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

Calgary mayor should retain ‘blanket rezoning’ for sake of Calgarian families

espionage / 3 hours ago

Trump says release the Epstein files

Media / 1 day ago

Breaking News: the public actually expects journalists to determine the truth of statements they report

Business

Liberal’s green spending putting Canada on a road to ruin

Published on November 16, 2025

Dan McTeague

Once upon a time, Canadians were known for our prudence and good sense to such an extent that even our Liberal Party wore the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

Whatever else you might want to say about the party in the era of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, it recognized the country’s dire financial situation — back when The Wall Street Journal was referring to Canada as “an honorary member of the Third World” — as a national crisis.

And we (remember, I proudly served as Member of Parliament in that party for 18 years) made many hard decisions with an eye towards cutting spending, paying down the debt, and getting the country back on its feet.

Thankfully we succeeded.

Unfortunately, since then the party has been hijacked by a group of reckless leftwing fanatics — Justin Trudeau and his lackeys — who have spent the past several years feeding what we built into the woodchipper.

Mark Carney’s finally released budget is the perfect illustration of that.

The budget is a 400 page monument to deficit delusion that raises spending to $644.4 billion over five years — including $141.4 billion in new spending — while revenues limp to $583.3 billion, yielding a record (non-pandemic) $78.3 billion shortfall, an increase of 116% from last year.

This isn’t policy; it’s plunder. Interest payments alone devour $55.6 billion this year, projected to hit $76.1 billion by 2029-30 — more than the entire defence budget and rising faster than healthcare transfers.

We can’t discount the possibility that this will lead to a downgrade of our credit rating, which will significantly increase the cost of borrowing and of doing business more generally.

Numbers this big start to feel very abstract. But think of it this way: that is your money they’re spending. Ottawa’s wealth is made up entirely of our tax dollars. We’ve entrusted that money to them with the understanding that they will use it responsibly. In the decade these Liberals have been in power, they have betrayed that trust.

They’ve pursued policies which have made life in Canada increasingly unaffordable. For example, at the time of writing it takes 141 Canadian pennies (up from 139 a few days ago) to buy one U.S. dollar, in which all of our commodities are priced. Well, that’s .25 cents per litre of gasoline. Imagine what that’s going to do to the price of heating, of groceries, of the various other commodities which we consume.

And this budget demonstrates that the Carney era will be more of the same.

Of course, the Elbows Up crowd are saying the opposite — that this shows how fiscally responsible Mark Carney is, unlike his predecessor. (Never mind that they also publicly supported everything that Trudeau did when he was in government.) They claim that Carney shows that he’s more open to oil and gas than Trudeau was.

Don’t believe it.

The oil and gas sector does get a half-hearted nod in the budget with, for instance, a conditional pathway to repeal the emissions cap. But those conditions are important. Repeal is tied to the effectiveness of Carney’s beloved industrial carbon tax. If that newly super-charged carbon tax, which continues to make our lives more expensive, leads to government-set emissions reductions benchmarks being met, then Ottawa might — might — scrap the emissions.

Meanwhile, the budget doubles down on the Trudeau government’s methane emissions regulations. It merely loosens the provisions of the outrageous Bill C-59, an act which should have been scrapped in its entirety. And it leaves in place the Trudeaupian “green” super structure, which has resource sector investment, and any business that can manage it, fleeing to the U.S.

In these perilous times, with Canada teetering on the brink of recession, a responsible government would be cutting spending and getting out of the way of our most productive sectors, especially oil and gas — the backbone of our economy.

It would be repealing the BC tanker ban and Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines act,” so that our natural resources could better generate revenue on the international market and bring down energy rates at home.

It would quit wasting millions on Electric Vehicle charging stations; mandating that all Canadians buy EVs, even with their elevated cost; and pressuring automakers to manufacture Electric Vehicles, regardless of demand, and even as they keep closing up shop and heading south.

But in this budget the Liberals are going the opposite direction. Spend more. Tax more. Leave the basic Net-Zero framework in place. Rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

They’re gambling tomorrow’s prosperity on yesterday’s green dogma, And every grocery run, every gas fill-up, every mortgage payment will serve as a daily reminder that we are the ones footing the bill.

Once upon a time, the Liberals knew better. We made the hard decisions and got the country back on its feet. Nowadays, not so much.

Business

Carney doubles down on NET ZERO

Published on November 16, 2025

Dan McTeague

If you only listened to the mainstream media, you would think Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax is long gone. But the Liberal government’s latest budget actually doubled down on the industrial carbon tax.

While the consumer carbon tax may be paused, the industrial carbon tax punishes industry for “emitting” pollution. It’s only a matter of time before companies either pass the cost of the carbon tax to consumers or move to a country without a carbon tax.

Dan McTeague explains how Prime Minister Carney is doubling down on net zero scams.