Jaccard analysis blunts NDP's carbon tax axe

authordefault
on

Simon Fraser University Professor and (Nobel-winning) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contributor Mark Jaccard has torn the BC New Democratic Party (NDP) policy document into little tiny shreds in an analysis released yesterday [PDF].

The NDPโ€™s environmental proposals are not just doomed to failure, Jaccard said, they will also chase jobs from B.C. in the tens ofย thousands.ย 

For people not from Canadaโ€™s coast, the NDP is a traditional coalition of social policy progressives, labor activists and environmentalists. This particular iteration of the NDP, however, appears intent upon carving off its environmental arm in favour of pandering to the libertarian types who just love to scream about governmentย taxation.

The tax in question – the first formal carbon tax imposed by any jurisdiction in North America – is arguably the most progressive climate change policy on the continent. At just $10 a tonne, it is embarrassingly modest, but itโ€™s aย start.

Rather than criticize it as inadequate (a completely reasonable position), the NDP has chosen to attack it as somehow unfair and as less effective than their (according to Jaccard) laughably incosequentialย alternative.

In fairness, Jaccard doesnโ€™t use the phrase โ€œlaughably inconsequential,โ€ but he posts a couple of nice graphs that show the consequences of the NDPโ€™s previous initiatives. And he segues in the this commentary on politicalย cynicism:

Given the strength of this evidence on the failure of non-compulsory policies โ€ฆย it might be difficult to imagine why politicians might stillย opt for this ineffective approach. But the reason is obvious to political analysts. Policies thatย price GHG emissions cause rising energy prices for consumers. Consumers are also voters. Thus,ย while an economist or an environmentalist might express dismay and even shock that politiciansย would continue to promote and implement clearly ineffective policies, a skeptical politicalย analyst or media pundit might argue that Canadian climate policies have been, from theย perspective of some politicians, a โ€œpolitical success.โ€ The setting of aggressive GHG targets andย the reliance on ineffective information and subsidy programs have enabled politicians to speakย convincingly about their deep concern for the climate while, at the same time, not causing risingย energy prices for which they might be blamed at election time. If, a decade or two later, it isย shown that the political promise to reduce emissions failed, that day of reckoning is likely toย come long after the politician has left office.

There is, conventionally, no reason to be shocked or dismayed that your average politician might be tempted toward short-sightedness and expedience. But in Canada, the NDP once had a reputation for putting principle ahead of political gain. BC NDP leader Carole James promised to forge a new direction when she took over the party. ย Who knew this was the direction she wouldย choose?

This month weโ€™re giving away FREE copies of Thomas Friedmanโ€™s bestselling book Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America.

Go here to find out more details about DeSmogBlogโ€™s monthly bookย give-away.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.
on

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.
on

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.
on

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?