A7

Roy MacMullin

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

2 Comment(s)

Looking back in history to December 1979, Joe Clark was the leader who introduced a fuel tax of 4 cents a litre as a measure to balance the budget. His minority government lost on a non-confidence vote and the Tories were defeated in the 1980 general election. The lesson was burned into the political brain trust of all parties... "must not have tax increase just before election." And sometimes, smart governments cut taxes to win votes.

Enlarge Photo

Fast forward to 1996, when Stéphane Dion transitioned from university professor to minister of intergovernmental affairs. One of his accomplishments was the "clarity bill" setting the conditions for Quebec referendum questions and separation negotiations in clear and unambiguous terms. From 2004 to 2006, he was environment minister and from accounts of independent observers, did a credible job. Recently, he became leader of the federal Liberal party.

The 2008 Liberal platform consists of some interesting energy commitments - to retrofit 50 per cent of all homes by 2020 and 100 per cent by 2030. Provisions for doubling financial incentives and providing a zero-interest $10,000 green mortgage for major energy improvements like geothermal and solar heating are all good steps. The Liberals want higher energy standards for the national building code and for all appliances to ensure that "all new builds are green builds."

Stéphane Dion also proposes strong enforcement of post-2010 fuel efficiency standards and improvements in car-scrapping programs to increase efficiency of existing cars. An investment of $250 million is suggested for a green fisheries and transport fund encouraging public transport initiatives. In addition, Dion proposes a 10-per-cent reduction in the carbon content of fuel by next generation bio-fuels. Unfortunately, this part of the program is weaker and less defined than I would have liked.

The amount of electricity generated by low-impact renewables would rise from 5 per cent to 10 per cent by 2015 and to 15 per cent by 2020, causing large investments and tens of thousands of green energy jobs. But these items have not been getting as much attention in the media as the "green shift."

The leader of the Liberal party has suggested a remarkable change in the way that Canada views pollution. This is proposed by a reform of tax policy - increasing taxes on carbon energy sources and lowering income taxes.

In the past, companies have caused pollution without penalty or, in the worst cases, were ordered to install pollution abatement equipment. With this change, a stronger link is made between corporations and the environment. Pollute with carbon energy and you will pay a fee. The fee is then rebated to citizens, and this makes alternative renewable energy more competitive.

The Conservatives have been accused of confusing Canadians about Stéphane Dion's "green shift," which proposes transfering taxation from income to carbon. The Tory "tax grab" attack seems unusual in light of the plan's promise, "putting it into law that every dollar raised in pollution taxes be returned to citizens in tax cuts. The Auditor General will ensure the green shift's revenue neutrality."

A second Tory theme, that the plan will destroy the economy, seems exaggerated as well. One blogger humorously notes that if the "green shift" plan would destroy the economy, then the opposite, to raise income taxes and lower carbon taxes, should create a boom.

Lowering corporate and personal taxes, as the "green shift" suggests, is similar to the Conservative mantra. Taxes on fuel in Europe are $1 a liter higher than here without serious harm to the economy. This plan leaves the gasoline tax without change. Furnace oil would increase gradually and be a total of 8.5 per cent higher by the fourth year. Diesel would increase 7 cents by the fourth year, a 5-per-cent increase. Finally, it is likely that a world cap-and-trade system will eventually surface, with trade sanctions to ensure that all play their part.

Canadians seem to want leadership to reduce global warming and to adjust to higher energy prices as peak oil arrives. But is reality different from the perception? The Liberal plan is actually quite modest in comparison to the size of the economy or the government's operating budget. Are Canadians ready to accept real change, however gentle it may be?

Stéphane Dion has proposed wide-ranging solutions that rate a "B" on my energy scale. The plan is incomplete in terms of national energy security, but it is courageous and forward-looking.

There are real differences being offered to Canadians this election. Voters can easily compare the platforms of all parties directly off the Internet and should do so. Stéphane Dion's clarity in energy policy is one of his advantages in this campaign. His refusal to follow Harper's lead and spend huge sums on Arctic patrol vessels is an example of the different thought process among leaders.

As Dion has noted, "We can't win against the Americans, we can't win against the Russians, and we're too civilized to shoot the Danes." Prior to George W. Bush's tenure, the United Nations was the primary arena for discussion or international arbitration of differences. When common sense returns, the UN will regain an important role in meeting the challenges to come. World co-operation on adapting to declining energy supplies and carbon reduction steps are the answer.

Roy MacMullin is a writer on energy and political topics. Comments are welcome at roy.energy@rogers.com. Previous articles can be found at http://roymacmullin.wordpress.com/