From the carbon tax to decriminalization and, now, involuntary care, David Eby appears to be riding a rapidly shifting mood ahead of the imminent election.
It remains to be seen for all those continuing to sing the virtues of carbon taxes to be completely, finally, honest and truthful about their purpose. Proponents of carbon taxes rarely (if ever) do so.
Euphemisms are used - like 'reduce our dependency on fossil fuels', and a 'putting a price on pollution' - but what does this actually mean?
Plainly:
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize every Canadian driving somewhere in an ICE vehicle.
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize every Canadian flying somewhere in an airplane.
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize every Canadian for heating/cooling their homes/businesses directly with natural gas , petroleum, or coal products (except in Atlantic Canada).
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize every Canadian for heating/cooling their homes/businesses with electricity derived from natural gas, petroleum, or coal products (except in Atlantic Canada).
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize Canadian businesses, governments, & NGO's who manufacture/source goods using machines/equipment powered by natural gas, petroleum, or coal products.
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize Canadian businesses, governments, and NGO's who deliver or are delivered goods and services using vehicles, machines, and equipment powered by natural gas, petroleum, or coal products.
The purpose of carbon taxation is to urge Canadians, Canadian businesses, Canadian governments, and Canadian NGO's to avoid as much as possible using natural gas, petroleum, or coal products to provide for any life necessity or optional economic activity described above, including eating & drinking, creating/maintaining/using transportation vehicles and the roads that carry them (including planes when not airborne), building/maintaining goods and equipment, and goods/service delivery of any kind - public, private, or NGO.
Of course, all Canadians need these things, and many Canadians provide these things.
Many Canadians have a choice on many of these things (or are exempted for political purposes).
Most of them do not have much choice on many of these things.
Alternative choices are largely unavailable, unaffordable, or impractical for many (most) Canadians.
Anything with carbon tax applied to it increases the cost to whoever creates/delivers/purchases/uses it.
These increased costs are, with rare exception, passed down the supply chain from creator to user - and the more steps in between creator to user, the more the increased costs are compounded.
Is it any wonder that Canadian cost of living is WAY up and Canadian economic activity is WAY down?
(Yes, I know there are other factors).
After all, that WAS and IS the desired outcome of carbon taxation - to reduce and eventually eliminate all economic activity powered by natural gas, petroleum, and coal products!
From that perspective, carbon taxation in Canada has been an unqualified success!
All that remains is to continue to increase carbon taxation rates until all undesirable economic activity becomes so expensive as to be completely disincentivized and eliminated from our economy- the final solution to our carbon problem!
Canadians should be grateful to be poorer, hungrier, sicker in mind and body, and less mobile - we are saving the planet! It's inconceivable Canadians should be angry with such a success story!
The only hitch is that most of the 'acceptable' alternatives to power our planet themselves require significant energy inputs from carbon-based sources to build and maintain the capacity to generate - including hydro, solar, wind, and even nuclear energy - the facilities and equipment for 'alternative energy production' are not conjured up out of cleaner thin air without them.
I'm sure all these bugs will be worked out soon. Or we can eat the bugs and burn the bugs to heat our caves until enough of us perish so that our 'carbon footprint' has been reduced to tolerable levels.
Thank GOC we have MAID to make that easier for Canadians.
It's like when you hear politician clamouring that tariffs will fix (insert industry here) whatever problem they're facing. They LOVE to pretend that tariffs will not magically be passed on the consumer.
The carbon tax is also passed on consumers. Every time.
So are the costs of regulation. So when the Conservative Party tells me that they'll save me money by killing the carbon tax and regulating emissions, I know that they're just saying they'll move the cost from column A to column B in my finances.
Is that better? Only if column B is more efficient. So is regulation more efficient than free market solutions? Maybe, but I tend to think it's not.
Agree completely if the CPC ATT 'plan' is just a shell game, as you suggest.
