The repeal of cap and trade…

The repeal of cap and trade contradicts not only global trends but also global census. Governments across the globe, including China, accept that a price on carbon is not only necessary, but in fact the one of the most effective policy tools to reduce carbon emissions while limiting impacts on the economy. Economist after economist has asserted that carbon pricing reduces CO2 emissions at a lower cost then regulation.

Critics of carbon pricing, including this premier and this government have said the tax is punishing for families,and says they will propose less harmful but more effective measures for tackling climate change. This is simply not feasible, and carbon pricing is not a punishing scheme or tax. It is in fact the least damaging medicine to solve this issue. It took considerable lobbying by economists and conservative think tanks to establish a global consensus that carbon pricing was much less harmful then regulation. In fact, this week saw two economists awarded the nobel peace prize for their work on economics and climate change. This work concludes that in fact a price on carbon is in fact one of the indispensable policy tools that must be used to reduce climate change.

Under the Environmental Bill of Rights, the government is required to consider comments provided during the 30 day comment period. It is common practice that the government also respond to these comments . I would like to see your ministry and the PMO respond to the following:

1. Based on what evidence do you assert that you can effectively reduce carbon emissions at a rate that avoids catastrophic climate change without a price on carbon? While drafting your response I would like you to consider that economic authorities agree that regulation imposes higher costs for each unit of green house gas reductions and that the government is facing a bleak financial situation and has halted revenue generating cap and trade auctions. This seems to preclude or limit the possibilities for policy solutions that involve government spending or regulation.

2. How does this government claim that it will make polluters pay as part of its new climate change plan and yet not punish families? How does the government propose to prevent businesses from passing these costs onto families?

3. Does the government believe it has a responsibility to protect the health, wealth, prosperity and interests of future generations? In light of the IPCC's report, will this government seek to significantly and rapidly reduce emissions? If the government does not intend to do this, how does it argue that it has met its responsibility to future generations?

4. Why will the government not consider a revenue neutral carbon pricing system that funds income tax cuts and provides lump sum benefits to lower income families to offset potential impacts?

5. What evidence does the government use to suggest that carbon pricing does not work? Mark Cameron, Stephen Harper's former policy director, leads a non-partisan think tank which actually just endorsed carbon pricing and published a study in support of a carbon pricing and dividend system.

I do not imagine that this government will retreat from its position. If it will not do that, I would like to see this government reflect on whether it truly is representing the long-term interests of its constituents and the livelihoods and prosperity of generations who will bear the burdens of our choices. There are ways to balance our short-term and long-term needs. I hope that this government has the courage to reset it's course and find those methods.