At the heart of public policy formation in Canada is the struggle of gardeners vs. designers. In his 2020 book of the same name, economist Brian Lee Crowley describes the hubris of the ‘designers,’ who believe they have sufficient knowledge to impose their will on others. ‘Gardeners,’ by contrast, respect the great works of those who came before them and work to sustain and incrementally improve what already exists. .This is the conceptual divide between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party – or at least it used to be. These days it can be hard to differentiate between the two, especially since the Conservative Party Leader Erin O’Toole released a paternalistic social engineering scheme that may well be worse than the Liberal Party’s carbon tax. .O’Toole’s carbon “pricing mechanism” – read: tax – promises to be cheaper than the Liberal plan, starting at $20/metric-tonne, and increasing to $50/mt, but under his plan Canadians would be forced to spend their rebate on O’Toole approved green products, unlike the Liberal plan where citizens are free to spend their rebate as they see fit. Importantly, it may be difficult to trust O’Toole to keep his carbon tax capped at $50/mt after he already broke his promise to repeal (and not replace) the carbon tax, and is committed to meeting the US Paris Climate Accord’s targets. .O’Toole has both baffled and betrayed his base by joining the climate crusade. What rankles the base even more is the likelihood that the carbon tax will not actually reduce GHG emissions. Kenneth Green, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, explains because demand for high carbon goods is inelastic, an increase in price does not result in a significant change in demand for the goods, so people will likely continue to consume GHG at similar levels as before despite the imposition of a tax..Informed readers already know Canada contributes less than 1.5% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Its annual emissions are equivalent to that of China’s for one month, so one can hardly see Canada having a meaningful impact, no matter how much we tax ourselves for it. .The frustration is palpable: O’Toole has thrown fiscal austerity to the wayside to chase lofty but unattainable climate goals. Bjørn Lomborg, political scientist, and author, has estimated striving to achieve the Paris climate goals will cost up to $2 trillion a year globally yet have little effect on slowing climate change. Despite this fact, O’Toole has pledged the Conservative’s climate plan will meet the goals of net-zero emissions by 2050, faster than the Liberals. .Legislating a net-zero emissions target is grandstanding. Canada has failed to reach its 2020 target. To meet the Paris goals, the carbon tax would need to exceed $200/mt. Can O’Toole be trusted not to increase the tax beyond $50/mt at this point? .O’Toole’s ill-timed announcement stands in stark contrast to what Canadians are prioritizing in the pandemic recovery period. A poll conducted by the federal government in the summer of 2020 showed that only 2.5% of respondents thought climate change was the foremost issue to address vs. 56% concerned about COVID-19, health, and the economy. .O’Toole is caught between a rock and a hard place. John Manley, co-chair of the C.D Howe Institute Fiscal and Working Group, pointed out forming a government without support in the big urban areas outside the Prairies is a well-nigh impossible task. Since the major urban areas are very much on board with the fight against climate change, Conservatives must take actionable measures to appease them. .Conservatives have allowed themselves to be painted into a corner; instead of trying to sell a different brand of dishonesty than Trudeau’s, perhaps the way out of check for O’Toole could be something almost never done by a politician: tell the truth. And the truth is no amount of wind turbines, solar panels or carbon taxes will get us to the promised land. .We have to address the elephant in the room — nuclear is the only way we can address environmental concerns and be economically prudent. Ironically, O’Toole is already a proponent of nuclear power, so he doesn’t need to backtrack on any pledges..Unlike O’Toole’s carbon tax – which has alienated his base, led to plummeting approval ratings, and failed to garner any new supporters – nuclear is a win for everyone. Unlike renewables, such as wind, nuclear is efficient, reliable, and relatively cheap. The economy will benefit from affordable prices, the federal budget will benefit from money not being squandered, while rational environmentalists should be thrilled with the low land use and lack of carbon emission..Canada is already making great strides in developing nuclear energy, which is precisely why we don’t need more government meddling in energy policy in the form of a carbon tax to help the environment. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney recently joined Ontario, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan in signing an agreement supporting the development of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). SMRs, smaller than traditional nuclear power plants, are more affordable to build, scalable and can compete with other low-carbon forms of energy. The global market for SMRs is projected to be $400 billion to $600 billion, and securing a share would be a much-needed boon for Canada’s economy in the post-pandemic economic recovery phase. .Canada is the world’s second-largest uranium producer. Embracing nuclear allows us to further capitalize on our natural energy source endowment. Rather than engage in the uphill battle of imposing an inefficient and costly carbon tax, shouldn’t we take the path of least resistance and continue to nurture the investments that have already been made into nuclear energy?.Canada has much to learn from the case of France vs. Germany. French electricity costs are about half that of German prices, and France produces one-tenth of the carbon emissions. This disparity exists because France depends on nuclear for approximately 75% of its electricity, while Germany has subsidized expensive and unreliable solar and wind. This has increased the cost of electricity for households by 50%, as shown in a study on the costs of decarbonization, by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development..Genuine, permanent advancements are rarely a result of grandiose ‘designer’ government plans. Economic advancement comes incrementally, even quietly, by the intelligent development and implementation of technological innovations. Like gardening. .Nuclear energy is not new, but the technology has slowly and surely been evolving. O’Toole would be wise to scrap his carbon tax plan and double down on nuclear instead..Caitlin Rose Morgante is a Columnist for the Western Standard
At the heart of public policy formation in Canada is the struggle of gardeners vs. designers. In his 2020 book of the same name, economist Brian Lee Crowley describes the hubris of the ‘designers,’ who believe they have sufficient knowledge to impose their will on others. ‘Gardeners,’ by contrast, respect the great works of those who came before them and work to sustain and incrementally improve what already exists. .This is the conceptual divide between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party – or at least it used to be. These days it can be hard to differentiate between the two, especially since the Conservative Party Leader Erin O’Toole released a paternalistic social engineering scheme that may well be worse than the Liberal Party’s carbon tax. .O’Toole’s carbon “pricing mechanism” – read: tax – promises to be cheaper than the Liberal plan, starting at $20/metric-tonne, and increasing to $50/mt, but under his plan Canadians would be forced to spend their rebate on O’Toole approved green products, unlike the Liberal plan where citizens are free to spend their rebate as they see fit. Importantly, it may be difficult to trust O’Toole to keep his carbon tax capped at $50/mt after he already broke his promise to repeal (and not replace) the carbon tax, and is committed to meeting the US Paris Climate Accord’s targets. .O’Toole has both baffled and betrayed his base by joining the climate crusade. What rankles the base even more is the likelihood that the carbon tax will not actually reduce GHG emissions. Kenneth Green, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, explains because demand for high carbon goods is inelastic, an increase in price does not result in a significant change in demand for the goods, so people will likely continue to consume GHG at similar levels as before despite the imposition of a tax..Informed readers already know Canada contributes less than 1.5% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Its annual emissions are equivalent to that of China’s for one month, so one can hardly see Canada having a meaningful impact, no matter how much we tax ourselves for it. .The frustration is palpable: O’Toole has thrown fiscal austerity to the wayside to chase lofty but unattainable climate goals. Bjørn Lomborg, political scientist, and author, has estimated striving to achieve the Paris climate goals will cost up to $2 trillion a year globally yet have little effect on slowing climate change. Despite this fact, O’Toole has pledged the Conservative’s climate plan will meet the goals of net-zero emissions by 2050, faster than the Liberals. .Legislating a net-zero emissions target is grandstanding. Canada has failed to reach its 2020 target. To meet the Paris goals, the carbon tax would need to exceed $200/mt. Can O’Toole be trusted not to increase the tax beyond $50/mt at this point? .O’Toole’s ill-timed announcement stands in stark contrast to what Canadians are prioritizing in the pandemic recovery period. A poll conducted by the federal government in the summer of 2020 showed that only 2.5% of respondents thought climate change was the foremost issue to address vs. 56% concerned about COVID-19, health, and the economy. .O’Toole is caught between a rock and a hard place. John Manley, co-chair of the C.D Howe Institute Fiscal and Working Group, pointed out forming a government without support in the big urban areas outside the Prairies is a well-nigh impossible task. Since the major urban areas are very much on board with the fight against climate change, Conservatives must take actionable measures to appease them. .Conservatives have allowed themselves to be painted into a corner; instead of trying to sell a different brand of dishonesty than Trudeau’s, perhaps the way out of check for O’Toole could be something almost never done by a politician: tell the truth. And the truth is no amount of wind turbines, solar panels or carbon taxes will get us to the promised land. .We have to address the elephant in the room — nuclear is the only way we can address environmental concerns and be economically prudent. Ironically, O’Toole is already a proponent of nuclear power, so he doesn’t need to backtrack on any pledges..Unlike O’Toole’s carbon tax – which has alienated his base, led to plummeting approval ratings, and failed to garner any new supporters – nuclear is a win for everyone. Unlike renewables, such as wind, nuclear is efficient, reliable, and relatively cheap. The economy will benefit from affordable prices, the federal budget will benefit from money not being squandered, while rational environmentalists should be thrilled with the low land use and lack of carbon emission..Canada is already making great strides in developing nuclear energy, which is precisely why we don’t need more government meddling in energy policy in the form of a carbon tax to help the environment. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney recently joined Ontario, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan in signing an agreement supporting the development of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). SMRs, smaller than traditional nuclear power plants, are more affordable to build, scalable and can compete with other low-carbon forms of energy. The global market for SMRs is projected to be $400 billion to $600 billion, and securing a share would be a much-needed boon for Canada’s economy in the post-pandemic economic recovery phase. .Canada is the world’s second-largest uranium producer. Embracing nuclear allows us to further capitalize on our natural energy source endowment. Rather than engage in the uphill battle of imposing an inefficient and costly carbon tax, shouldn’t we take the path of least resistance and continue to nurture the investments that have already been made into nuclear energy?.Canada has much to learn from the case of France vs. Germany. French electricity costs are about half that of German prices, and France produces one-tenth of the carbon emissions. This disparity exists because France depends on nuclear for approximately 75% of its electricity, while Germany has subsidized expensive and unreliable solar and wind. This has increased the cost of electricity for households by 50%, as shown in a study on the costs of decarbonization, by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development..Genuine, permanent advancements are rarely a result of grandiose ‘designer’ government plans. Economic advancement comes incrementally, even quietly, by the intelligent development and implementation of technological innovations. Like gardening. .Nuclear energy is not new, but the technology has slowly and surely been evolving. O’Toole would be wise to scrap his carbon tax plan and double down on nuclear instead..Caitlin Rose Morgante is a Columnist for the Western Standard
