The Conservative government will spend $1.5 billion over 10 years to boost Canada's supply of wind, ocean, solar and other green energy, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday.
Times-Colon
Fortunately, for Stephen Harper, most Canadians are sufficiently bad at math to think that the Government's actually done something serious here. And Canada's corporate news media are unlikely to tell them anything different. So consider the numbers carefully.
One point five billion dollars over ten years.
A lot, eh?
Well, as a matter of fact, it amounts to approximately 6 hours of Federal Government spending per year.
Compare that with the $37 billion the Tories want to spend on "defense" -- each year.
In making the comparison, remember, it's $37 billion with a "b" that the Tories want for "defense". And remember, a billion is a thousand times a million. So $37 billion a year turns out to be equivalent to 69 and a quarter days of Federal Government spending -- accounting for about 20 cents on every dollar of Federal tax that you pay.
So those are the priorities: Greenhouse gas emissions reduction 0.25, killing scumbags in Afghanistan (as if we didn't have enough to deal with here at home) and otherwise serving the American empire, 69.25. Or a ratio of 1 to 277.
True, relative expenditure need not be a good measure of effectiveness. So let's consider value for money. Harper says the boost to the production of renewable energy as a result of his plan is "the equivalent of taking one million cars of the road."
Great work Steve. Or perhaps not? What about the other 15 million cars on the road? At this rate, we'll mitigate the carbon emissions due to road transportation in 160 years. That's, if we don't add to the number of cars on the road in the interim.
And there's another way of looking at this. Why spend any public funds to reduce carbon emissions? If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, why not let those who produce it, pay the cost of fixing the problem.
How?
A tax. A tax on the use of anything that generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Things like gasoline, coal, cement, landfills and cows.
How much tax? A little at first, say 5 cents per kilogram of carbon. Then raise it gradually until carbon emissions fall to whatever we want.
Won't that raise the cost of living? Of course. It will raise the cost of things that generate greenhouse gases. That is the whole point. But it won't increase the cost of things that generate little or no greenhouse gas. And because the tax increases government revenue the government could reduce other taxes. For example income tax.
Let me say that again. If the government raised revenue with a carbon tax, it could lower income tax.
Why is this the solution that economists recommend?
Because it leads those who can cut greenhouse gas emissions cheaply, which is to say at a cost less than that of paying the emissions tax, to do so. Whereas, it allows those who can reduce emissions only at great expense to continue emitting -- at a price, which tends to diminish demand for whatever it is that causes the emissions. Thus the overall cost to the national economy for a given reduction in emissions is minimized.
A carbon tax provides a market solution to the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas the Harper solution is for the government to pick and chose among technology alternatives and subsidy seekers. It assumes an all-wise government immune to bribery and corruption, which is an absurdity. It is the Soviet option. And like the Soviet Union it is doomed to fail and to harm the public in the process.
Harper must know this. He is an economist. But he also knows that a carbon tax is unacceptable to his political backers in the oil and gas industry. That's why he's going to piss away the rather negligible amount equivalent to six hours of Federal Government spending per year on a non-solution to a problem he doesn't believe exists.
How's that for cynicism? Not mine. Harper's.
The Canadian Spectator is optimized for viewing with Firefox Version 1.02.
Please address correspondence to 
.
