Economy
Economists miss the point about the carbon tax revolt
From the Fraser Institute
An open letter is circulating online among my economist colleagues aiming to promote sound thinking on carbon taxes. It makes some valid points, and will probably get waved around in the House of Commons before long. But it’s conspicuously selective in its focus and unfortunately ignores the main problems with Canadian climate policy as a whole.
There’s a massive pile of boulders blocking the road to efficient policy. They have labels such as “Clean Fuel Regulations,” the oil and gas sector emissions cap, the electricity sector coal phaseout and “net-zero” requirements, strict energy efficiency rules for new and existing buildings, new performance mandates for natural gas-fired generation plants, the regulatory blockade on liquified natural gas export facilities, new motor vehicle fuel economy standards, caps on fertilizer use on farms, provincial ethanol production subsidies, electric vehicle mandates and subsidies, provincial renewable electricity mandates, grid-scale battery storage experiments, the “Green Infrastructure Fund,” carbon capture and underground storage mandates and subsidies, subsidies for electric buses and emergency vehicles in Canadian cities, new aviation and rail sector emission limits, and many more.
Not one of these occasioned a letter of protest from Canadian economists.
In front of that mountain of boulders there’s a twig labelled “overstated objections to carbon pricing” and at the sight of it hundreds of economists have rushed forward to carry it off the road. What a help.
To my well-meaning colleagues I respond that the pile of regulatory boulders long ago made the economic case for carbon pricing irrelevant. Layering a carbon tax on top of current and planned command-and-control regulations does not yield an efficient outcome, it just raises the overall cost to consumers. Which is why I can’t get excited about the carbon-pricing letter. That’s not where help with the heavy lifting is needed.
My colleagues object to exaggerated claims about the cost of carbon taxes. Fair enough. But far worse are exaggerated claims about the economic opportunities associated with the so-called “energy transition” and benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Some of the latter are traceable to poor-quality academic research, such as the continued use of the RCP8.5 emissions scenario long after it has been shown in the academic literature to be grossly exaggerated, or use of impacts estimates from climate models known to have large persistent warming biases. But a lot of it is simply groundless rhetoric. Climate activists, politicians and journalists have spent years blaming Canadians’ fossil fuel use for every bad weather event that comes along and swinging “climate emergency” declarations and other polemical cudgels to shut down rational debate. Again, none of this occasioned a cautionary letter from economists.
There’s another big issue on which the letter was silent. Suppose we did clear all the regulatory boulders along with the carbon-pricing-costs-too-much twig. How high should the carbon tax be? A few of the signatories are former students of mine so I expect they remember the formula for an optimal emissions tax in the presence of an existing tax system. If not, they can take their copy of Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy by Prof. McKitrick off the shelf, blow off the thick layer of dust and look it up. Or they can consult any of the half-dozen or so journal articles published since the 1970s that derive it. But I suspect most of the other signatories have never seen the formula and don’t even know it exists.
Because if they did, they would know that a major obstacle to emission reductions in Canada is our tax burden. The costlier a tax system, the lower the marginal value of emission reductions and the lower the optimal carbon tax rate. Based on reasonable estimates of the social cost of carbon and the marginal costs of our tax system, our carbon price is already high enough, and probably too high. I say this as one of the only Canadian economists who has published on all aspects of the question. Believing in mainstream climate science and economics does not oblige you to dismiss public complaints that the carbon tax is too costly.
Which raises my final point: the age of mass academic letter-writing has long since passed. Academia has become too politically one-sided. Universities don’t get to spend years filling their ranks with staff drawn from one side of the political spectrum then expect to be viewed as neutral arbiters of public policy issues. As such, the more signatories on letters like this the less impact it will have. People nowadays will make up their own minds, thank you very much, and a well-argued essay by an individual willing to stand alone will likely carry more weight.
Online conversations today are about rising living costs, stagnant real wages and deindustrialization. Even if carbon pricing isn’t the main cause, climate policy is playing a growing role and people can be excused for lumping it all together. The public would welcome insight from economists about how to deal with these challenges. A mass letter enthusing about carbon taxes is no substitute.
Author:
We’ve discussed the housing crisis before. That would include the destabilizing combination of housing availability – in particular a weak supply of new construction – and the immigration-driven population growth.
