jobs will go elsewhere.
Our carbon tax has already engaged many consumers and motivated many industries to invest in the new Zero-Emission technologies (electric vehicles and equipment, heat pumps, ZE buildings, hydrogen, wind, solar, Small Modular Reactors, deep geothermal, co-generation, ZE agriculture).
Poilievre’s “Axe the Taxes” campaign is entirely negative. He hasn’t tabled a single positive idea because he’s afraid they won’t pass scrutiny. Canada is a trading nation, and he would cost Canada dearly in reputation, international trade, and the rapidly rising costs of climate change. We don’t have the luxury of time to spend the next five years going backward.
Hugh Holland
Hugh Holland is a retired engineering and manufacturing executive now living in Huntsville, Ontario.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Bob Braan says
Ontario used to be 96% non-fossil fuel power for decades.
Something to be proud of.
We only needed a small amount of green energy and storage to get to 100%.
Green energy and storage is the least expensive source of new energy around the world.
We were well on the way with 750 green energy projects already under construction.
Until Doug Ford nuked it all and wasted 100s of millions of taxpayer dollars doing it.
Along with cancelling all the money and energy conservation rebates funded from Cap and Trade.
Energy conservation has the same effect as new generation for pennies on the dollar.
Pennies.
Demand was going down for 12 years 2005-2017, in spite of the population going up, due to energy conservation programs.
Now, since Doug Ford’s meddling, demand is going up again to be met with billions in dirty nat gas plants instead.
Ontario is now down to 90% non-fossil fuel and dropping.
Ontario is getting less green unlike the rest of the world.
Something to be embarrassed about.
Among Ford’s many other embarrassing mistakes, scandals and flip flops.
Search “This community just threw a wrench into Doug Ford’s plans for new gas plants”
Cities are using legislation Ford created to stop his dirty, unneeded, extremely expensive gas plants.
That’s funny.
“Multiple studies have shown that the province can meet its power needs without building new gas plants, and that solar and wind power, as well as programs that reduce electricity demand through incentives and efficiency, are much cheaper in the long run.”
Bob Braan says
Remember “Poilievre ran in favour of carbon taxes multiple times in his career”
Remember Poilievre was also a big fan of the carbon tax.
When it suited
But now he’s the official opposition so lying and complaining about everything is his thing.
Good idea or bad.
Complaints are easy. And worthless.
Solutions are hard. And very valuable.
Nothing of any value has ever come out of PP’s mouth. Just complaints.
He even says Canada is broken but most premiers are Conservative.
Housing, health care and education are mostly provincial responsibilities.
Don’t believe those who blindly parrot Conservative lies. Over and over.
It’s insulting.
Poilievre and Doug Ford are counting on blind parrots.
Audrey Berend says
The Capital Gains Tax is affecting investment in Canada and discouraging doctors, among other professionals from settling here. It has a profound effect on Muskoka and “cottage” country. Sadly, our country is mired in debt now and tax and spend has not improved Canadians productivity nor GDP. It’s a long discussion…. but anyone who believes only the top 5% are affected are wrong. The Liberals spent 30 billion on oil and gas, so the Carbon Tax in many eyes, is “green washing”.
Nathan Cockram says
Anybody who is still apologizing for this wretched federal government is not to be taken seriously.
Allen Markle says
Hugh Holland: Great tenacity on this subject sir, but I wonder who’s listening. Our leaders today are all about power and control over the people. Hardly concerned with the well being or service to the people. Oodles of “I’m in charge and ain’t I great!” A lot of the “Nero fiddled while Rome burned” syndrome.
And I believe that we, Canada and Canadians are pretty small frogs in this pond called earth. Our leaders and industry hardly demonstrates much desire in saving us let alone the world. Even though we are in a position to do so or at least help.
I did find the Audrey Berend fascination with the Capital Gains interesting. How it is so stressful for doctors!! Well Boo Hoo! That tax is a product of John Diefenbaker and the Royal Commission in 1972. 52 years on and every government has used and none have found it necessary repealed it. It’s a tax and that’s how governments get money. I think it is/was stressful for everyone of us who has had to pay it, not just doctors!
Again Mr. Holland, keep trying. But sometimes it must feel like shouting at the wind.
John K. Davis says
Mr. Holland, as a good Liberal you continue to spew the Party line. You pointed out how many countries have a carbon tax, what you fail to point out is how little if anything all this carbon tax has positively affected our climates, around
the world. Forest fires have not diminished, we have more hurricane’s, more damaging Sunamies, higher temperatures etc. where is the proof that carbon tax is doing anything to help our climate?
What I would like to hear is what you have changed in your life to reduce your carbon footprint? Have you downsized your vehicle or vehicles, are you driving less, reduced the size of your residence or residence’s, are you staying at home and not flying on vacation, eating only locally produced food so as to lessen carbon created to bring food from afar. I know you will have hard data to show your commitment to reducing carbon and how much carbon tax you are saving yourself, by doing these things.
I look forward to seeing your data showing your carbon reduction.