A political leader cannot go far wrong by doing what is best for thecountry, choosing what is right for people, and then acting. The onlyproblem is agreeing on what is meant by “best” and by “right.”

When Stephen Harper decided to ignore Canada’s commitments under the Kyotoaccord, it was because he had made up his mind that the process was bogus.After all the Americans had not signed on to the climate change deal, andthe previous Liberal government had taken no action to implement it. Whyshould Canada pay other countries millions for the right to continue to emitgreenhouse gases in excess of our agreed limit, the prime minister argued?For an ecologist, Harper’s actions were totally irresponsible, he had donethe opposite of what is best, and what is right. For an oil patch executive,Harper was defending Canada’s geopolitical position as an energy superpower,protecting Canada’s best bet for long-term prosperity.

The ecologist has climate change numbers to prove the green position; theoil executive has financial projections to support the prosperity pitch.To figure out who is right, and who is wrong in this kind of debate, you canargue that green science trumps the bean-counting financial arguments.Except that the bean counters also have applied science, technologyarguments, about turning around the negative effects of, say, tar sandsexploitation, through innovative procedures to recycle water, and captureand sequester carbon underground. And of course the greenies can argue thatmarket calculations omit (or classify as externalities and promptly forget)all the important costs to the environment of pushing more and more energyexploitation.

Deciding who is right and who is wrong is what ethics is about. Underlyingethical debate is social class, and the interests associated with class. Size Mattersthe very important recent Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) study of income inequality, and how it affects ecological outcomes shows protecting the environment come down to differences between the rich and the rest of us.

In Canada we are not allowed to acknowledge the existence of social classes, let alone to talk about the obvious role perpetual class conflict plays in constituting our political life. Instead, to hear general party debate, we have regional conflicts, or, sometimes linguistic, religious, or ethnic differences. All too rarely, gendered analysis makes an appearance.

The new best example of how class goes missing is the way the debatelaunched by Stéphane Dion with his Green Shift proposed carbon tax is playingout. We are now told that the issue of taxing carbon emissions is a westversus east issue. Alberta and Saskatchewan produce a much greater amount ofenergy than anywhere else, so they will pay a greater share of the proposedLiberal carbon tax that is to be levied on producers.

In fact, though it is levied at the production level, the cost will bepassed on from producers to consumers who will ultimately pay the tax.Thanks to the market power of energy producers, people in Alberta andSaskatchewan will pay for what they consume, just as will everyone else. The real issue raised by taxing energy shows in the social inequalitiesenhanced by the regressive nature of the proposed Liberal carbon tax. To itscredit the Green Shift package recognizes the re-distribution problem, andaddresses it with tax credits, and payments to low-income people.

Unfortunately by starting with a “no new revenue for the government from anew carbon tax” promise loved by some, the Liberals end up reducing income taxes for high-income Canadians, as well as low-income Canadians, when they make cuts tothe first two tax brackets. By putting money back in rich peoples pockets, the amount of carbon emission reduction we can expect is reduced at the sametime. In effect because of corporate tax cuts and personal income tax cuts, under the Liberal Green Shift tax payers money is being given out to fundcontinued over-consumption.

A true green plan would go back to a more progressive income tax structure.We used to have ten brackets not three. With seven new brackets — the moreyou make, the more you pay — we could start taxing away some of the excessincome that the CCPA has shown is fueling ecological deterioration.Of course, for the Liberals to propose such a change, they would have tochange sides in the class war nobody wants to admit is taking place. Inother words, the Liberal leader would have to agree to redefine what is bestand what is right for Canada.

Duncan Cameron

Duncan Cameron

Born in Victoria B.C. in 1944, Duncan now lives in Vancouver. Following graduation from the University of Alberta he joined the Department of Finance (Ottawa) in 1966 and was financial advisor to the...