Environment
Green Shifting Doesn't Have to Make Your Head Spin
Since Liberal leader Stephane Dion was apparently downplaying his party's Green Shift plan by not mentioning it when speaking recently in Toronto, and then avoiding it again when visiting Western farmers, I figured a highlighting of said plan is in order.
When asked about the centrality of the Green Shift to the Liberal platform, he was quoted as saying "You have said it was, but never me." That's a bit confusing, but perhaps an understandable statement given in the context of announcing big handouts to farmers (who are worried about being hit financially from the plan).
So what to think of the merits of the Green Shift plan?
In A Nutshell
The Liberals would introduce a $10 per tonne of carbon emissions tax at the wholesale level, increasing by $10 in each of their four years in power to $40 in the fourth year (by comparison the international consensus seems to be that $30 per tonne is necessary to be effective - in BC they started at $10, rising to $30 by 2010).
The heaviest fossil fuel consumers will likely pay the brunt of the tax- heavy industry and power plants. Gas pump prices would not affected since taxes there already exceed those in the plan.
All the tax revenue collected is promised to be offset by equal amounts of either tax cuts or new spending.
Sounds pretty simple right?
Obviously there is a plethora of questions that spin out of any attempt at explaining the idea. Luckily it's receiving a ton (no pun intended) of editorial attention so there is no shortage of thorough analysis, that doesn't have to make your head spin, if you look in the right places.
The Ottawa Citizen published two great articles over the weekend on the subject. The first explains the subject of pricing carbon broadly and how the Liberal plan stacks up in contrast to the options out there. The second summarizes why it is likely to be a tough sell to the public.
Toronto based environmental lawyer Diane Saxe wrote a straightforward piece outlining her reasons for supporting the Green Shift and debunking some associated myths.
It will be extremely interesting to see who comes out in support of the plan or against it. There are lots of criticisms to be made centering mostly around (a) the timing of such a tax (current economic woes); and (b) the complexity of tying it in to other spending (and not just a direct income tax cut). But in general it seems to me that experts in the field of policy and environmental law agree that if you are going to aim for reducing carbon, the plan makes sense. Whether or not carbon reduction should be a national priority is another question. However, if you say it is (and all parties do - including the Conservatives), then some sort of price on carbon is the only way to really make that happen.
Finally, if you want to hear about it straight from the leader himself: download the mp3 version of Stephane Dion's interview on TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paikin from last week.
Photo: Angie McKaig.
Discussion
20 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
I live in this world, and my kids will live in this world, and I think something should be done. In my opinion, this is the first good thing Dion has done. I can't believe he has taken so much flac from Canadians. I guess that goes to show the Scare Tactic/Propaganda Techniques the Conservatives are using really turned most forward thinking Canadian's into environment hating drones.
Big lesson here to the Liberal Party (especially Gerard Kennedy): when you're going up against known bullies in a fight, don't pick a leader who always seems like he's being beaten up.
What we have here is a sensible plan, but nobody to sell it.
The reason why this issues isn't gaining more traction is because of Dion's inability to speak to English Canada and talk about his message. Secondly, because most people don't have more than 30 seconds to absorb a message, it would get lost on those who might benefit from it. Thirdly, let's call a spade a spade and say this is a tax grab. It's easy for the Conservatives to use this argument (whether it's right or wrong) in most of the country outside of urban centres where the effect will be felt greatly.
What I wish would happen is the plan to include another plan for rebates for consumers. This way instead of just charging extra under this plan people should have the ability to get assistance (in the form of a rebate) for everything that they do to become more environmentally friendly.
If you're going to try and sell a hockey stick to someone who doesn't play sports, you'd better be fully prepared to demonstrate what other benefits that stick might have; Dionhas been portrayed, accurately or not, and largely perceived as having all his eggs in the Green Shift basket, while failing to tell Canadians how he'd keep them employed and healthy.
The major flaw I see with this policy (and the entire economic agenda of the Green party) is that it is regressive taxation. This policy hurts the poor, working poor, and lower-middle class much harder than the rest. (Conservative really love this fact...)
