By David Harrison
Noble cause corruption refers to unethical behavior by individuals or groups who believe their actions are justified because they are in pursuit of a noble or morally righteous goal. The idea behind it is that the end (the noble cause) justifies the means, even if those means involve dishonesty. While this term is often used in relation to law enforcement and criminal justice, it can also apply in other fields, especially in politics, where people think they’re serving a greater good, leading them to compromise ethical standards.
According to the Hon. Pierre Poilievre, the Liberals are guilty of Noble Cause Corruption, and the upcoming election will be a referendum on Canada’s Carbon Tax.
To clarify my position on global warming, climate change, and CO2 issues, I consider myself a pragmatist rather than a skeptic. I prefer to rely on peer-reviewed facts, not opinions, and I like to examine facts in context rather than in isolation. This approach helps me cut through the political bluster and extremist propaganda on both sides of the debate.
The Carbon Tax, introduced by the Liberal Government in 2019, is designed to change our national habits by reducing our carbon footprint—that is the amount of CO2 we’re each responsible for emitting into the atmosphere. But is the Carbon Tax truly an effective way to change behavior? If there’s no significant change in individual or corporate habits, then, as the Conservatives argue, the Carbon Tax is just a costly burden imposed on Canadians by the current government.
Has the Carbon Tax become a ‘political corruption of a noble cause’? Let’s look at the numbers, courtesy of Statistics Canada.
Statistical Sleight of Hand?
British Columbia is often held up as an ideal example when discussing the Carbon Tax as it was the first province in Canada to introduce one back in 2008. But what has been the outcome?
According to Statistics Canada, gasoline purchases in BC increased from approximately 4,496 ML* (million litres) in 2008 to 4,918 ML in 2023, an increase of 12%. However, during that same period, BC’s population grew by 25.8% (context). On a per-person basis, gasoline consumption has actually decreased by 14% over those 15 years.
*A ML (mega litre) = 1-million litres.
You might think, “Aha! That proves the Carbon Tax works!” Not so fast…
Currently, a litre of gasoline in Vancouver averages $1.76 (CAD). Just across the border in Washington State, the same litre of gasoline at a Costco gas station sells for $1.20 (CAD), which is 32% less. Furthermore, back in 2013, the Business Council of BC reported that same-day trips to the U.S. from the Lower Mainland region rose from 2.3 million trips annually to nearly 5.7 million that year, a 248% increase! More context.
If we assume that each same-day traveller from BC fills up with 50 liters of gasoline before returning to Canada, this suggests that 285 mega litres of gasoline are purchased annually in the U.S. by these travellers. Additional context. This amount represents significantly higher consumption than what official statistics recognize—about 6% higher, negating 68% of the supposed reduction in gasoline use.
Does your government “promise to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”?
We also need to consider the “COVID factor” in questioning the effectiveness of the Carbon Tax. Currently, 20% of British Columbians work from home, a reduction from the 40% who did so at the peak of the pandemic in April 2020. Even more context.
The simple truth is that gas consumption in “eco-friendly” BC, despite the tax, driving habits remain largely unchanged. Has it been worth the hassle? You can let the politicians know your opinion at the next election.
Behavioural Change?
The main argument against the Carbon Tax, particularly one that increases gradually over time, is that it’s unlikely to change Canadians’ behavior—the very goal of the tax. Consider the following example:
“From 1990 to 2013, per capita Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) increased by 2.56%, reaching 9,014 km per person in 2013. During that same period, inflation-adjusted gas prices in Canada increased by about 38%, peaking in 2008.” (Shenstone/Harris, 2016).
In January 2006, the average price of gasoline in Canada was $0.95 per liter. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $1.40 today. As of January 2024, the price is $1.44—an actual increase of only 0.03%. Has a three-tenths of one percent increase really changed anyone’s driving habits?
Similarly, gradual price changes are unlikely to alter other behaviours—such as eating habits. During the long Canadian winters, most fresh produce is imported by truck, with only a small portion of the total distance driven occurring in Canada. Additionally, Canadians will continue to heat their homes in winter and cool them in summer out of necessity, regardless of ‘minor’ energy price increases.
While the Liberal government promotes the idea that families will receive a rebate at the end of the year, it’s important to note that this rebate comes from money taken out of Canadians’ pockets each month through increased food prices, etc.,—typically when families need that cash the most. With a recent headline stating that “40% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency” (though this statistic is viewed with some skepticism), it highlights just how crucial cash flow is to families; making a twice-yearly rebate less helpful.
The Carbon Tax costs Canadian taxpayers $100 million per year, with 465 full-time government employees. Add to this the administrative and reporting costs imposed on businesses.
Another contextual consideration is that Canada’s largest industrial polluters are either exempt from the Carbon Tax or pay reduced rates. In this context, only a very direct “carrot and stick” approach will be effective in changing individual habits.
What can we do to make measurable changes to Canada’s carbon footprint?
No. 1. Improve public transit. There is a direct correlation car usage and the availability and efficiency of public transit. In the chart below compare Prince Edward Island to British Columbia. This chart also shows the dip in most provinces caused by the 2008/2009 economic crisis.
No. 2. Encourage the use of electric vehicles. Place a premium ( an ‘ICE Tax’) on vehicles with internal combustion engines and use that same tax to subsidize zero-emission vehicles. 1.756 million new vehicles were sold in Canada in 2023. Placing a graduated tax, starting at $500 and raising it to $5,000 for the worst polluters, would bring in approximately $3 billion in revenues per year that could be used to directly subsidize ZEV purchases. The revenues would be on a declining scale as more and more ZEVs are purchased. Going all-electric would reduce Canada’s total CO2 emissions by 28% in about ten years. Ontario has introduced a pricing plan where you can charge your EV overnight for only 2.7 cents per kWh (peak rates are higher with this plan). If you average 19,200 km of driving, it will cost you $81 to fuel your car (30,000 kWh) for a year.