Emissions regulation is necessary - if you're as old as I am and remember the levels of air pollution in the 1970s - but that regulation should be focused on aerosol pollutants other than the current obsessive hysteria over CO2.
That has been the focus yes. But that makes sense we already did much or most of the heavy lifting on other emissions years ago. Acid rain and the ozone layer are basically solved for the most part, so of course we're not talking about them.
And that's why I don't understand. You seem to be saying (from my perspective) that we should focus on the things we've already dealt with rather than the thing we haven't dealt with.
That doesn't make any sense so I assume I've misunderstood.
But I'd also like to ask a second question... do you think that for a given reduction in CO2 emissions, that it would be cheaper to achieve that through regulation than through letting the market find the most efficient method with the stick of tax avoidance?
I have zero issue with governments doing a reversal if the policy was ill conceived in the first place as Eby has done recently. Admitting that you were wrong and fixing it should be the aim of every political party and politician everywhere instead of doubling down on your mistakes only to save face and your precious ego. This has been the Trudeau Liberal MO since he came to power and that is hardly a recipe for increasing your popularity. Owning your errors just doesn’t seem to be in a politicians DNA.
I agree in principle. That the timing of Eby’s “recognition” of his erroneous policies coincides with the rise of the Conservatives in the polls leads me to believe he has merely recognized that he may lose the October election. Things didn’t just suddenly show themselves to be dreadful in B.C. NDP has been the majority for 7 years. It seems unlikely that there has been a sudden awareness of the situation in the Province. If the NDP is re-elected in October, we will see how clear his vision is.
Nothing illustrates recognition as much as the thought of getting your ass kicked in the next election if you are incapable of change. I chuckled at the weathervane thing though. Clever. If more politicians realized who they should be answering to other than themselves and their party I think we would all be better off.
Thanks, Rob! I find it disgusting that David Eby has been campaigning for weeks using BC tax dollars. […24 minutes into an u related press conference…] - happens regularly. I’m not in love with Rustad, but I’ve had more than enough of Eby, whom I see as a taller, younger Trudeau right down to the “uhs” used as fillers between every second, third, or fourth word.
I would love the media to ask these politicians the following question - if your opponent is so “dangerous” that they cannot be even considered to lead, how come you are adopting their positions?
Flip flopping may be politically savvy, but it denotes an absence of character and conviction.
I'd rather see a politician stick to his guns and lose rather than reversing course on an unpopular idea in an effort to win or stay in power.
Kings used to fight in battles at great peril for their life, because they knew that if they had skin in the game, their armies would be more inclined to follow them into battle and possibly, death.
Bottom line: don't trust people who don't have skin in the game. That includes almost all politicians. And no, losing a seat isn't having skin in the game. It's hardly a hardship.
Why buy the cheap knockoff when you can have the real thing? The NDP are faux Conservatives. Goes to show- it not about principles, it's about power. Vote accordingly.
The original BC carbon tax as brought in by the right of center BC Liberals was a pretty successful policy - it was structured to be revenue neutral, led to a reduction in CO2 emissions without a negative impact on the economy, and managed to be relatively politically uncontroversial. Then the NDP came into power, removed the revenue neutrality provisions, and got onboard with the Trudeau Liberals' more overtly political and redistributionist approach. A good policy has been destroyed by political and ideological hackery. Most politicians fail the marshmallow test when it comes to a carbon tax: instead of the delayed gratification of a successful policy, they grab the potential increase in revenue so they can indulge in more spending. Time to put the carbon tax approach away for a generation or so as we've seen politicians aren't up to the task of making a technocratic approach work.
As a BC voter I think the choice is clear. Who do we trust more to solve our province's biggest problems. The party whose poor judgment created those problems and whose hubris refused to even admit they were problems, or the party that has consistently pointed out the problems and which offers a different approach to solving them.
