Prime Minister Stephen Harper made several inaccurate statements about his climate change policies in Wednesday night’s French language leadership debate, according to Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute.
"The spotlight in the environment segment of the debate was on Mr. Harper, because he's the only leader not to have released an environment platform,” Bramley said in a statement released Wednesday night.
Among Harper’s inaccurate statements, according to Bramley:
Harper said his government has created regulations for big industrial polluters, while in fact no regulations are yet in place. The Harper government has proposed that regulations take effect in 2010.
Harper said his target for greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most aggressive in the world. In fact, his proposed Canadian emissions target for 2020 is far weaker than the EU's science-based target. Canada's target is to reduce our emissions to 3 per cent below the 1990 level by 2020; the EU's target is to reduce its emissions to 20-30 per cent below the 1990 level by 2020.
And Harper said that a carbon tax would harm the economy. Bramley asserts that most economists say that a carbon tax would be the most cost-effective way to cut greenhouse gas pollution.
Bramley directs the climate change program at Pembina Institute, which provides online analysis of the climate-related announcements by all federal parties.
4
Login or register to post comments
ME2
3 years ago
A political football
Hard, incontrovertible, science-based evidence for CO2-driven Global Warming has yet to be advanced.
The argument has now devolved to "But what if CO2-driven GW is real?"
Like "What if Saddam really had nuclear weapons?"
Frank
3 years ago
Carbon taxes are regressive
Most economists say a carbon-tax is the most cost-effective solution to greenhouse gas emissions but people should ask why that is.
What a carbon-tax does is increase the cost of emissions until those that can't afford it are impoverished. That's it.
Those in higher income brackets won't even notice carbon taxes, they will continue to pollute as usual. But those in the bottom brackets will gradually be forced to give up the car and the furnace.
Carbon taxes stop the emissions from the poor in order that everyone else can keep going, business as usual.
realisticman
3 years ago
Check this out Robin.
"And Harper said that a carbon tax would harm the economy. Bramley asserts that most economists say that a carbon tax would be the most cost-effective way to cut greenhouse gas pollution."
Holy carbon molecules Batman! This means that Gordon Campbell's BC carbon tax tax is right on the money!
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
THE CARBON TAX MEME
I think Matthew Bramley is playing the Mark Jaccard-Jeff Simpson game.
Economists, including the world's best climate economist, William D. Nordhaus of Yale, will tell you that either a cap and trade system or a carbon tax can price carbon. Nordhaus prefers a tax because, in the American context, he believes a revenue-neutral tax is better, and that permits are often given to industry rather than sold. Additionally, he finds that permit prices for sulfur dioxide, the main ingredient in acid rain, have been very volatile.
However, Canada COULD sell or auction permits. And if prices for permits are volatile, is that enough reason to abandon this approach?
Many Canadians believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are already over taxed generally and on gasoline particularly, and the oil companies here are in a better position to fleece consumers. Why not bring in a cap and trade system now for big industries, and then leave a carbon tax to 2015 when the public is satisfied that the big players have made their adjustments and that its the consumer's turn now. There's a basic issue of political trust and capability here that men like Jaccard, a Liberal op-ed piece writer, are deliberately overlooking.