Extending gas tax relief is a cynical exercise in populism

The Carney government, which for the longest time liked to call itself "Canada's new government" in order to distance it from the old Trudeau-led Liberal government, continues to show just how distant it is from Trudeau-era philosophies, particularly where the environment is concerned.

Mr. Carney's latest transgression is to extend the tax cut on gasoline, aviation fuel and diesel that it brought in in April of this year, and which was supposed to die an ignominious death this week. Now we are stuck with it until the end of March 2027 at least.

It's a conservative-inspired populist sop, advertised as a cost-of-living/affordability measure designed to help poorer people cope with the increased costs caused by Trump's war in Iraq.

But it takes a good chunk of government money to finance this kind of feel-good measure.. Esimates are that the tax cut will cost the government (and therefore the country) about $5.3 billion. That's more than the entire annual budget of the Correctional Services of Canada, more than the Department of Agriculture's annual budget, and the Department of Natural Resources'. It's more than what Ottawa plans to invest in its critical minerals strategy, slightly less than is budgeted for "trade diversification and infrastructure strategies" over five years, and a bit less than its investment in defence industrial strategy over five years.

You get the idea: it's a lot of money. And this is not some kind of tax reform measure, funded by tax increases or spending cuts elesewhere. This is just out-of-pocket spending that the country can ill afford. It goes straight on to our deficit and our national debt. It is lowering the cost of filling up your gas-guzzler SUV by borrowing and topping up the national debt. 

It works like a carbon tax in reverse: the more you drive, the more you save. If you can't afford a car and use public transit, or if you are environmentally responsible and drive an electric car (like me), you get no benefit at all, but pay for the debt servicing costs anyway out of your taxes.

This is no less cynical than the "temporary" gas tax cut Ontario Premier Doug Ford instituted back in 2022, which of course is now permanent. It is a similarly cynical populist move, just on a bigger scale.

There was a time when Mark Carney was a committed environmentalist, particularly active on climate change issues, but those days are long gone. This move will enable an increase in fossil fuel use, and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Carney knows that, and went ahead anyway, because he likes the power and wants to stay as Prime Minister. Of course, he would say, like Doug Ford, that he is saving the man in the street money, but it will certainly not trickle down to the poorest of the poor. 

And anyway, at what cost to the environment does it come. It's interesting that it was announced at the same time as the government issued (rather secretively) its latest Changing Climate Report, which concludes that Canadians are feeling the effects of climate change - from floods, wildfires and heatwaves to vanishing glaciers and melting permafrost - much more, and much more seriously, than projected just a decade ago, and that those trends are likely to be much more pronounced in the future. Since 1970, it notes, Canada has warmed nearly twice every as fast as the global average, and the Canadian Arctic three times as fast.

The report makes grim reading. And the Prime Minister's response? Let's just make it worse.

You might want to boycott Chevron

Most major oil companies are unwilling to touch Venezuelen oil with a proverbial bargepole. Not so Chevron.

America's second largest oil company has been in Venezuela since 1923, navigating or conveniently ignoring all of the many varieties of bad stuff that have happened there over the decades. Now, in response to Donald Trump's call for private development of the mess that is Venezuela's oil industry, Chevron is the only US oil company to step forward, not back.

The other companies, preferring not to be associated with Venezuela, are eschewing the country for sound financial reasons: most analysts think it will take many years of serious investment before Venezuelan oil will be profitable for them. Plus, the US government is insisting on taking a 20% cut (finders fee?)

But you have to think too that they are all too conscious of the reputational risk involved. After all, the US's involvement arose through an invasion. Trump would have us call it a "deal", because everything is a deal to him. But the reality is, America invaded Venezuela, kidnapped its elected leader (who is even now languishing in an American jail), and intimated and browbeat the interim government into granting the US de facto control over its huge oil reserves.

