GST on poppies

I was doing the recycling when I noticed a newspaper editorial (that appeared back in November throughout the Sun Newspaper chain) by Kalvin Reid entitled, Tax on Poppies is Pure Poppycock.

Welland NDP MP Malcolm Allen introduced a private member's bill to eliminate GST on poppies and the conservative newspaper chain's columnist urged readers to lobby their MPs to support this bill.

This is all very strange to me.

We wear poppies to honour and remember those who sacrificed for Canada, and yet we are so unhappy to pay taxes to support our country, that we are willing to go to considerable expense to introduce legislation and then create an exemption for poppies?!

I say that I'm happy to wear a poppy and find it particularly appropriate to pay a tax on poppies to fund my government. I'll put in a little extra into the Royal Canadian Legion's box next time.

Can taxes be too high? Sure, but the problem is in how efficiently or effectively they are spent, not in the fact that we pay them in the first place.

And most ironic of all? That an NDP member of parliament would be the one to introduce such a bill. NDP?! Hey, NDP, it's like when folks complain about how union dues are too high! You of all political parties should know that if people do complain about high union dues, they need to be reminded about the struggles and sacrifices so many people have made in the past just so that they could have unions.

Carbon Pricing and Environmental Federalism

This weekend I attended the Carbon Pricing and Environmental Federalism conference in Kingston, Ontario. This meeting, organized by Queen's University's Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, brought together many of Canada's experts in the field of public policy on climate change.

Needless to say, Stephane Dion, the Green Shift and the recent election were not far from everybody's thoughts. The mood was a bit somber in this respect as exemplified by Prof. Kathryn Harrison of UBC, a political scientist, who said that with last week's vote, optimistically, action in Canada on climate change will be pushed back by at least ten years. Various people had unkind words for the NDP and the Conservatives for campaigning against the Green Shift with misinformation and scare tactics. More than one person told me that the best use of my time now, as an activist, would be to talk to kids, with the sad implication that changing the minds of older generations, as a whole, was a lost cause (although as a younger person and somewhat of a kid-at-heart, I am not willing to give up so quickly).

Economist Nancy Olewiler (an organizer of the letter signed by 250 economists during the election campaign supporting a carbon tax) of SFU, however, amid her own observations of the difficulties that the fight against climate change faces, did say that we should celebrate one thing: that the recent federal election in Canada was the first Canadian election where pricing policy (as opposed to voluntary initiative or incentives) for carbon emissions was a major issue.

Climate change will be challenging us for a long long time. How to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be a political issue for a long long time. As long as we have a market economy, the price of emissions, however it is generated, will also be a political issue. And so I think that Canadians will be talking about Stephane Dion and the Green Shift for many years to come.

Stephane Dion put a clear policy forward for carbon pricing as a first step to combat climate change. It was supported by environmentalists and economists. It was roughly in line with the Green Party's proposal, and it was based an old idea going back in the political arena at least as far as a policy proposal by a US Republican party presidential candidate in 1979, John Anderson, and implemented in one form or another in many countries since then.

In my opinion we are indebted to Stephane Dion for bringing some intellectual honesty to Canadian politics. Perhaps his mistake was to be so honest as to call a tax a tax. One of the conclusions of this conference was that, politically, Canadians are not ready for that. Conference participants concluded that we should never again associate carbon emissions pricing with the word "tax", and simply disguise it with names such as, "cap and trade", "public benefit funds", "renewable portfolio standard", or "foreign oil security fee".

I believe that history will show that Mr. Dion should be accorded more respect than he has been receiving from certain (close) quarters in the last week. We need more people like him in Canadian politics.

Global warming allows Lyme disease to invade Canada

The Kingston Whig Standard carried an article today by reporter Jennifer Pritchett about the spread of Lyme disease across Canada. An aunt of mine in the U.S. has suffered from it for many years. It wasn't treated soon enough or aggressively enough and got into her heart. This nasty disease is carried by the blacklegged, or 'deer' tick. Ticks are bad enough - seeing a creature with its head burrowed into your flesh is a bit distrubing - but those deer ticks are tiny little buggers and really hard to check for. Believe me, I have had to do it for friends.

(Image from the Public Health Agency of Canada website)

Canadians are especially susceptible because they are relatively ignorant about Lyme disease.

The Whig Standard article concludes with a warning from one scientist:

Jim Sutcliffe, a medical entomologist at Trent University, said bird migration has been the source of the ticks moving north into Canada. Global warming is enabling those ticks to survive and reproduce in more northern latitudes.
"The thing that's different is that the climate is changing - it's warming gradually so our summers are getting warmer and our falls are becoming warmer," he said. "The temperatures stay higher for longer throughout the year and that's making southern Canada receptive for the blacklegged tick."

We have to worry about not only greenhouse gas mitigation (reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases) but global warming mitigation. Global warming has already started and we'll have to deal with (pay for) the consequences.

Do you want to pay for a government program to deal with Lyme disease? If so, where would you divert resources from? Would you cut spending elsewhere ? Raise taxes? Borrow from the future?

Canada's greenhouse gas emissions do matter to the world

A paper in Nature that has attracted some attention this week reminds me that I've been meaning to write about why it is important for Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, even though they represent only a few percent of the total world emissions. You sometimes hear critics of devoting resources to fight climate change say that reducing our emissions is not going to make any difference. However, "doing our part" to reduce emissions isn't like voting, obeying the speed limit, or playing a team sport. These examples are missing a crucial dynamic, that of competition and of a limited, public resource.

The problem of climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is an example of a tragedy of the commons. The image this term is meant to evoke is that of pastoral villagers, each with cows that graze on a shared grassy commons. What one villager's cows eat is lost to the others so every villager is tempted to use up the commons as quickly as possible. As for climate change, we all pay when someone uses the atmosphere (the commons) as a 'free' dumping ground. When a single person pays to reduce emissions, everybody else benefits. Sensible individuals might conclude that the best thing to do is to take advantage of the free dumping ground (burn fossil fuels) as much as possible. But if everybody were to think that way, everybody would lose in the end.

The way out of such a tragedy is cooperation. In the case of greenhouse gases, this might take the form of an agreement between all parties to limit emissions, or to pay for emissions. It is very important in this dynamic that everybody is seen by others to be cooperating. Nobody should be seen as 'getting ahead' by cheating because then everybody else would be encouraged to do the same and cooperation would break down.

This point is the key to why Canada must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has one of the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. Cooperation can't happen when a few people are taking advantage of the commons a lot more than others. Cooperation is fostered by people providing moral leadership. In this respect the small, the weak, or the small-in-number have always, historically, had opportunities to lead.