The origins of the carbon-tax were events that took place with the failed Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and developed out of earlier UN agreements. The cornerstone of the UN position is and was “scientific consensus.” First, the UN disregarded some of the findings in its own report, indicating that there was already an agenda the report was used to justify. This does not mean environmental concerns should be dismissed but if a real solution is possible, it must take into account all the facts and not just ones that align with a preferred agenda. Second, science does not work by consensus. Science is a method, and it is based on proof for or against a hypothesis. It is not determined by a survey, particularly a survey of people who have a vested and probably economic interest in certain outcomes. To that point, we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic that much of the research complex has been compromised by vested and economic interests. Dr. Antony Fauci for example, one of the highest-placed US government scientists, has been heavily criticized in the US Congress and particularly by Senator and medical doctor Rand Paul for his activities during the pandemic. The crux of the allegations was that Dr. Fauci had both vested and economic interests and so his advice may not have been completely based on proven scientific evidence. In fact, multiple US news sources in 2022 reported that Dr. Fauci had investments in China. He also was compromised in the funding route upon which he had signed off. The Kyoto Protocol failed because the environmentalists claimed it did not go far enough. More substantial problems arose from participating parties, both governmental and scientific. Russia thought it discriminated in favour of some countries and that it was not universal. The method for making determinations within the protocol framework was questioned. Some did not like the carbon-trade approach and favoured a carbon-tax. More than 31,000 professionals in the US signed a petition objecting to the protocol. Canada was one of the countries negotiating the treaty and the accord was signed by the Liberal government at the time. PM Stephen Harper withdrew Canada from the accord with good cause. First, the energy sector falls under the provinces’ jurisdiction. The use of a carbon-tax only resurfaced when PM Trudeau decided on a top-down approach to force it upon a nation. His trick was the rebate. That is, “we will take your money and give you a little back to shut you up.” But for totally unexpected reasons Canadians coast-to-coast did not shut up. Farmers from Quebec did not shut up. Average citizens lining roadways with signs and shouts, did not shut up. Various media sources did not shut up. It is almost as if Canada was full of people who thought they were free to the surprise of the Liberals. Multiple news sources in the last few days reported on an open letter signed by economists from across Canada supporting the carbon-tax. The letter back-stopped the Liberals talking points. The same talking points that have already been proven inaccurate at best. There are a couple of considerations here. The expert economists are like the experts during COVID-19, and we all found out how sound their advice was after we paid a high price. Further, economists are similar to weather forecasters. In Canada, we check the weather forecast, finding it is to be a sunny day, we head out but grab a jacket and throw it in the back seat. Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.
