Trudeau, Carbon Pricing, Regional Politics, and Technology Policy
Yesterday, Justin Trudeau appeared to be backing away from a national carbon price. He says some of the provinces have already implemented carbon pricing, so the federal government will be left to â€œoverseeâ€. What Trudeau is actually saying isnâ€™t quite clear, but it certainly seems like he is giving up on creating a national carbon price and leaving it to the provinces.
In the subsequent discussions on twitter, some pointed towards the difficult politics of carbon pricing in Canadaâ€™s regionally diverse federation. Below I will argue that the ideal policy response to Canadaâ€™s regional diversity involves implementing geographically specific clean energy transition policies. It does not involve giving up on a national carbon-pricing framework.
The problem with leaving carbon pricing up to the provinces is that a national policy to make polluters pay will not be effectively or uniformly implemented. In Canada, it is the relatively low per capita emitting provinces of British Columbia, QuÃ©bec and possibly Ontario that have shown a willingness to price carbon. If a new federal government abdicates its responsibility to implement carbon pricing, the highest emitting provinces will be able to continue to do very little (e.g. Alberta) or nothing. Furthermore, one of the reasons provinces and states launched collaborations on carbon pricing to begin with, was because they anticipated that their respective federal governmentâ€™s would eventually take action. Many of the sub-national initiatives have lost steam because national governments have not moved to create national standards. (On this see Kathryn Harrison 2013)
The ideal carbon pricing policy involves a uniform price for every tonne of GHG, regardless of where it is emitted. This has been the mantra of market-oriented environmental economists for some time now. Of course, a carbon pricing policy has to actually be implemented and this involves politics. As is no surprise to political economists, a carbon â€œmarketâ€ or a tax equal to the cost of the environmental externality, does not just naturally evolve. New market and market-based incentives need to be implemented by the state, and this introduces political power and political negotiation.
Canadian politics has historically revolved around regional considerations. Climate and energy politics is no exception, because of the quite distinct provincial energy systems and sectoral compositions of provincial economies. Given Canadaâ€™s particular institutional arrangements, uniform policies can spur regional conflicts and fail to meet intended policy objectives. In his 1943 essay â€œDecentralization and Democracyâ€, Harold Innis warned that the â€œnewâ€ natural resources of petroleum and hydroelectricity contributed to increased regional segmentation and regional tensions. He critiqued policies that only manipulated â€œa single instrumentâ€ because they could have differential effects across Canadaâ€™s geographic landscape. He noted â€œeach region has its conditions of equilibrium in relation to the rest of Canada and the rest of the worldâ€. Innisâ€™ words were prescient. Today we find relatively progressive climate policies in Canadaâ€™s hydro-rich provinces and the regionally concentrated bitumen sands have a large impact on Canadaâ€™s continued growth in GHG emissions.
While regional diversity is a basic fact of Canada, it does not mean the federal government should abdicate its responsibilities for implementing a national carbon price. It does mean that it should not be the ONLY policy in the toolkit (as is sometimes proposed by economists with too much faith in market mechanisms).
Given Canadaâ€™s regional diversity, a comprehensive climate change strategy also needs to prioritize policies that are targeted to the circumstances within particular regions as well as different sectors of the economy. The leverage points within supply chains, sectoral linkages, and clean energy innovation clusters, will look very different in QuÃ©bec vs. Alberta. Different provinces and regions will also have to manage different types of industrial restructuring.
A carbon pricing policy will have a hard time dealing with regional specifics while remaining effective. In contrast, an innovation policy approach that sees a role for governments in analyzing and then coordinating various interventions to facilitate low-carbon development paths is designed to recognize regional and sectoral differences. Innovation policy goes well beyond R&D. It can also include promoting strategic planning processes; creating knowledge sharing networks; training and investment in strategic technologies; creating niche markets to facilitate learning and experimentation; and exploiting linkages between traditional industries and emerging technologies that could spin off new industries. More targeted innovation policies have the political benefit of more clearly defining low-carbon social and technological visions, and mobilizing clean technology advocates. The federal government has a role in enabling regional innovation processes so they aggregate to meet national climate objectives.
Unfortunately, a robust discussion of the federal role in a clean energy technology policy has been missing. A â€œcarbon priceâ€ has been the only game in town within federal climate policy discussions for quite some time. Without carbon pricing the federal climate policy cupboard looks pretty bare. The solution is not to give up on carbon pricing, as Mr. Trudeau seems to be suggesting. Rather, we should put more policy items on the cupboard. A policy framework that supports regionally specific low-carbon transition processes would complement a national carbon price quite nicely.
Trudeau Jr. is a huge disappointment. He exemplifies empty liberalism at its finest. Instead of taking leadership and showing vision on the environment and economy, he takes the politically expedient route at a time when we are facing crises in both.
It’s funny how he is riding his father’s coattails to power. Yet he is the type of leader his father would find contemptible.
He takes the “head waiter” approach to federalism when his father believed in a strong role for federal government.
His father also supported the centrist Keynesian economic system. But Jr. supports Harper’s low-tax small-government vision and $50-billion a year in tax cuts.
The real problem is our caveman voting system. Unlike democratic countries, we award absolute corrupt power to 39% MINORITY parties. So Liberal leaders are successful going right-wing on the economy and left-wing on social issues (plus a lot of platitudes and broken promises.)
But if we modernize our voting system (like 31 of 34 developed countries) with either Proportional Representation or Ranked Ballot Voting, this corrupt strategy will no longer work. Instead of people voting strategically to stop the neo-con leader, they can vote on principle without worry of any leader getting all the power.
So progressive economists really need to make electoral reform a priority. Unless we change the voting system, progressive economic policies are nothing more than a pipe dream.
Nice article on breaking open our imagination and our national toolbox in looking at dealing with climate change.
It’s already a bumpy road across Canada with the rules changing at every Provincial border, and with changes in the queue both in Ontario and Alberta, the bumps could get bigger. Companies operating across the country would like some consistency. But at the same time, who would expect that a fee on carbon pollution would look the same for Alberta, Manitoba, and New Brunswick, or Nunavut?
Justin Trudeau dropped the ball on this one and I agree with the author; the feds still have a strong role to play.