How did the carbon tax become such poisonous politics in Canada

How did the carbon tax become such poisonous politics in Canada? There was a time when it was quite the popular idea. Most Canadians apparently STILL want out governments to do something about climate change, but they don't seem to like the idea that it will cost them money.

The latest development on this front is that the NDP - once the strongest supporter of climate action, including a carbon tax - has decided that support for a Canadian climate tax is no longer politically palatable, and should be done away with. They still want to do SOMETHING to combat climate change, they're just not sure what yet. This is coming from the federal NDP (which seems to have completely lost its way under Jagmeet Singh), and the BC NDP under David Eby (likewise). (BC, under its then Liberal government, established Canada's first ever carbon tax back in 2008, and it has been quite successful ever since. Wab Kinew, Manitoba's new NDP premier has also made it clear he would like to see the carbon tax gone. 

(The Conservatives have never made any pretence about caring about climate change, so they are not relevant to this particular conversation.)

So, how did this turnaround happen?

Tony Keller in the Globe and Mail has a theory, and it seems as good as any. Essentially, it boils down to transparency and visibility. The carbon tax is relatively visible: you can SEE the price of gas increase as the tax increases. This should be a good thing, you would think. Indeed, that is the whole point of a carbon tax: people need to see the real cost of their oil and gas fixation, otherwise they will never change their behaviour. But it turns out that people don't like to actually see things costing them more, and this seems to apply even when they are receiving a (poorly publicized) rebate to offset those higher costs.

Interestingly, Quebec - which has the only cap-and-trade system in Canada, rather than a consumer carbon tax - is just about the only province where people are not complaining. Their prices are still higher as a result of their particular climate change solution (and they don't even receive a government rebate), but it's not so clear and obvious. Ignorance is bliss, I guess?

So, faced with the prospect of voter unrest, this new generation of politicians chooses pragmatism over principle, abandoning long-held beliefs in the forlorn hope of earning a few more votes. (But who is going to respect a party that bends and sways in whatever political breeze happens to be blowing?) To their credit, the Liberals are the only major party - sorry, Green Party! - that seems willing to stick to their principles, come what may, and look where that has left them!

So, rather than choosing a more fuel-efficient car as the price of carbon increases, it seems people are more likely to look to a different government instead, a less pro-carbon tax one that will save them a few bucks here and there. Or not: they don't seem to understand that, without a carbon tax, they will also have to forego their countervailing quarterly rebate.

And the Conservatives, and now the NDP, seem willing to humour them in their delusion. Neither party has yet offered a viable and effective alternative to putting a price on carbon, but that doesn't seem to worry them. They are way too busy fixating on power, and how to get it. They are so anxious to be seen to be pandering to their core constituency that they are willing to sell their soul in the process.

There is no pain-free, cost-free way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the carbon tax we have is the closest thing to that. And if Mr. Singh is concerned that "working people" (what ever he means by that) are bearing too much of the burden of it, he is wrong and should know better: low-income households are net beneficiaries of the carbon tax and its related rebate, and it is higher-income households that, because of their lifestyle, actually do bear a net cost.