Canada is two weeks in to its third election in four years, and environmental issues have been ... well, not quite front-and-center, but definitely somewhere in the foreground. And that could be a very bad thing for the chances for a carbon tax in the U.S.
The election has been pretty dull, even by Canadian standards. Aside from an argument over whether the televised debates should have four or five party leaders on stage (take that, America!) there have been very few sparks. The governing Conservatives have a campaign message centered around making Stephen Harper look less like an android and more like he wears sweater vests and demonizing the Liberal leader Stephane Dion as a "risky" choice.
The leftist NDP has tried to recast itself as a reasonable choice, not just for the third-place "conscience of Parliament," but as the loyal opposition or even, in their dreams, the party of Government.
But it's the Liberals who have put a carbon tax at the center of their platform.
The "Green Shift" should be familiar in conception to Grist readers: establish a carbon tax, reduce taxes on income. The problem is that the Liberals haven't exactly ignited voter interest. The polls have been noisy to say the least, but the latest poll I could find shows the Liberals 15 points behind [PDF] the Conservatives. Other polls have the race substantially closer, but none have the Liberals winning.
What happens if the Liberals lose? The only serious attempt to bring a carbon tax to Canada will have been defeated, and it's possible that British Columbia's provincial carbon tax may die after that province's next election as well. This point was made by Marc Lee a few weeks ago, and reported by the Tyee's Tom Barrett. The fear among some greens, apparently, is that if both parties fall on a carbon tax, then strong efforts for carbon pricing will be dead in North America for the foreseeable future.
Now, frankly, I don't think that's likely. Washington will continue to make its own laws for its own reasons, and the rest of the continent will get pulled in whichever direction that happens to be. Merits of the proposal aside, I was never terribly optimistic about a carbon tax in the U.S. anyway.The hypotheticals about my own national election really change that very little.
Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”
The tar sands blow
Comments
View as Flat
Easterbunny Posted 6:10 am
18 Sep 2008
First, you missed an important detail about the argument over the televised debates. The fifth party trying to get access was the Green Party. Although they have polled between 8% to 10% in the last few elections, they had no seats in parliament (because of the first past the post system). However, a couple of weeks ago, they picked up a seat because a sitting MP left the Liberal party and joined the Greens. The media consortium that controls the leadership debates said it still wouldn't include the greens in the televised debates because the leaders of three of the other parties objected (and threatened to pull out). There was an immediate public outcry, which then led the other leaders to reverse their positions and agree to allow the leader of the greens into the debate. The strength of the public outcry indicates that something important has shifted in the Canadian political landscape.
Second, the liberals are trailing in the polls mainly because their new leader, Stephane Dion, has been consistently portrayed in the media as a weak leader. However, it was Dion who bullied the party into adopting the Carbon tax as their key platform, and it's interesting to watch how the idea is gaining traction. The result of the election will almost certainly be another minority government, but it's possible it might be the Liberals forming a coalition government rather than the Conservatives, certainly the trend in the polls this week indicate the gap is closing fast. This is most definitely not a dull election.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:31 am
18 Sep 2008
Q) Could Canadian politics matter outside Canada?
A) No.
Permalink
sindark Posted 8:00 am
18 Sep 2008
As long as little is being done in the United States, American corporations are not concerned about being made uncompetitive with foreign firms because of climate change policies.
If the United States did adopt a serious climate policy (a national cap-and-trade plan with auctioning, perhaps, or a carbon tax), those firms would suddenly be very concerned about losing business to firms not thus restrained. This is especially true in sectors with high emissions per dollar's worth of output. This includes heavy industry, the petroleum sector, and so forth.
These firms will lobby the American government to pressure its trading partners to adopt comparable policies.
These firms will find many supporters in Congress who think similarly. Politicians will also be fearful of domestic job losses and the relocation of production to foreign jurisdictions with less stringent rules.
In the case of Canada, legal vehicles through which this might occur include the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Potentially, other agreements pertaining to transboundary pollution might play a role.
If taking a legal route fails or is not desired, it is always possible for the US to put enormous trade pressure on Canada. 85% of Canadian exports go to the United States and even illegal trade blocking moves by the US can be so painful as to force a surrender (as with softwood lumber).
No Canadian government will be willing to sacrifice access to the American market, even if avoiding it requires a considerable loss of face.
As such, there seems to be a decent change that if a new administration in the United States adopts a relatively strong national climate change mitigation policy, some version of the events above will lead to the introduction of a comparable regime in Canada. Of course, the ability of even an Obama presidency with Gore as a climate czar to get emission regulations through Congress cannot be taken for granted, largely on account of the short-term interests of the selfsame corporations mentioned above.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
sindark Posted 8:01 am
18 Sep 2008
http://esm.ubc.ca/CA08/index.php
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
tidal Posted 8:07 am
18 Sep 2008
Harper/CPC basically preemptively took the wind out of the "green shift" by characterizing it as ONLY a tax, ignoring any offsetting cuts... Pressed on this misrepresentation, he simply dismissed the idea of ANY government implementing the cuts side of such a program as "not credible" and 'never seen in history so not gonna happpen'... Interesting to see if Dion/LPC can regain ground as the campaign continues, at leaders' debate (four of the opposition parties get marks of B to A- on climate change policy, while the CPC gets F+ from the Sierra Club), etc.
I am sure the Sky Trust and Carbon Tax Center folks are watching with intent interest, even if it is never going to be nightly-newsworthy in the US...
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:53 am
18 Sep 2008
Permalink
wreckenhavoc Posted 4:23 pm
18 Sep 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:41 pm
18 Sep 2008
Here it is: "A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention." Normally this isn't Grist material but since the loyal opposition brought it up I thought you deserved to get the full story. As a reward.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:19 pm
18 Sep 2008
A smart campaign focuses on how they are going to make things better for their electorate. A stupid campaign tries to demonize people who shouldn't be demonized..........
She's not the sharpest tool in the shed and somewhat of a bimbo...... so what? She's not evil. And people who don't subscribe to the Green agenda are not evil. People who don't subscribe to causes of the left are not evil. And when you try to paint them as such - either evil or stupid - you help them get elected.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 2:02 am
09 Nov 2008
site.
(Discussing implications of Canada's election for US policy.)
Permalink