Parsing all the data can be fun, but we shouldn’t forget the human costs of the crisis. There’s the significant financial strain caused by rising ownership and rental costs, the stress so many experience when desperately searching for somewhere decent to live, and the pressure on businesses struggling to pay workers enough to survive in madly expensive cities.
If Canada doesn’t have the resources to house Canadians, should there be fewer of us?
Well we’ve also discussed the real problems caused by low fertility rates. As they’ve already discovered in low-immigration countries like Japan and South Korea, there’s the issue of who will care for the growing numbers of childless elderly. And who – as working-age populations sharply decline – will sign up for the jobs that are necessary to keep things running.
How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The odds are that we’re only a decade or so behind Japan. Remember how a population’s replacement-level fertility rate is around 2.1 percent? Here’s how Canadian “fertility rates per female” have dropped since 1991:
 |
Put differently, Canada’s crude birth rate per 1,000 population dropped from 14.4 in 1991, to 8.8 in 2023.
As a nation, we face very difficult constraints.
But there’s another cost to our problems that’s both powerful and personal, and it exists at a place that overlaps both crises. A recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) frames it in terms of suppressed household formation.
Household formation happens when two more more people choose to share a home. As I’ve written previously, there are enormous economic benefits to such arrangements, and the more permanent and stable the better. There’s also plenty of evidence that children raised within stable families have statistically improved economic, educational, and social outcomes.
But if households can’t form, there won’t be a lot of children.
In fact, the PBO projects that population and housing availability numbers point to the suppression of nearly a half a million households in 2030. And that’s incorporating the government’s optimistic assumptions about their new Immigration Levels Plan (ILP) to reduce targets for both permanent and temporary residents. It also assumes that all 2.8 million non-permanent residents will leave the country when their visas expire. Things will be much worse if either of those assumptions doesn’t work out according to plan.
Think about a half a million suppressed households. That number represents the dreams and life’s goals of at least a million people. Hundreds of thousands of 30-somethings still living in their parents basements. Hundreds of thousands of stable, successful, and socially integrated families that will never exist.
And all that will be largely (although not exclusively) the result of dumb-as-dirt political decisions.
Who says policy doesn’t matter?
How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Agriculture
Restoring balance between renewable energy, agricultural land and Alberta’s iconic viewscapes
Alberta is known around the world for many things – some of the most breathtaking and iconic scenery on earth, a world-class agricultural industry that puts high-quality food on tables across the globe and a rich history of responsible energy development. Alberta is a destination of choice for millions of visitors, newcomers and investors each year.
To ensure Alberta’s continued prosperity, it is imperative that future energy development is balanced with environmental stewardship, protecting Albertans’ ability to use and enjoy their property, and safeguarding agriculture for continued food security.
Alberta’s renewable energy sector has grown rapidly over the past decade, yet the rules to ensure responsible development have not kept up. As a result, municipalities, agricultural producers and landowners across the province raised concerns. Alberta’s government is fulfilling its duty to put Albertans first and restore the balance needed for long-term success by setting a clear path forward for responsible renewable energy development.
“We are doing the hard work necessary to ensure future generations can continue to enjoy the same Alberta that we know and love. By conserving our environment, agricultural lands and beautiful viewscapes, our government is protecting and balancing Alberta’s long-term economic prosperity. Our government will not apologize for putting Albertans ahead of corporate interests.”
Amendments to the Activities Designation Regulation and Conservation and Reclamation Regulation provide clarity for renewable energy developers on new and existing environmental protections.
These changes will create consistent reclamation requirements across all forms of renewable energy operations, including a mandatory reclamation security requirement. Albertans expect renewable power generation projects to be responsibly decommissioned and reclaimed for future generations. Alberta’s government stands firm in its commitment to protect landowners and taxpayers from being burdened with reclamation costs.
“We want to protect landowners, municipalities and taxpayers from unfairly having to cover the costs of renewable energy reclamations in the future. These changes will help make sure that all renewable energy projects provide reasonable security up front and that land will be reclaimed for future generations.”
Alberta’s government committed to an ‘agriculture first’ approach for future development, safeguarding the province’s native grasslands, irrigable and productive lands. The protection of agricultural land is not only essential to food production, but to environmental stewardship and local wildlife protection.
The Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation follows this ‘agriculture first’ approach and enhances protections for municipalities’ most productive lands, establishing the need to consider potential irrigability and whether projects can co-exist with agricultural operations. These changes are critical to minimizing the impacts of energy development on agricultural lands, protecting local ecosystems and global food security. With these new rules, Alberta’s farmers and ranchers can continue to produce the high-quality products that they are renowned for.
“Our province accounts for nearly 50 per cent of Canada’s cattle, produces the most potatoes in the country, and is the sugar beet capital of Canada. None of this would be possible without the valuable, productive farmland that these new rules protect. Understanding the need for an ‘agriculture first’ approach for energy development is as simple as no farms, no food.”
The new Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation also establishes specific guidelines to prevent projects from impacting pristine viewscapes. By establishing buffer zones and visual impact assessment zones, Alberta’s government is ensuring that industrial power projects the size of the Calgary Tower cannot be built in front of UNESCO World Heritage sites and other specified viewscapes, which will support the continued growth and success of Alberta’s tourism sector.
As Alberta’s population and economy grows, it is critical that the province has the additional power generation needed to meet increasing demand. Power generation must be developed in a balanced and responsible manner that promotes environmental stewardship, ensures the continued enjoyment of Alberta’s beautiful landscapes, and safeguards food security by protecting Alberta’s valuable agricultural lands. By encouraging the responsible development of additional power generation with these new regulations, Alberta’s government is listening to Albertans and ensuring the electricity grid is affordable, reliable and sustainable for generations to come.
Summary of Policy Changes
Following the policy direction established on February 28, 2024, Alberta’s government is now implementing the following policy and regulatory changes for renewable power development:
Agricultural lands
The new Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation takes an “agriculture first” approach.
• Renewable energy developments will no longer be permitted on Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS) Class 1 and 2 lands unless the proponent can demonstrate the ability for both crops and/or livestock to coexist with the renewable generation project,
• In municipalities without Class 1 or 2 lands, Class 3 lands will be treated as Class 1 and 2.
• An irrigability assessment must be conducted by proponents and considered by the AUC.
Reclamation security
Amendments to the Activities Designation Regulation and Conservation and Reclamation Regulation create consistent reclamation requirements across all forms of renewable energy operations, including a mandatory reclamation security requirement. There will be a mandatory security requirement for projects located on private lands.
• Developers will be responsible for reclamation costs via a mandatory security or bond.
• The reclamation security will either be provided directly to the province or may be negotiated with landowners if sufficient evidence is provided to the AUC.
Viewscapes
The Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation ensures pristine viewscapes are conserved through the establishment of buffer zones and visual impact assessment zones as designated by the province.
• New wind projects will no longer be permitted within specified buffer zones.
o Other proposed electricity developments located within the buffer zones will be required to submit a
visual impact assessment before approval.
• All proposed electricity developments located within visual impact assessment zones will be required to submit a visual impact assessment before approval.
Municipalities
The AUC is implementing rule changes to:
• Automatically grant municipalities the right to participate in AUC hearings.
• Enable municipalities to be eligible to request cost recovery for participation and review.
• Allow municipalities to review rules related to municipal submission requirements while clarifying consultation requirements.
Northvolt bankruptcy ominous sign for politicians’ EV gamble
What did Canada Ever Do to Draw Trump Tariff on Immigration, You Ask? Plenty
‘Landman’ Airs A Rare And Stirring Defense Of The U.S. Oil-And-Gas Industry
London Police Chief warns parliament about “safer supply” diversion
-
COVID-192 days agoVerdict for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber coming next spring
-
Christopher Rufo1 day agoAmerica’s Verdict
-
National2 days agoTrudeau government bans even more guns, wants to send them to Ukraine
-
Alberta1 day agoProvince “rewiring” Alberta’s electricity grid for growth
-
National2 days agoJD Vance sounds alarm over slew of Canadian church burnings: ‘Anti-Christian bigotry’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoBiden admin used banks to spy on Americans’ financial data, targeted Trump supporters: House report
-
International1 day agoRussiagate Remnants
-
COVID-191 day agoIs FDA ‘covering for Pfizer’? Court orders agency to release a million more pages of COVID vaccines documents