If one wonders why Doug Ford is set to win the next Ontario election, it’s because he’s eager to flip-flop on unpopular policies and apologize for them. I wished more politicians did this, especially when they flip-flop in favour of policy directions I agree with. :D
I find the carbon tax is a great example about how the old definition of conservative and liberal don't mean a lot any more. The so-called "Liberal party of Canada" has been pushing incredibly illiberal policies as of late.
And the so-called Conservative Party is abandoning market based solutions to climate change in favour of regulation. Carbon taxes are a free market solution for carbon reduction because it establishes a cost on carbon emission and leaves it to the market to find ways to avoid the tax.
There is indeed a rather big realignment of political affiliations going on.
Thanks Rob for the great piece, and more kudos to The Line for including more coverage of the wet coast.
Eby's flip-flops on these issues is wryly amusing, particularly on the issue of the carbon tax. It really speaks poorly of his record that he has so little to campaign with that he feels that he has to cave in such a craven fashion. Perhaps if he hadn't tried to assume the mantle of King with the disqualification of Appadurai, he'd have a more vitalized track record, but alas, democracy seems to be for the anointed.
And yet, in an amazingly apt microcosm for the right's complete and utter lack of original ideas, the BC Cons' attack ad with Eby's face on a weather vane...that was the exact same imagery the BC Liberals used against Dix way back in the day.
Autumn in BC and particularly in Vancouver can be beautiful but also bleak, this election is certainly shaping up to resemble the incessant grey skies rather than the splendid foliage.
Isn't Eby's so-called flip-flop on B.C.'s carbon tax actually a nothing-burger PR stunt? It is based on Trudeau changing his mind on the tax, which he won't. Doing so would mean admitting that Poilievre is correct on the carbon tax. Therefore, Eby publicly claims to be anti-tax while knowing that it isn't actually going to be axed.
It remains to be seen for all those continuing to sing the virtues of carbon taxes to be completely, finally, honest and truthful about their purpose. Proponents of carbon taxes rarely (if ever) do so.
Euphemisms are used - like 'reduce our dependency on fossil fuels', and a 'putting a price on pollution' - but what does this actually mean?
Plainly:
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize every Canadian driving somewhere in an ICE vehicle.
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize every Canadian flying somewhere in an airplane.
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize every Canadian for heating/cooling their homes/businesses directly with natural gas , petroleum, or coal products (except in Atlantic Canada).
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize every Canadian for heating/cooling their homes/businesses with electricity derived from natural gas, petroleum, or coal products (except in Atlantic Canada).
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize Canadian businesses, governments, & NGO's who manufacture/source goods using machines/equipment powered by natural gas, petroleum, or coal products.
Carbon taxation is designed to penalize Canadian businesses, governments, and NGO's who deliver or are delivered goods and services using vehicles, machines, and equipment powered by natural gas, petroleum, or coal products.
The purpose of carbon taxation is to urge Canadians, Canadian businesses, Canadian governments, and Canadian NGO's to avoid as much as possible using natural gas, petroleum, or coal products to provide for any life necessity or optional economic activity described above, including eating & drinking, creating/maintaining/using transportation vehicles and the roads that carry them (including planes when not airborne), building/maintaining goods and equipment, and goods/service delivery of any kind - public, private, or NGO.
Of course, all Canadians need these things, and many Canadians provide these things.
Many Canadians have a choice on many of these things (or are exempted for political purposes).
Most of them do not have much choice on many of these things.
Alternative choices are largely unavailable, unaffordable, or impractical for many (most) Canadians.
Anything with carbon tax applied to it increases the cost to whoever creates/delivers/purchases/uses it.
These increased costs are, with rare exception, passed down the supply chain from creator to user - and the more steps in between creator to user, the more the increased costs are compounded.
Is it any wonder that Canadian cost of living is WAY up and Canadian economic activity is WAY down?
(Yes, I know there are other factors).
After all, that WAS and IS the desired outcome of carbon taxation - to reduce and eventually eliminate all economic activity powered by natural gas, petroleum, and coal products!
