![]() The result? We underestimate the economic benefits of proactive climate policy and debate the costs of action rather than the costs of inaction.”īut these nuances are only going to be understood by people willing to hear them - and who have at least some familiarity with economics and statistical methods. A new report from Clean Energy Canada (backed by modelling from Navius Research) shows a net gain of 700,000 energy jobs if Canada reaches net zero by 2050 - and 100,000 fewer energy jobs if it backslides on policies like the carbon tax.Īs Drummond and Miller noted in their op-ed, this one-dimensional view of carbon pricing “obscures the very real costs of climate change to the Canadian economy and means that the economic benefits of reducing emissions and improving resilience are not captured instead, only the costs of these policies are seen. There are millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in capital at stake, and Canada’s carbon tax is a key part of its value proposition to companies that want to invest here - like Volkswagen, which just announced that it will build a “gigafactory” for its electric vehicles in St. That upside should be abundantly clear by now, given the massive investments in clean energy that are being made in the United States, Europe, and China. The PBO’s analysis also fails to account for the economic upside associated with the carbon tax and other climate-friendly policies. By 2050, losses could rise to $100 billion and wipe out half a million jobs.” Howe Institute’s Don Drummond and the Canadian Climate Institute’s Sarah Miller noted in an op-ed last November, “Canada can expect $25 billion in losses by 2025 from the warming experienced since 2015, relative to a stable-climate scenario - an amount equal to half of projected GDP growth in 2025. It makes no accounting for costs associated with doing nothing on climate change, ones that are already in the tens of billions of dollars every year. It’s only when the modelled economic impacts of the carbon tax are included that the math swings in the other direction.Īnd that modelling, for what it’s worth, has some obvious flaws. As the new report says, “Considering only the fiscal impact, we estimate most households will see a net gain, receiving more in rebates from Climate Action Incentive payments.” By 2030-31, that net gain ranges from an average of $776 in Alberta to $202 in Ontario. There’s also the fact that the PBO’s new report doesn’t actually dispute previous government talking points about the carbon tax and rebate. But expecting Canadians to parse the difference between a mathematical median and a mean is asking an awful lot, especially when they have conservative pundits and politicians screaming in their ears about the inequity of it all. Averages can be a funny thing, after all, and while it’s true that the wealthiest Canadians will pay far more than they get in rebates, the bottom 40 per cent of income earners still come out ahead. ![]() After using the PBO’s previous analysis, which said eight out of 10 Canadians get more back in rebates than they paid in taxes, to defend the policy from conservative attacks, it's now being force-fed those words in the wake of an updated analysis that shows the average Canadian households doesn’t actually come out ahead economically.Īs Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault tried to explain to CTV’s Vassy Kapelos, that’s not exactly what the PBO’s new report says. It’s a lesson it personally invited, too. When it comes to the carbon tax and rebate, that’s a lesson the Liberal government is learning right now. ![]() Live by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, die by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |