No Carbon Tax is better than a bad Carbon tax

Before I begin, I have to confess the major reason why I identify with being a conservative. Most armchair pundits who react to people like us with incredulity and contempt charge that we are obstructionist by nature. Conservatives, they believe, harken back to a golden age before this and that, and in true Luddite fashion, try to stand in the way of progress. The more shrill amongst them accuse our ilk of hating everyone and everything that does not conform to our narrow view of the world.

They win debates by trying to cast the ground rules in their favour – in particular, how questions are framed. They attempt to cast questions in a similar style to the old example of “Do you still beat your wife?” Answer either yes, no or even maybe, and you are an inhuman beast. Worse still, if you reject the question, you are cast as someone who has something to hide.

Obviously, letting your opponents define who you are will not give you a flattering, or accurate portrait, so I must explain why I choose to adhere to such a maligned label.

I am a conservative not because I oppose interventions in the economy, or society. I am a conservative because I oppose interventions in the economy, or society that are ill devised, incompetently implemented, and completely unnecessary. I especially dislike them when they will clearly do the opposite of what they were designed to do. All conservative, despite their individual biases and interpretations, will agree on one thing – doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

Tell that to Stephane Dion, the erstwhile Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Ottawa. Monsieur Dion wants a carbon tax on gasoline, which, in his view, will help the environment. Dion’s tax, however, if it ever saw the light of day, would not only fail in its objective, it will do irreparable harm to those who really are not part of the problem.

I live in a rural farming area in eastern Ontario. We, in essence, grow the food that all Canadians consume – and when I say ‘all’ Canadians, I am including those 83 percent who live in urban areas. These are the people who will be the first hit by such a scheme – the proverbial canaries in the coal mine. The Liberal carbon tax will mean higher costs for fuel for farm equipment, for fertilizers, and for transporting produce. Moreover, for those farmers who need to supplement their farm income with a job in a nearby city, it means higher commuting costs.

If such a tax does not push many farmers and rural residents to the financial breaking point, it will guarantee higher prices at the checkout counter on your next grocery run.

Sadly enough, it will not make a lick of difference in our carbon output, or greenhouse gas production, and the clue is located in the number I cited two paragraphs ago.

Urban dwellers make up over 80 percent of the population, and a higher percentage of earned wages and consumer spending. And while math was never my strong suit, that would mean that over 80 percent of the problem lies there.

Some defensive sorts will point out the environmental impact of agriculture, but as that food is being consumed by more than just the farmer and his immediate household, that is a spurious argument. If the pollution of a jet airliner should be divided by the number of its passengers, why not divide the farmer’s amount by the number of people who eat his produce?

But, back to the carbon tax. How many people in large cities, with municipal subways, buses, and other forms of mass transit, still insist on driving the Ford Explorer or Yukon Denali down the expressways?

We should ask the question of what should be more repugnant to those who value green – either in the form of the environment or in hard earned taxpayers’ dollars. Are we offended by government supports paid by all (including urban citizens) to support farmers who feed everyone (including city dwellers), and can only continue to do so by taking good care of the surrounding land and soil – their capital asset. Or should we be offended by those who, given the choice of taking relatively inexpensive and readily available transportation subsidized by all (including rural taxpayers) would rather burn expensive fuel, emit carbon dioxide and other noxious gases for the sake of status and convenience.

Recently, someone remarked to me that Earth Day was the time when people from the land of steel and concrete traveled past chemical factories and toxic brownlands to come out to a land of trees, pure water, and clean air to lecture the locals about environmental stewardship.

Clearly, if this is Mr. Dion’s policy, he will be doing the same, by punishing the converted and allowing the real culprits a free ride.

This conservative believes that no carbon tax is better than a bad one.