Former Ontario environment minister, Glen Murray, says
it's too late to expect carbon taxes to do any meaningful good.
Glen Murray was the minister of environment in Ontario in 2017 when that province introduced its short-lived cap-and-trade carbon pricing system, which was killed off by the new Tory government just over a year later.
Murray, who is now working as a clean tech entrepreneur, says carbon taxes will take too long to work, given how quickly the planet is warming.
“If we had 40 years, 30 years, maybe that would work,” he said Wednesday.
“Do we have enough time for incrementalism as slow-motion pricing?” Murray asked. “The answer to that is no.”
Murray said Canada has spent the better part of the last decade mired in political fights over whether carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems are acceptable and now has “run out runway” to give them a chance.
He also said those battles have left politicians with a lack of willpower to set the price high enough to be truly effective.
Meanwhile, international scientists say the world has to cut greenhouse-gas emissions almost in half by the end of the next decade to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Canada has so far pledged to cut them by about a third and the policies in place – or on the way – leave the country significantly shy of even that.
7 comments:
.. 'politicians with a lack of willpower' .. hmm
My pedantic current mindset.. rejects that premise. Here is my suggestion. The word, term.. 'politicians' needs to be scathingly reviewed ASAP. I accept that in Canada we do in fact have politicians. From the pool or cesspool I believe the cream of the crop, the exemplars should emerge, run for election. The winners are OUR 'Public Servants'. That is all they really are are - their scope of work, job description, pay rate, hours etc are all bundled into Public Service. They work for us.. non ?
Is it more complicated than that ? Why ? Sez who ? I don't want to hear jack about Harper's cabin boys Ray Novak's ormStephen Lecce's tragic family backstory, nor does Trudeau's college buddy Gerald Butts opinion interest me in regard to Public Service, Infrastructure or pipelines. If we need specialized consultants re sea ice levels, remediation of methane leaking abandoned wells or offshore tax havens well then, due diligence required, jump to it, that why we pay you ! Greg Rickford's (Ontario) reliance on Doug Ford's climate warming deniers is likely a firing offense.. denial is not in your scope of work Mr Rickford.. its what we think and want and insist on that you are supposed to act upon. Maybe mention that to your department head Doug Ford, would ya ?
But this endless squirming scrum n clusterfluck of unelected 'politicians', spokes & data wankers, political donors, partisan posturers (hello Hamish Marshall) truly give me indigestion. In my view, WE (Canadians) elected riding candidates.. for better or worse or four years.. to represent OUR dreams, needs and wishes in Parliament or Provincial legislatures. Not Charles McVety's extreme christian snouting. Not some fossil like Stockwell Day. Not Warren Kinsella. Not Tom Flanagan. Not PostMedia or other foreign owned propaganda mill. Not nebulous 'politicians'.. which seems to be code for 'political animals' .. backroom and black ops manipulators a la Arthur Hamilton.
Bill Morneau is a zillionaire Minister.. Just as Joe Oliver was.. Rona Ambrose hobnobs with Bitumen kings.. but what do they have in common ? Politicians who are never elected.. aka political parties, absurd monies, donations.. and I expect, secret handshakes, conventions under the big tents.
Can we not slice the bottom of the political iceberg off ? The part that sinks ships.. even countries ? Even trashes democracy ? Hell, even termite colonies, vast as they are, have nothing on political parties & politicians who are devouring Canada voraciously
What if Govt rationed the sale of gasoline and diesel in Canada, and ramped down the sale of those by 5-10% every year?
Canada biggest problem when it comes to climate change are the USA and the hold of Petrochemical companies which are generally USA owned.
All the best intentions in the world are useless when Uncle Sam says NO.
before we can combat climate change we have to combat the influence of the USA; not an easy task.
TB
I prefer to start my weekend on a more hopeful note.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/29/this-dark-material-the-black-alchemy-that-can-arrest-carbon-emissionshttps:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/25/starfish-sea-stars-melting-disease-return
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo
It's not over before it is over.
Enjoy your weekend, and all that follows.
TB
Hi, TB. Thanks for the links. I've been researching biochar for years since I first read of the terra preta discovery in the Amazon rainforest. I formulated a proposal for massively widespread pyrolysis plants capable of moving through our no longer viable forests, harvesting their bio-fuels, producing biochar and preparing the soil for planting new forests with species more climate tolerant and pest resistance. Whenever I've raised it with possible investors they shy from the idea, usually falling back on the "they'll think of something" excuse.
The article on the return of a new starfish makes my day. They're badly needed to combat the sea urchin infestations that are attacking kelp forests along the west coast. By the sound of it, those 'super-starfish' won't want for food.
Hugh, the very premise of the global "carbon budget" implies a need for rationing. If we know that, for life on Earth to continue in some recognizable form, we must emit no more than an identified quantity of greenhouse gas emissions, the question becomes who, which nation, gets what share of that remaining acceptable carbon quota?
Why haven't we run those figures, allocated each nation its fair share? The answer explains much about our haphazard approach to fighting global warming.
We know that the industrialized nations are responsible for a disproportionate amount of existing atmospheric loading through the span of the Industrial Revolution to today. The Third World, by contrast, has contributed very little.
On a historic basis, most of the remaining carbon budget should be given to the historic low emitters, the Third World.
Or we could forget about the sins of the past and find a new means of allocation (i.e. rationing) perhaps one based on per capita sharing. All humans are entitled to an equal share in the whole.
Either way would screw the affluent West. It would mean de-industrializing almost overnight. We would have to retreat from the carbon economy. Our citizens would raise Holy Hell at the notion of environmental justice/equality. No, the atmosphere, historic, present and future must meet our needs, not the rest of the world's, the rest of humanity's. Besides we're masterful at the 'blame game.' It's a powerful diversion.
China, with its 1.436 billion people has now just barely edged out the US with its 329 million. Ergo, it's all China's fault.
China and India can fault the major per capita emitters - the US, S.Korea, Canada and Australia. We, in turn, can justifiably fault them for overpopulating the biosphere.
Everyone gets to point fingers. Nothing is done.
Post a Comment