From that perspective, carbon taxation in Canada has been an unqualified success!
All that remains is to continue to increase carbon taxation rates until all undesirable economic activity becomes so expensive as to be completely disincentivized and eliminated from our economy- the final solution to our carbon problem!
Canadians should be grateful to be poorer, hungrier, sicker in mind and body, and less mobile - we are saving the planet! It's inconceivable Canadians should be angry with such a success story!
The only hitch is that most of the 'acceptable' alternatives to power our planet themselves require significant energy inputs from carbon-based sources to build and maintain the capacity to generate - including hydro, solar, wind, and even nuclear energy - the facilities and equipment for 'alternative energy production' are not conjured up out of cleaner thin air without them.
I'm sure all these bugs will be worked out soon. Or we can eat the bugs and burn the bugs to heat our caves until enough of us perish so that our 'carbon footprint' has been reduced to tolerable levels.
Thank GOC we have MAID to make that easier for Canadians.
It's like when you hear politician clamouring that tariffs will fix (insert industry here) whatever problem they're facing. They LOVE to pretend that tariffs will not magically be passed on the consumer.
The carbon tax is also passed on consumers. Every time.
> The carbon tax is also passed on consumers
Indeed they are.
So are the costs of regulation. So when the Conservative Party tells me that they'll save me money by killing the carbon tax and regulating emissions, I know that they're just saying they'll move the cost from column A to column B in my finances.
Is that better? Only if column B is more efficient. So is regulation more efficient than free market solutions? Maybe, but I tend to think it's not.
Agree completely if the CPC ATT 'plan' is just a shell game, as you suggest.
Emissions regulation is necessary - if you're as old as I am and remember the levels of air pollution in the 1970s - but that regulation should be focused on aerosol pollutants other than the current obsessive hysteria over CO2.
This ECCC document mentions CO2 exactly once:
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2023/eccc/En81-30-2021-eng.pdf
Some interesting data and analysis of said data in this document if you take the time to parse through it.
You seem to be suggesting that you want the government to regard CO2 emissions as something that should not be limited or constrained in any way.
Am I understanding correctly?
No. I'm saying currently that the overwhelming focus of tax $ and discussion has been C02 emissions.
That has been the focus yes. But that makes sense we already did much or most of the heavy lifting on other emissions years ago. Acid rain and the ozone layer are basically solved for the most part, so of course we're not talking about them.
And that's why I don't understand. You seem to be saying (from my perspective) that we should focus on the things we've already dealt with rather than the thing we haven't dealt with.
That doesn't make any sense so I assume I've misunderstood.
But I'd also like to ask a second question... do you think that for a given reduction in CO2 emissions, that it would be cheaper to achieve that through regulation than through letting the market find the most efficient method with the stick of tax avoidance?
I have zero issue with governments doing a reversal if the policy was ill conceived in the first place as Eby has done recently. Admitting that you were wrong and fixing it should be the aim of every political party and politician everywhere instead of doubling down on your mistakes only to save face and your precious ego. This has been the Trudeau Liberal MO since he came to power and that is hardly a recipe for increasing your popularity. Owning your errors just doesn’t seem to be in a politicians DNA.
I agree in principle. That the timing of Eby’s “recognition” of his erroneous policies coincides with the rise of the Conservatives in the polls leads me to believe he has merely recognized that he may lose the October election. Things didn’t just suddenly show themselves to be dreadful in B.C. NDP has been the majority for 7 years. It seems unlikely that there has been a sudden awareness of the situation in the Province. If the NDP is re-elected in October, we will see how clear his vision is.
Nothing illustrates recognition as much as the thought of getting your ass kicked in the next election if you are incapable of change. I chuckled at the weathervane thing though. Clever. If more politicians realized who they should be answering to other than themselves and their party I think we would all be better off.
Thanks, Rob! I find it disgusting that David Eby has been campaigning for weeks using BC tax dollars. […24 minutes into an u related press conference…] - happens regularly. I’m not in love with Rustad, but I’ve had more than enough of Eby, whom I see as a taller, younger Trudeau right down to the “uhs” used as fillers between every second, third, or fourth word.