This, then, is blood money, spoils of war. Most sensible companies would want to distance themselves from that. But Chevron? They're all in. Now, you might want to boycott Chevron-owned gas stations: Chevron, Texaco, Caltex. I don't know whether that is already an ongoing campaign, but if it isn't, it should be. Me, I have an electric car, otherwise I would be there too.

UPDATE

Turns out, there are various other reasons to boycott Chevron notwithstanding its Venezuelan connections: its profiteering from the ongoing genocide in Palestine; its price-gouging activities; its dumping of toxic waste in developing countries; and of course its egregious carbon footprint and greenwashing strategies.

What if the Democrats won Congress?

I have been trying to figure out how, if at all, a Democrat clean sweep in November's mid-term elections would change anything. I think none answer may be: not much.

Under Donald Trump, US policy, both at home and abroad, has been concentrated to an unprecedented degree one one man ruling through presidential decree and executive order. The courts have managed to rein some of his excesses, although the largely Trump-appointed Supreme Court has mainly protected him, other than in a few high-profile cases. Congress, on the either hand, has had very little influence on things and, even were the Democrats to control it, I'm not sure that would make much difference.

There has been a swing in American opinion, and there is a good chance that Democrats could win a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and maybe in the Senate too. It's by no means a foregone conclusion, but the chance is there, should the American people choose to seize it. This is true notwithstanding the likely efforts of the Trump administration to interfere in the elections by intimidating voters, seizing ballots, or denying the outcome of inconvenient election results, and past drives to gerrymander electoral districts, ban postal votes, etc.

But, if Democrats controlled Congress, what would change? There would, of course, be a strong symbolic effect, as it would be seen as a widespread repudiation of Trump and his policy. There is some congressional legislation in process, and Democrats could block any ongoing Republican nonsense, and even introduce somenchanges of their own, so that's something. But Trump could easily veto such initiatives, and the chances of Democrats swinging two-thirds of the vote (to veto the veto) are slim to none. The setting of the federal budget and the regular raising of federal debt ceiling may be about all they can influence to any great degree. Trump has already pushed through most of what he wants to achieve congressionally (e.g. his Big Beautiful Bill) in the first half of his term.

Democratic control of Congress could also dictate the terms and the make-up of committees, but the practical impact of those are very limited. Another attempt to impeach Trump is pretty unlikely.

One element I had not thought about is that, if the Democrats were to win Congress on November 3rd, some of the older Republican Supreme Court judges would probably be "encouraged" to retire before the new Congress would be sworn in in mid-January, so that Trump could appoint some younger for right candidates to extend the conservative majority for many years to come.

All in all, not a very edifying prospect. Tariffs would continue (insofar as the courts allow them), ICE detentions and enforced immigrant deportations would continue. All of the innumerable Trump executive orders would remain in place. Foreign policy would remain one of thoughtless aggrandisement and spite.

In the American political system, the President has way too much power. Yes, technically the President is directly elected, but if they then strike out on a completely different radical (arguably insane) path, there is little the electorate or an elected Congress can do about it. They need to fix that.

Yes, the mid-terms are important, but don't expect them to change the chaos of the Trump administration in any material way. As independent observers like GIS note, "the outcome of 2026 national elections will likely not significantly shift national policies or the direction of American foreign policy". Ouch!

"Your entire nation has a lower GDP than Texas"

"Your entire nation has a lower GDP than Texas". Not Donald Trump this time, but US Representative Brandon Gill of, well, Texas.

And his point? Er, not sure.

Canada goose 1 : American Eagle 0

I should know better than to respond to Trump's nocturnal ramblings on social media. But worth mentioning that I already dealt with this one long before it even happened.

In this episode... Trump has cherry-picked part of a photo sequence by a Canadian photographer of an encounter in Burlington, Ontario between a bald eagle (symbol of America) and a Canada goose (kind of a symbol of Canada, for our sins).

The photo seems to show the eagle dominating and savaging the goose. The rest of the photo sequence, though, shows very different outcome: after a protracted scuffle, the goose survives, rallies and threatens back against the shocked eagle. As I posted many months earlier, a different cherry-picked photo from the same sequence shows the goose rampant and a rather sorry-looking eagle.

