I am an engineering and…

I am an engineering and economics student at the University of Toronto, and I am commenting on this Bill because I believe it does not benefit the people, makes no economic sense, and is frankly irresponsible.

The current government has embraced "the little guy" in its mandate, and if we examine the programs Cap and Trade has enabled (which reduce emissions even more than the Cap and Trade permit system itself), we find that they predominantly benefit the less fortunate. The largest program funded by Cap and Trade revenue is the retrofitting of energy-inefficient buildings, which abates greenhouse gas emissions at negative cost, meaning that every dollar invested saves Ontario more money in addition to making those buildings more comfortable for the Ontarians that live, work, and learn in them. Cap and Trade also funds transit development, which helps low-income Ontarians access not only essential services but also employment opportunities, helping them contribute their skills and hard work to our economy. The effectiveness of all these programs are further boosted when we consider that Cap and Trade funding is annual and regular: it delivers certainty to businesses and individuals, allowing them to make long-term plans to use the money optimally. More fundamentally, the impacts of climate change hit the little guys the most - it's the working families struggling to make ends meet that stand to lose the most when extreme weather hits.

Economically, Cap and Trade allows climate change to be controlled more cheaply than through regulation alone, and basic economics demands that the social harms of greenhouse gas pollution be internalized to polluters in order for the economy to work efficiently. Nor is regulation cheaper for the people: it's common sense that businesses pass on their costs to consumers, and those costs will only increase with an economically inefficient environmental plan that does not include carbon pricing. Moreover, the idea that greenhouse gas reduction harms the economy is bogus. Research by the OECD has found that climate action can materially increase growth, and the clean innovation carbon pricing drives, in particular, is an example of technological growth that fundamentally drives growth and gives Ontario a competitive edge. Nor does Cap and Trade make Ontario less competitive: countless jurisdictions across the developed world are adopting carbon pricing, and Ontario runs the risk of being stranded when the carbon bubble inevitably bursts if it does not continue to make polluters pay. Frankly, I want to work in a province that can be proud of its leadership in policy and technological development, not one that is scrambling to catch up as the world leaves it behind.

More importantly, climate change is a looming catastrophe. The recent IPCC report shows that we have only 12 years to save us from disaster, and any step back now is patently ridiculous. Carbon pricing in one jurisdiction isn't sufficient, but it's practically necessary: why should other governments reduce their emissions when we, who have been in such a position of global leadership in the past, take steps back? It's absurd to address the problem of carbon leakage by becoming a jurisdiction to which carbon metaphorically leaks. Without adequate action, Ontario stands to suffer enormous losses from extreme weather with the potential to stop business activity, climate refugees who may stretch our resources thinner, and a variety of health hazards that threaten to ruin lives. In seeking to put pennies of gas money in the electorate's pockets, the repeal of Cap and Trade would only burn holes through which far more money (and lives) will fall.

For these reasons and in accordance with my environmental rights, I call on the government to reconsider its short-sighted move to repeal Cap and Trade. Please show that you care for my generation and the generations that follow by implementing a climate plan with clear and ambitious targets, secure funding mechanisms, and comprehensive reach.

Thank you.