The Line just earned my yearly subscription by coming out and saying the simple fact that most people don't care ENOUGH about climate change to change their own lifestyle or make any sacrifices of note.
That's not a "conservative" opinion, it's objective, observed fact. The National Observer (say) shouldn't mind writing articles about how getting people to change their consumption is far more important than suppressing projects to fulfill the demand. But it's one of those indelicate, inconvenient truths that some would rather not face. I don't expect the National Observer to ever accept that fact, so I'll be reading the Line for some common sense on the subject.
"The Line just earned my yearly subscription by coming out and saying the simple fact that most people don't care ENOUGH about climate change to change their own lifestyle or make any sacrifices of note."
It's an incentive problem. When I burn fossil fuels, I get the full benefit, while the costs of climate change are distributed over the entire rest of the world. Naturally there's a strong-incentive to free-ride.
That's why economists recommend a steadily rising carbon price. It gives individuals and businesses a strong incentive to cut marginal uses of fossil fuels - right now, those that are worth less than $30/t. Starting in April, the incentive is to look for ways to cut emissions that are worth between $30/t and $40/t; and so on. So we're always cutting the cheapest, lowest-value emissions first. Explanation: https://outline.com/ybzgMp
From a political point of view, the question isn't whether Canadian voters like the carbon tax (after all, nobody likes paying taxes) - it's whether they'll re-elect a government that sets up a carbon tax. Looking at the 2019 federal election results, it appears that the answer is yes. No doubt this was helped by the design of the federal carbon tax, which divides up the revenue from the province and returns it directly to households in that province. Rich people spend more on fossil fuels, so they pay a larger share of the tax, and most people come out ahead.
Polls show that 2/3 of Canadians regard climate change as a major problem, while 1/3 are skeptical. This lines up pretty well with the 2019 election results. O'Toole realizes that in order to expand the Conservative vote, he needs to appeal to swing voters who are concerned about climate. But in order to hold the Conservative party together, he's also promising to scrap the federal carbon tax.
Problem is, economists are pretty much unanimous that a carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to cut emissions. Now that the Liberals have committed to raising the national carbon price floor between 2022 and 2030 (to $170/t), and the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal carbon tax is constitutional, the bar's pretty high - the Liberal climate plan meets the 2030 target.
So unless O'Toole does a U-turn on the carbon tax, his options are to propose a weaker plan, as Scheer did; or proposing an equivalent plan, which is going to be far more costly.
Ken Boessenkool has been arguing that O'Toole should do a U-turn. Mark Jaccard has proposed an alternative plan based on regulations (he argues that although they're more costly, they're less likely to arouse fierce opposition). But my guess is that O'Toole is going to propose a weaker plan and try to sell it.
What we witness on social media is human nature stripped down to its uncivil roots. It is HARD WORK for many of us (myself included) to suppress those troll-ey urges to give civil discourse a chance in that "safe space". I hope The Line can make some headway!
The Line just earned my yearly subscription by coming out and saying the simple fact that most people don't care ENOUGH about climate change to change their own lifestyle or make any sacrifices of note.
That's not a "conservative" opinion, it's objective, observed fact. The National Observer (say) shouldn't mind writing articles about how getting people to change their consumption is far more important than suppressing projects to fulfill the demand. But it's one of those indelicate, inconvenient truths that some would rather not face. I don't expect the National Observer to ever accept that fact, so I'll be reading the Line for some common sense on the subject.
"The Line just earned my yearly subscription by coming out and saying the simple fact that most people don't care ENOUGH about climate change to change their own lifestyle or make any sacrifices of note."
It's an incentive problem. When I burn fossil fuels, I get the full benefit, while the costs of climate change are distributed over the entire rest of the world. Naturally there's a strong-incentive to free-ride.
That's why economists recommend a steadily rising carbon price. It gives individuals and businesses a strong incentive to cut marginal uses of fossil fuels - right now, those that are worth less than $30/t. Starting in April, the incentive is to look for ways to cut emissions that are worth between $30/t and $40/t; and so on. So we're always cutting the cheapest, lowest-value emissions first. Explanation: https://outline.com/ybzgMp
From a political point of view, the question isn't whether Canadian voters like the carbon tax (after all, nobody likes paying taxes) - it's whether they'll re-elect a government that sets up a carbon tax. Looking at the 2019 federal election results, it appears that the answer is yes. No doubt this was helped by the design of the federal carbon tax, which divides up the revenue from the province and returns it directly to households in that province. Rich people spend more on fossil fuels, so they pay a larger share of the tax, and most people come out ahead.
Polls show that 2/3 of Canadians regard climate change as a major problem, while 1/3 are skeptical. This lines up pretty well with the 2019 election results. O'Toole realizes that in order to expand the Conservative vote, he needs to appeal to swing voters who are concerned about climate. But in order to hold the Conservative party together, he's also promising to scrap the federal carbon tax.
Problem is, economists are pretty much unanimous that a carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to cut emissions. Now that the Liberals have committed to raising the national carbon price floor between 2022 and 2030 (to $170/t), and the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal carbon tax is constitutional, the bar's pretty high - the Liberal climate plan meets the 2030 target.
So unless O'Toole does a U-turn on the carbon tax, his options are to propose a weaker plan, as Scheer did; or proposing an equivalent plan, which is going to be far more costly.
Ken Boessenkool has been arguing that O'Toole should do a U-turn. Mark Jaccard has proposed an alternative plan based on regulations (he argues that although they're more costly, they're less likely to arouse fierce opposition). But my guess is that O'Toole is going to propose a weaker plan and try to sell it.
Regarding Amir Attaran's comments on Quebec, I personally like the old FidoNet rules for avoiding flamewars:
1. Don't be offensive.
2. Don't be easily offended.
In a pluralistic society like Canada's, I think it's pretty important for people to try to get along.
That said, if someone is saying inflammatory things but doesn't have a large audience, I think rule #2 applies.
What we witness on social media is human nature stripped down to its uncivil roots. It is HARD WORK for many of us (myself included) to suppress those troll-ey urges to give civil discourse a chance in that "safe space". I hope The Line can make some headway!