TLDR: PBO issued a report (due to an “error”) that suggested carbon pricing has a negative economic impact than doing nothing. This error was discovered by third party experts and public critics only upon its release. The premise of “doing nothing” having lower economic costs is false because increased carbon emissions have economic costs, and Canada in breach of global carbon reduction agreements it signed up to has trade and economic costs. None of which PBO accounted for in its erroneous analysis. PBO further states that the government has its own analysis of carbon pricing but he doesn’t have the authority to release it.
This sounds to me like PBO is sabotaging the government on this policy issue, 1st by attempting to show that carbon pricing had negative economic impact, and 2nd by suggesting government is withholding its own analysis.
We’ve spent a century+ pretending carbon pollution has no cost, and the entire history of capitalism – if not our species – pretending all other pollutions had no cost right up until that cost was undeniable.
So, not surprising that we’re treating CO2 the exact same way. Only this time around, the polluters realized they could get ahead of the issue and convince enough of the general population that carbon pollution is harmless to prevent it from becoming publicly undeniable.
A big part of the problem is that the official opposition hasn’t presented a mature alternative. Organizations like the PBO would usually evaluate the top contenders, but there aren’t any. None of the Conservatives, NDP, or Bloc are pushing an alternative.
It isn’t the PBO’s role to make up straw man alternatives to test the effectiveness of government policy.
That an unelected person or department that’s part of our federal services has had and will have such a huge effect on this country’s politics for several years, the next federal election, and this country’s ability to respond to the growing climate crisis is a cause for concern regarding the integrity of our democracy. An investigation is warranted
It’s understandable that this person has this much influence, even though it’s not an elected position. But I do agree that the PBO tone and positioning is very worrying. There’s clearly some agenda in there and the man felt he had something to gain in this biased report. 100% influence peddling, though this is usually hard to prove.
It’s understandable that this person has this much influence, even though it’s not an elected position.
Unelected parliamentary bodies are supposed to support transparency, fairness, and debate - they’re not supposed to take a prominent role in shaping policy and communicating it to the public. I think it’s good that the PBO issues reports from a supposedly non-partisan perspective, but I don’t think it’s good how little oversight they themselves receive, as this incident reveals. The Government and Opposition (or all parties) should get advance copies of the PBO’s reports for public consumption, and the published reports should include that commentary from the Government, Opposition, and/or all parties
The sad part about all of this is that it really does not matter what facts are released, what reports are corrected, or what expert sides with who.
For every one piece of real information there are 100 false or misleading pieces around it. That is what I am noticing anyways. I can barely find a news article from a week ago without going direct to source and even then the search option on News sites leaves much to be desired.
I don’t even know what I am trying to say anymore. Anyone interested in forming a new party before next federal? I am serious if you are.
What’s wrong with the Greens?
Ever since Lizzy May stepped down, they’ve became a disorganized, self-destructive dumpster fire.
They’ve not handled the transition from conservatives-on-bikes to protestors-in-suits very well.
They have always had great ideas and the big issue is a complete inability to present even a basic frame work to accomplish anything they come up with. I also strongly disagree with the parties stance on Nuclear Energy.
Yeah I share your issue with their stance on Nuclear as well (though having worked in the industry for a few years now, I’m coming to realise it’s a moot point). I’ll push back a bit on your other points though. I’ve always found their proposals to be well thought out and fully costed.
The reason I’ve long supported them (even when the leadership was chaotic) was that they were the only party with a platform that shared my priority: a world not on fire. the Conservatives muzzled climate scientists, the Liberals literally bought a pipeline and the NDP keeps cozying up to oil in Alberta and loggers in BC.
Sure we’ve got crystal-clutching anti-nuclear loonies in the Greens, but at least I can trust they actually believe the IPCC enough to want to do something about it.
I agree that Nuclear has become a bit of a moot point as it should have been a transitional solution ages ago. I can admit a lot of that one is the salty taste left in my mouth from it all.
You do raise some fair points, especially in regard to priorities within the other parties and their stances on environment. What you cite with the NDP is one of the reasons they have potential to lose my vote as soon as the issues I see with the Greens aren’t so damning to me.
What I would love to see is a party that walks the good parts of both the Green and NDP platforms and getting rid of the non sense. I am legitimately trying to determine if I have the time and ability myself because I am quite sick of what has happened to Canadian Politics. I even have a rough draft platform. haha
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The parliamentary budget officer’s analysis of federal carbon pricing is reportedly the subject of a “fight” with the Liberal government that includes allegations of “secret data” being withheld from the public.
On that score, the PBO estimated that most households did receive more from the rebate than they paid in additional costs — confirming one of the government’s central arguments for the policy.
For one thing, the PBO didn’t attempt to analyze any benefits that might result from lower greenhouse gas emissions (some economists and government departments use a measure known as the “social cost of carbon”).
“The PBO compares costs relative to a world in which Canada simply ignores its emissions — and faces no consequences,” experts with the Canadian Climate Institute wrote last year.
That led the Conservatives to allege that the government is hiding a “secret carbon tax report” and that the PBO is under some kind of “gag” order.
Jasraj Singh Hallan, the Conservative finance critic, said the analysis, once released, would “lambaste and completely put to shame the claims on the carbon tax scam.”
The original article contains 985 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
