Toronto Sun
22 June 2018
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to be challenged to hold a referendum on his forced implementation of a carbon tax on provinces that refuse to implement their own.
Support for carbon taxes appears to be falling as people finally realize what these plans will actually cost them in the wallet.
Everyone wants a clean environment; that’s not the issue. What is at issue is the cost to peoples’ bank accounts and to the economy and if there are more economical and effective ways of protecting the environment (spoiler alert: there are).
Premier-designate Doug Ford openly campaigned during the recent election to scrap Ontario’s current cap and trade system. Ford opponents will cite that he only received 40% of the popular vote, meaning that 60% voted against his party and their plans for Ontario.
While true, this 60% is split between three other parties for whom voters likely voted for them for reasons that go beyond just supporting a carbon tax.
So, to help clarify exactly which side this 60% falls on, PM Trudeau ought to hold a referendum on the issue.
However, this challenge comes with the condition that Trudeau lays out all the facts about his carbon-tax policy, verified by independent, impartial evaluators. Canadians must be clearly told the total cost of the carbon tax, along with an iron-clad audited guarantee of where the carbon tax money is to be spent.
Trudeau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna should also stop saying that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is the food of life; it’s an essential component of photosynthesis. Some experts, such as Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore, who unlike Trudeau and Gerry Butts is an ecologist, argue that the Earth is actually carbon deficient; that even prior to the advent of the industrial revolution, we actually had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and lush green forests feeding off the CO2.
Just because people like me don’t subscribe to carbon taxes doesn’t mean we are climate change deniers either. The climate does indeed change. In the past, the earth has seen an ice age advance and recede twice. What’s at issue is how much human-kind (sorry, people-kind) affects the climate.
Instead of wasting money and destroying our economy, why don’t we just take the current environmental protections we already have and make them even better while we search for a viable carbon-free fuel that will provide all our future needs? It’s a fact that what comes out of the tailpipes of cars and the smokestacks of factories is cleaner than it’s ever been and getting better with stricter emission standards that don’t currently include carbon taxes.
It’s in your court Prime Minister.
***********************************************************************************************
The unedited version:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to be challenged to hold a referendum on his forced implementation of a carbon tax on provinces that refuse to implement their own.
Support for carbon taxes appears to be falling as people finally realize what these plans will actually cost them in the wallet. A recent Ipsos poll revealed that 72% of Ontarians are against carbon taxes, a shocking turn of events given that two years ago, when carbon taxes were only a proposal, Canadians supported the idea by a margin of 56% to 44%.
Everyone wants a clean environment; that’s not the issue. What is at issue is the cost to peoples’ bank accounts and to the economy and if there are more economical and effective ways of protecting the environment (spoiler alert: there are).
Premier-designate Doug Ford openly campaigned during the recent election to scrap Ontario’s current cap and trade system. Ford opponents will cite that he only received 40% of the popular vote, meaning that 60% voted against his party and their plans for Ontario.
While true, this 60% is split between three other parties for whom voters likely voted for them for reasons that go beyond just supporting a carbon tax.
So, to help clarify exactly which side this 60% falls on, I challenge PM Trudeau to hold a referendum on the issue of a national carbon tax and whether the federal government has a legal right to impose one on a province that clearly doesn’t want the implement their own. This would likely be less costly than the legal fights that Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta (if Jason Kenny is elected next year) will be launching.
However, my challenge comes with the condition that PM Trudeau lays out all the facts about his carbon tax policy, verified by independent, impartial evaluators. Canadians must be clearly told the total cost of the carbon tax, along with an iron-clad audited guarantee of where the carbon tax money is to be spent.
As well, Canadians deserve to know things like just how much of an impact we currently have on global carbon emissions (experts say we contribute 1.6%), how much our boreal forests naturally filter carbon dioxide (some experts say we are actually a negative carbon emitter), how much of a difference our carbon tax scheme will additionally lower carbon dioxide levels and what the cost will be to our economy, especially given that we are next to a country that doesn’t have a national carbon tax system.
Even PM Stephen Harper stated he would support a carbon tax as long as the Americans implemented one too.
If Canadians vote in favour of your carbon tax, then I’ll accept it, but the referendum question MUST be a clear one and the public MUST be informed of the consequences, good and bad, of a carbon tax.
Oh yes Prime Minister, I also request that you and your Environment Minister stop saying that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is the food of life; it’s an essential component of photosynthesis. Some experts like Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore, who unlike you and Gerry Butts is an ecologist, argue that the Earth is actually carbon deficient; that even prior to the advent of the industrial revolution, we actually had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and lush green forests feeding off the CO2.
Just because people like me don’t subscribe to carbon taxes doesn’t mean we are climate change deniers either. The climate does indeed change. In the past, the earth has seen an ice age advance and recede twice. What’s at issue is how much human-kind (sorry, people-kind) affects the climate.
Instead of wasting money and destroying our economy, why don’t we just take the current environmental protections we already have and make them even better while we search for a viable carbon-free fuel that will provide all our future needs. It’s a fact that what comes out of the tailpipes of cars and the smokestacks of factories is cleaner than it’s ever been and getting better with stricter emission standards that don’t currently include carbon taxes.