In addition - if you are trying to discourage people from buying products that contribute to your tax revenue - your revenue starts to shrink dramatically. Where will the gov't find funding for programs if they have less tax to collect?
Bullocks.
30 seconds? Dion has repeatedly summed up the Green Shift in this 5-second sound byte: "less tax on what you earn, more tax on what you burn."
If you heard M. Dion on The Agenda, The Current or The Hour last Thursday, he gave a simple explanation and of the plan and passionately made the case for it.
It is absolutely clear that this is a tax shift, not a tax grab. Those who call it a tax grab are, simply, lying.
It amazes and appalls me that Canadians appear ready to believe lying oil spots and pooping puffins, rather than demanding and listening to intelligent, reasoned debate.
Dave, you wrote, "This policy hurts the poor, working poor, and lower-middle class much harder than the rest. (Conservative really love this fact...)"
But part of the Liberal plan is to reduce lower/middle income tax by about 10%.
I'd say that basically negates that argument.
... ugh... I hate to say this, but the NDP's cap and trade seems to make more sense...
Of course, 11% is also not going to win you an election, and that number shrinks even further when you consider it was only 7% in AB, 6% in Atlantic Canada, and barely even registered as a concern in SK and MB.
here's my proposal: Dion needs to co-opt the little doggie in the photo as the official Green Shift mascot - Pooch can be the Liberal equivalent of Harper's sweater vest.
Some possible taglines:
"Harper thinks that if you can't see it, then the green problems will go away"
"See no evil? That's Harper's approach to the environment"
"Don't care about the environment? Then cover your eyes and kiss your grass goodbye" (my favourite)
@Dave: We gotta work out a name sharing agreement.
Rather than being truly revenue neutral, the Liberals have worked in significant social spending <i>in addition to very significant income tax cuts</i>
I support the social spending, and the idea of a carbon tax, ao I support the green shift. But by combining these two different initiatives and calling it "revenue neutral", they're misleading the public and they shouldn't be playing these games with such an important initiative. They're reaching. If they didn't incorporate the spending, they could be highlighting double-digit cuts to income taxes without second-guessing themselves or being portrayed as tax and spend socialists.
If you want to increase social spending, be straight with people and tell us that. Don't try to piggyback it onto the environmental agenda.
And, to back up ratpick, they've picked the worst leader in the world to do the heavy lifting.
But, yeah, Dion is not the greatest spokesperson. His appearance on The Hour the other night struck me oddly. Strombo didn't necessarily ask great questions, but when Dion tried to dodge certain ones, it was ugly. If I were undecided, it definitely wouldn't have won me over - and might even have turned me away.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/09/17/new-poll-of-young-voters.aspx
"? The environment (27%) and education (25%) are the most important issues in this election for young voters. The economy (17%) and health (15%) make up a second tier, while no other issue is higher than 4%."
The Liberals and NDP and Greens have done a terrible job getting their messages out there, but can you really blame them when the Cons could have been (and likely were) working on their campaign materials for weeks before the election was officially called? Every 5th commercial seems to be the Cons trying to scare people...
And you know what? The last thing people what in an economic crisis is new 'wacky' plans. They just want stability.
The green shift is a bit of a mess, it confuses people, and Dion is one of the worst Liberal leaders in a while. They'll get knocked pretty hard in this election, but it will hopefully wake them up and make them realize that just because they've been in control of Canada 70% of the time, it doesn't mean they don't still have to work hard for it. Conservatives just plain want it more and are far more organized and ready to lead the country right now. The left parties just feel a little lost right now.
Libs screwed this election up unfortunately. Kennedy deserves a swift kick in the nuts for crowning Dion.
As for the world economy, I don't recall any other country having the same problems the US is facing. Even the food pricing/shortage issue seems to be resolving. Gas prices are up and a few thousand lost their jobs making cars, but that's not a new phenomenon here.
I'll be voting NDP, but I hope for another minority government (Cons or Libs, doesn't matter).