Be careful with your source material Mr. Trump (or Ms. Harp, or whoever comes up with this guff).

Meet the ultra-cute leaf sheep

Part 52 in my series of cute and improbable animals, meet the leaf sheep.

You probably guessed that it's not a sheep at all. In fact, it's a kind of tiny sea slug (about the size of a gain of rice), Latin name costasiella kurashimae. It lives in shallow tropical waters near Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines. 

Unusually, it absorbs chloroplasts from algae and uses sunlight to generate energy in a process similar to photosynthesis (actually called kleptoplasty). It is also a hermaphrodite, possessing both male and female reproductive organs, although it does need another leaf sheep in order to reproduce.

Most of all, though, it is impossibly cute, with those tiny cartoon eyes, little horns and succulent-luke leaves branching off its back.

Does Canada have any alternatives to retaliatory tariffs?

As Canada invokes dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs on the USA, one can't help but lament how Canada is getting dragged into Trump's own silliness. On both sides of the border, prices will go up, plants will close, and jobs will be lost. As one journalist put it, this is "fighting stupid with stupid". Protesting that "we didn't start it" doesn't change that.

I mean, think about it: Canada now has tariffs on the same exports to the US as the US has tariffs on its exports to Canada. How daft is that? We may as well just keep those products and use them here in Canada, rather than making them more expensive, exporting them to the USA, and then importing the same products back again from the USA (after they have made them more expensive). Franz Kafka would have had a field day with this stuff.

There again, what choice do we have? Doing nothing would signal surrender, and give Trump carte blanche to extend or ramp up his tariffs. Hardly anyone is advocating that.

Some - including the Alberta Federation of Labour, much to many people's surprise - have suggested levying export taxes on our exports to the US. After all, that would put the financial burden on American importers, not Canadian exporters, right? The problem is, export  taxes raise the prices for importers, who would probably then look eslewhere for their imports. It would reduce the attractiveness of, and demand for, Canadian products, and probably result in scaled-back production and job layoffs. 

Predictably, others - the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, for one - have strongly counselled against such a move. Oh, and export taxes are also explicitly prohibited under the CUSMA/USCMA agreement with the US (although, arguably, Trump has flouted the spirit if not the letter of that agreement many times).

Which leaves us with retaliatory tariffs, or some other non-tariff option. BC Premier David Eby has called on Mr. Carney to consider other strategies, like reconsidering the plan to buy American F-35 fighter jets, and to levy export taxes on exports of coal to the US, but only in adddition to retaliatory tariffs, which he says he fully supports.

Canada nonplussed by Trump's threat to change Lake Ontario name

Family overseas are asking us how Canadians feel about Donald Trump threatening to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America. (Could he not think of anything more creative?) Well, the word that springs to mind is "nonplussed". Generally speaking, we have learned to ignore Trump's bloviations and his childish outbursts as much as possible.

Besides, he just can't do it. Even a US president can't unilaterally change the name of a bi-national lake. Any change he proposes (assuming he is serious, which is far from clear) would only apply to US federal government publications and maps. The current name is recognized internationally and appears in federal legislation on both sides of the border.

Lake Ontario - an Indigenous name that predates either country, incidentally - is governed jointly by Canada and the USA, through a whole series of treaties, commissions and bi-national agreements. To change the name, Trump would first need to go through the US Board on Geographical Names. Assuming he could cajole, browbeat and threaten them to go along with his childish prank, it would then need to be ratified by the Geographical Names Board of Canada and Ontario's Ministry of Natural Rreources and Forestry and Indigenous Communities, which is consulted on culturally significant names.

So, not going to happen. 

Mr. Trump may be able to force the US government to change the name on its own maps and reports. But then, US government maps will be wrong and everyone else's will be right. How does that constitute a win, even by Trump's warped standards? You can just imagine government functionaries rolling their eyes, as they consider the prospect of all that extra work just to accommodate another Trump hissy fit.