Economists miss the point about the carbon tax revolt

An open letter is circulating online among my economist colleagues aiming to promote sound thinking on carbon taxes. It makes some valid points, and will probably get waved around in the House of Commons before long. But it’s conspicuously selective in its focus and unfortunately ignores the main problems with Canadian climate policy as a whole.

There’s a massive pile of boulders blocking the road to efficient policy. They have labels such as “Clean Fuel Regulations,” the oil and gas sector emissions cap, the electricity sector coal phaseout and “net-zero” requirements, strict energy efficiency rules for new and existing buildings, new performance mandates for natural gas-fired generation plants, the regulatory blockade on liquified natural gas export facilities, new motor vehicle fuel economy standards, caps on fertilizer use on farms, provincial ethanol production subsidies, electric vehicle mandates and subsidies, provincial renewable electricity mandates, grid-scale battery storage experiments, the “Green Infrastructure Fund,” carbon capture and underground storage mandates and subsidies, subsidies for electric buses and emergency vehicles in Canadian cities, new aviation and rail sector emission limits, and many more.

Not one of these occasioned a letter of protest from Canadian economists.

In front of that mountain of boulders there’s a twig labelled “overstated objections to carbon pricing” and at the sight of it hundreds of economists have rushed forward to carry it off the road. What a help.

To my well-meaning colleagues I respond that the pile of regulatory boulders long ago made the economic case for carbon pricing irrelevant. Layering a carbon tax on top of current and planned command-and-control regulations does not yield an efficient outcome, it just raises the overall cost to consumers. Which is why I can’t get excited about the carbon-pricing letter. That’s not where help with the heavy lifting is needed.

My colleagues object to exaggerated claims about the cost of carbon taxes. Fair enough. But far worse are exaggerated claims about the economic opportunities associated with the so-called “energy transition” and benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Some of the latter are traceable to poor-quality academic research, such as the continued use of the RCP8.5 emissions scenario long after it has been shown in the academic literature to be grossly exaggerated, or use of impacts estimates from climate models known to have large persistent warming biases. But a lot of it is simply groundless rhetoric. Climate activists, politicians and journalists have spent years blaming Canadians’ fossil fuel use for every bad weather event that comes along and swinging “climate emergency” declarations and other polemical cudgels to shut down rational debate. Again, none of this occasioned a cautionary letter from economists.

There’s another big issue on which the letter was silent. Suppose we did clear all the regulatory boulders along with the carbon-pricing-costs-too-much twig. How high should the carbon tax be? A few of the signatories are former students of mine so I expect they remember the formula for an optimal emissions tax in the presence of an existing tax system. If not, they can take their copy of Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy by Prof. McKitrick off the shelf, blow off the thick layer of dust and look it up. Or they can consult any of the half-dozen or so journal articles published since the 1970s that derive it. But I suspect most of the other signatories have never seen the formula and don’t even know it exists.

Because if they did, they would know that a major obstacle to emission reductions in Canada is our tax burden. The costlier a tax system, the lower the marginal value of emission reductions and the lower the optimal carbon tax rate. Based on reasonable estimates of the social cost of carbon and the marginal costs of our tax system, our carbon price is already high enough, and probably too high. I say this as one of the only Canadian economists who has published on all aspects of the question. Believing in mainstream climate science and economics does not oblige you to dismiss public complaints that the carbon tax is too costly.

Which raises my final point: the age of mass academic letter-writing has long since passed. Academia has become too politically one-sided. Universities don’t get to spend years filling their ranks with staff drawn from one side of the political spectrum then expect to be viewed as neutral arbiters of public policy issues. As such, the more signatories on letters like this the less impact it will have. People nowadays will make up their own minds, thank you very much, and a well-argued essay by an individual willing to stand alone will likely carry more weight.

Online conversations today are about rising living costs, stagnant real wages and deindustrialization. Even if carbon pricing isn’t the main cause, climate policy is playing a growing role and people can be excused for lumping it all together. The public would welcome insight from economists about how to deal with these challenges. A mass letter enthusing about carbon taxes is no substitute.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Related Topics:#CanadianClimatePolicy #CarbonTaxRevolt #FraserInstitute #RossMcKitrick

Up Next

JK Rowling dares Scottish police to arrest her over new ‘hate crime’ law threatening free speech

Don't Miss

Safe supply opioids based more on ideology than evidence?

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate

International / 7 hours ago

RFK Jr. tells Tucker how Big Pharma uses ‘perverse incentives’ to get vaccines approved

Censorship Industrial Complex / 8 hours ago

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on June 30, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.

Brett Rowland

Investigative Reporter

Business

Trump on Canada tariff deadline: ‘We can do whatever we want’

Published on June 29, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

President Donald Trump appears unconcerned about an upcoming tariff deal deadline after abruptly ending all trade talks with Canada as his bid to overhaul world trade continues.

Trump is nearing the end of a self-imposed 90-day deadline to strike deals with nearly every U.S. trading partner as he works to reorder global trade by giving America a competitive advantage through tariffs on foreign goods.

Trump now says that the deadline could be extended past July 9 or even accelerated.

“We can do whatever we want. We could extend it, we could make it shorter. I’d like to make it shorter,” Trump said Friday at the Oval Office. “I’d like to just send letters out to everyone ‘Congratulations, you’re paying 25%.'”

On April 2, Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on nearly every nation that trades with the U.S. Seven days later, he paused those higher tariff rates for 90 days to give his trade team time to cut deals with key trading partners. That 90-day deadline ends July 9 and thus far Trump has brought home two deals: A limited trade pact with the United Kingdom and a trade truce with China.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg that new deals are on the way, and those could serve as models for others.

“We’re going to do top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fit behind,” Lutnick said.

He said the U.S. was “close to the finish line” with India. Lutnick also said he had made an offer to the European Union.

Trump’s decision to suspend trade talks with Canada with just days left before the deadline underscored the flexibility of the president’s trade deadline.

“These are very complex negotiations and we are going to continue them in the best interests of Canadians,” Candian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Friday while leaving his office, according to local reports.

Canada has invariably been one of the top two trading partners for the United States for years. In 2024, Canada was the top destination for U.S. exports and the third-largest source of U.S. imports. On the other side, Canada exported 75% of its goods to the United States and imported almost half of its goods from the United States.

U.S. total goods trade with Canada was an estimated $762.1 billion in 2024, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. U.S. goods exports to Canada in 2024 were $349.4 billion. U.S. imports from Canada in 2024 totaled $412.7 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $63.3 billion in 2024.

Services trade with Canada, exports and imports, totaled an estimated $140.3 billion in 2023. Services exports were $86.0 billion, and services imports were $54.3 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with Canada was $31.7 billion in 2023, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Trump put a stop to the talks on Friday.

“We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump said the digital services tax was a copy of a European Union proposal.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Canada Prime Minister Mark Carney had different trade concepts between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

The tariffs have frustrated Canadian leaders and residents. Tensions between the two neighboring countries have been high. And cities on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border have been affected.

Trump has repeatedly suggested that Canada join the U.S. as its 51st state. He previously called former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “governor” regularly.