MAKING THE BIG POLLUTERS PAY: The best way to fight climate change

By Chris Charlton, MP

From the July 11 edition of the Hamilton Mountain News

Millions of everyday Canadians have said they want immediate action to stop climate change and protect our environment. They want to know their kids will have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

But instead of offering an action plan to meet the aspirations of Canadians, Prime Minister Harper is travelling the world trying to dilute the UN's goals on climate change. He is more concerned about protecting the interests of the tar sand developers than protecting future generations. He has effectively marginalized himself on the climate change file in Canada, and his Ministers are reduced to engaging in schoolyard name-calling and taunting, rather than participating in a constructive debate about how best to reduce greenhouse gases.

That leaves the opposition parties to be the real proponents for action.

In May, the NDP announced our cap-and-trade carbon pricing plan to combat climate change. In June, the Liberals announced a carbon tax plan.

Cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax. Once you get beyond the jargon, there are real differences in the two plans. Obviously, I'm a proponent of the former. But I welcome the debate on the two proposals, and want to start it here today.

First, let's look at what the two options are. A cap-and-trade system puts a cap on carbon emissions, with national and industry targets, thereby achieving real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that can be predicted and measured. It puts a price on carbon emissions above the cap, and provides an incentive for industries to come in below the cap, because they can trade their credit for cash on the open market. The whole system is designed to make big polluters pay. In Canada, fully half of all greenhouse gases come from major industrial emitters. It is essential that they start to pay their share.

The carbon tax model, by contrast, does not have reduction targets in greenhouse gas emissions. It simply assumes that if the cost gets too high, Canadians will make choices about their consumption, and ultimately use less. But in a country like Canada, heating your home, for example, is not a luxury that we can do without, given our harsh winter climate. And anyone on a fixed income will be particularly hard-hit as the costs of essentials like electricity and home heating skyrocket. It doesn't make sense to treat average Canadians the same as big polluters.

Recognizing that dilemma, the Liberal plan takes pains to suggest it will be revenue neutral by returning the money raised from carbon pricing to the lowest income Canadians.

This raises two concerns. First, the GST too was promised to be revenue neutral. Enough said! But more importantly, from an environmental perspective, even if all of the money raised really were to go back to average Canadians, then there would be no money left for investing in green solutions - a critical component of achieving real green house gas reductions in an economically sustainable way.

And finally, the carbon tax would only be paid by Canadians. The oil industry is one of Canada's biggest polluters. Yet two-thirds of Canada's oil is exported to the US. US consumers would not pay a cent in carbon tax, despite the fact that they benefit from the lions' share of a commodity whose production is responsible for major carbon emissions. Meanwhile, Canadians would have to pay.

Norway tried the carbon tax system, but found that it did not assist in meeting emission targets nor alter consumer patterns. The country has since moved to a cap-and-trade system. The UN Kyoto Protocol, the European Union, Ontario, Quebec, Barack Obama, and even John McCain all endorse the cap-and-trade system. If our goal is to tackle climate change, then it is the better choice.

But by all means, let's have the debate. It sure beats waiting for the Harper government to get its head out of the tar sands.