Rethinking Lifestyle

This is the fourth and last in a series of comments on the Made-in-Manitoba Green Plan. We have sent a response letter to the Minister of Sustainable Development. Here, with some modification, is what we said:

We think the government needs to be commended for producing a plan. We sincerely hope this plan achieves more than similar plans produced by the previous government. We note particularly the insight reflected in the introduction to the Plan. Premier Pallister acknowledges the reality of climate change, and the contribution humans are making to green house gas emissions The Plan says that “Success in tackling climate change means using free-market forces and smart regulation.” We welcome this perspective.

The Plan’s commitment to monitoring also gives us reason to be optimistic, as it demonstrates an intention to improve the Plan as more information, and more feedback becomes available.

Nevertheless it is our view that the Plan, as proposed in the document, is unlikely to have a significant effect on green house gas emissions in Manitoba. In light of the urgent call to action in the document’s introduction, we are disappointed to learn that the costs per tonne at the 10-year threshold is proposed to be less than that of the already too timid carbon tax mandated by the federal government. According to the Federal Carbon Pricing Backstop Document, a $50.00 per tonne levy will translate into a levy on gasoline of $0.1163/l. At half of that amount, the Made-in-Manitoba Plan levy on gasoline will be less than $0.06. We do not believe that $0.06 or $0.12 will result in any meaningful change in driving behaviour. Such a price increase will not decrease the habitual drive time or car choices of an average citizen, and we very much doubt that it will affect transportation charges. The Plan projects cumulative emissions reduction due to the carbon tax of 1,070,000 tonnes. Simply based on how we ourselves respond to stimuli such as a $0.10 increase in the price of gasoline, we think this projection unrealistically optimistic. We believe a carbon tax can be a significant tool in changing behaviour, but not when the amount is so modest.

The plan also rules out significant opportunities for emission reduction by its exemption of agriculture from the carbon tax. According to the Plan, 1/3 of greenhouse gas generating activities in the province are from agriculture, but these will be protected from the effects of the carbon tax. This exemption will seriously detract from the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Manitoba.

We are aware that farm organizations and farm groups have lobbied strongly for exemption from the carbon tax, and that these organizations are important to Manitoba’s economy. We are not in a position to judge whether the agricultural sector should be protected from the carbon tax, but it seems clear that an outright exemption risks defeating the very purpose of the Plan. Similarly, we are convinced that low income households and remote communities will experience hardship as a result of a carbon tax. Policy is needed to protect these vulnerable groups, but these cannot be counter-productive subsidies for their energy costs. Vulnerable groups, whether agriculture, low income households or remote communities, all need meaningful incentives to reduce energy consumption – not exemption from this collective process. Mitigation to these groups needs to come in some way that will not remove the incentive to become more frugal in their use of fossil fuel. It may come as a rebate (already being used to compensate low income families from the effects of the GST), a dividend, or a reduction in some other tax. We believe that resource consumption must be addressed fairly at all levels, and that mitigation is a separate issue.

Since agriculture is a major contributor to green house gas production in Manitoba, it follows logically that some agricultural practices contribute more to green house gas production than others. Agreement on which these are is not necessary. Government does not need to prescribe winners and losers. Through a carbon tax, free market forces will, in an impartial way, discourage agricultural practices that contribute to greenhouse gas production.

We at the South Eastman Transition Initiative want to pass a rich planet on to our children and grandchildren, but are convinced that this can happen only if government policy succeeds in limiting activities that strip of the earth of its resources and pollute the atmosphere.

A strong policy designed to significantly alter behaviour will, without a doubt, have winners and losers. The losers will, inevitably, oppose the policy more vigorously than the winners applaud it. That is why we believe in the necessity of a strong, behaviour-changing carbon tax that is also off-set by a very visible payback. The most obvious payback would be a dividend paid to each citizen, or a dramatic shift from income tax to a carbon tax.