*unrelated*, not u related.
I would love the media to ask these politicians the following question - if your opponent is so “dangerous” that they cannot be even considered to lead, how come you are adopting their positions?
Flip flopping may be politically savvy, but it denotes an absence of character and conviction.
I'd rather see a politician stick to his guns and lose rather than reversing course on an unpopular idea in an effort to win or stay in power.
Kings used to fight in battles at great peril for their life, because they knew that if they had skin in the game, their armies would be more inclined to follow them into battle and possibly, death.
Bottom line: don't trust people who don't have skin in the game. That includes almost all politicians. And no, losing a seat isn't having skin in the game. It's hardly a hardship.
Nice to see Rob Shaw getting the national exposure he deserves
Why buy the cheap knockoff when you can have the real thing? The NDP are faux Conservatives. Goes to show- it not about principles, it's about power. Vote accordingly.
The original BC carbon tax as brought in by the right of center BC Liberals was a pretty successful policy - it was structured to be revenue neutral, led to a reduction in CO2 emissions without a negative impact on the economy, and managed to be relatively politically uncontroversial. Then the NDP came into power, removed the revenue neutrality provisions, and got onboard with the Trudeau Liberals' more overtly political and redistributionist approach. A good policy has been destroyed by political and ideological hackery. Most politicians fail the marshmallow test when it comes to a carbon tax: instead of the delayed gratification of a successful policy, they grab the potential increase in revenue so they can indulge in more spending. Time to put the carbon tax approach away for a generation or so as we've seen politicians aren't up to the task of making a technocratic approach work.
As a BC voter I think the choice is clear. Who do we trust more to solve our province's biggest problems. The party whose poor judgment created those problems and whose hubris refused to even admit they were problems, or the party that has consistently pointed out the problems and which offers a different approach to solving them.
If one wonders why Doug Ford is set to win the next Ontario election, it’s because he’s eager to flip-flop on unpopular policies and apologize for them. I wished more politicians did this, especially when they flip-flop in favour of policy directions I agree with. :D
I find the carbon tax is a great example about how the old definition of conservative and liberal don't mean a lot any more. The so-called "Liberal party of Canada" has been pushing incredibly illiberal policies as of late.
And the so-called Conservative Party is abandoning market based solutions to climate change in favour of regulation. Carbon taxes are a free market solution for carbon reduction because it establishes a cost on carbon emission and leaves it to the market to find ways to avoid the tax.
There is indeed a rather big realignment of political affiliations going on.
Thanks Rob for the great piece, and more kudos to The Line for including more coverage of the wet coast.
Eby's flip-flops on these issues is wryly amusing, particularly on the issue of the carbon tax. It really speaks poorly of his record that he has so little to campaign with that he feels that he has to cave in such a craven fashion. Perhaps if he hadn't tried to assume the mantle of King with the disqualification of Appadurai, he'd have a more vitalized track record, but alas, democracy seems to be for the anointed.
And yet, in an amazingly apt microcosm for the right's complete and utter lack of original ideas, the BC Cons' attack ad with Eby's face on a weather vane...that was the exact same imagery the BC Liberals used against Dix way back in the day.
Autumn in BC and particularly in Vancouver can be beautiful but also bleak, this election is certainly shaping up to resemble the incessant grey skies rather than the splendid foliage.
I would laugh, but I live in the province that flip flops for breakfast *cough Ontario*
Isn't Eby's so-called flip-flop on B.C.'s carbon tax actually a nothing-burger PR stunt? It is based on Trudeau changing his mind on the tax, which he won't. Doing so would mean admitting that Poilievre is correct on the carbon tax. Therefore, Eby publicly claims to be anti-tax while knowing that it isn't actually going to be axed.
More given back in rebates than charged in tax??? Who received the rebates???