No. 3. Use the same incentive principle for the purchase of transport trucks. Most major truck manufacturers are investing in ZEV technology, and an ICE Tax would accelerate their introduction.
No. 4. Invest more in solar, wind and hydro technology. This year, 2024, California has reached 100% renewable electricity production.
No. 5. Incentivise people to improve their personal energy efficiency. For example, using a $99 programmable timer on an electric hot water tank (so that it is off during peak periods) can save the homeowner $200+/yr.
No. 6. Incentivise Canadian (local) manufacturing. This is usually done by cutting through the ‘red tape’ (unnecessary rules and restrictions) and reducing corporate taxes for manufacturers. When an individual purchases products from outside of Canada, transportation is one of the most significant CO2 contributors to a product’s carbon footprint. Canada as a whole doesn’t emit a lot of CO2 compared to other manufacturing countries like China and India. The establishment of the carbon tax in Canada will have a minuscule effect on worldwide CO2 emissions, while other countries will not have to pay that carbon tax. The carbon tax will stifle our industries while other countries produce the same goods at a significantly lower cost.
The following is a simple example:
Today 1-pound of steel costs +/-$0.40 including the Carbon Tax. Chinese steel costs $0.20 to $.032 per pound with no Carbon Tax (Canada is introducing a 25% duty on Chinese steel this month).
No. 7. Level the playing field. If there is going to be a Carbon Tax, apply it to all imports. As of 2017, only 27 countries, representing about 14% of global GHG emissions, have put a price on carbon.
A Few ‘DID YOU KNOW’ Facts (from the EDGAR database):
1. “A conservative estimate of Canada’s existing carbon-absorption capacity, based on land area and the global carbon-absorption average, indicates that Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit. Using the same calculation, the “Big Four” polluters of China, the U.S., the European Union, and India, which together are responsible for a whopping 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions, release 10 times more CO2 than their combined land area absorbs. Canadians don’t seem very dirty now, do we?” Financial Post
2. Canada ranks 9th in the world on total CO2 emissions, and 12th on individual emissions.
3. Canadians produce 62 tonnes of CO2 per sq. Km/yr. This compares to Russia’s 103 tonnes, New Zealand’s 136 tonnes, Mexico’s 258 tonnes, the USA’s 519 tonnes, and Holland’s whopping 4,176 tonnes. Denmark, the land of wind turbines, produces 779 tonnes. Canada is blessed with having the second-largest landmass in the world.
3. Canada’s 33 million individuals each produce 16.9 tonnes of CO2 per year. This is in spite of two very important facts: we live in a country with annual temperature extremes*, especially in the winter. We also live in a country of extreme distances**. In comparison, individual Danes produce 5.9 tonnes of CO2 per year, Australians 16.4t, and South Koreans 13.2t.
*Canada’s temperatures have a huge impact on individual energy consumption. In Winnipeg, MA, mid-winter temperatures average -21.4C and summertime temperatures of +25.9C. Denmark averages +1.5C in winter and +17.2C in summer.
** A direct flight from St. John’s, Newfoundland, to Victoria, BC, takes 8 hrs and 20 min, covering a distance of 6,800 km. Denmark, by comparison, is a country that has 0.43% of Canada’s land mass, and the farthest distance you can travel in one direction is 385 km.
4. Did you know that about 76% of Canada’s electricity comes from zero-CO2-producing sources (hydro and nuclear)?
5. Did you know that synthetic fabrics create a +/- 40% smaller carbon footprint than fabrics made from wool or cotton?
Following his retirement, David Harrison and his family moved to Huntsville in 2017. That year, they started a B&B that has since been ranked (twice) by Airbnb as the ’No. 1 most hospitable hosts in Ontario.’ During the COVID shutdown, David expanded his occasional blogging to book writing and has a number of titles on Amazon, one of which has become an Amazon Best Seller.
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
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Mr Harrison presents some interesting ideas about carbon pollution reduction measures. Unfortunately, he is not Pierre Poilievre who has given no indication what his solutions are to meet the global climate change crisis that involve all of us in the world- except to “axe the tax” -his simplistic catchy three word mantra. It is alarming is that Mr Harrison is quoting data that seems to say that people in this place have no responsibility for impact of our highly developed, fossil fuel based, polluting overconsumption of earth’s resources. Why does he think tourists come to his B and B to enjoy our natural benefits of clean air and water and escape from dense urban development elsewhere? Our tourism and local economy is dependent on people who want this escape from the pollution of our fossil-fuel based economy, looking to connect with nature- the real Muskoka experience – so we are inextricably linked with the fossil fuel polluting industry( enabling the global polluters essentially) On a personal every day consumer note, I would challenge the notion that synthetics in clothing are somehow a better product than pure wool or cotton which are at least compostable vs blends( so synthetics are just more plastic really) – we need more circular production design.
Bill Beatty says
Great article . I like the idea of taxing combustion engines and putting that money directly into E V purchase assistance.Much like the myth of ” affordable housing ” , Electric vehicles are not affordable for most and until prices drop sales will remain at less than 10% of the market.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
There is carbon tax and carbon emissions trading. Many countries use a form of carbon pricing. As of 2023, there were 73 carbon-pricing systems operating worldwide, covering around 23 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. My neighbor complained that he has to drive less because of the price of gas.
Well, I guess the tax is working correct ! Pierre wants to AXE THE TAX but has no idea as to how to fight climate change. It’s time to AXE him.