Experts consider the Supreme Court’s carbon tax decision

The issue of carbon taxes and whether Ottawa retains the ultimate power to impose them on resistant states in support of the fight against climate change finally reached its day at the Supreme Court of Canada, greenhouse gases. The pollution price law was considered constitutionally sound.

Proponents of federal policy praised 6– –The three-part decision, but Professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan, Canada’s research chairman on the rights of indigenous peoples in constitutional and international law, said it could have serious implications for the Commonwealth.

“I think the majority have actually changed some of the national concerns tests of peace, order and good government. They can end up with dual aspects to the issues under the national concerns test. He said he had sex, “he told The Epoch Times.

Newman may have admitted that the very design of the carbon pricing law to exempt the state with its own scheme was “constitutionally competent” for the state to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. I doubt.

“Before this, there were many case laws that were not otherwise proposed,” he said. “That is, more simply, case law said that if the federal government had the power to test national concerns, states couldn’t really be part of the same subject, and now. , The court says it has changed. “

Dissent judges Malcolm Rowe and Russell Brown argue that the written free carbon tax law opens the door to Ottawa’s greater invasion of state affairs, which Brown said was “serious to the Commonwealth.” It must bring tension. “

The federal carbon tax will come into effect on April 1, 2019, starting at $ 20 per ton of CO2 emissions and will be levied on states that do not have their own greenhouse gas pricing scheme or do not fully meet Ottawa’s requirements. I did. New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario.

The latter two states lost their tax constitutional oppositions in their respective courts of appeal, but Alberta won the opposition in February 2020 and prepared for the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on March 25. I prepared.

Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph and a senior researcher at the Fraser Institute, said long-time critics of “everything” climate policy said that politics was already politicized for tax opponents. It states that it is the only way to get out of. ..

“Unfortunately, the state has a federal government climate change. Existential threat Record evidence without challenge.They could have argued against these simply by referring to the past [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] Report, “he said.

“But they didn’t seem to be focused on understanding the scientific or economic complexity, so they weren’t ready to make their claims so effectively. As a result, if people don’t want to pay the carbon tax, there is no court assistance. They will have to vote against it. “

According to Macchitrix’s latest analysis of the Free Government’s plan to raise the federal carbon tax to $ 170 per ton by 2030, raising the carbon tax will reduce Canada’s emissions to pre-2005 levels. The promise of the Paris Agreement, that is, the tax Raison de Tre..

According to recently report He co-authored “Estimated Impact of the $ 170 Carbon Tax in Canada”. An increase of $ 30 to 467% per ton would not reduce sufficient emissions, losing 184,000 jobs and reducing Canada’s gross domestic product by about 1.8%. The current dollar per employer is $ 1,540.

G. Cornelis van Kooten, a professor of economics at the University of Victoria, is Canada’s chair of environmental research and climate research, a carbon tax advocate, and signed a letter with other scholars in 2007 in British Columbia. I urged the government to implement this plan.

“But I’m not very happy with what BC has done. They are taxing crazy and regulating crazy,” he said in an interview.

The 2020 Canadian Institute of Energy’s report on the effectiveness of the BC carbon tax, which took place in 2008 and will be raised from $ 40 to $ 45 per ton on April 1, 2021, states that the tax will be raised. We discovered that we couldn’t reach our target without reducing emissions. .. “

“I think carbon taxes are a grab of money to soothe environmentalists … but we don’t consider leaks,” said Van Kuten on the issues inherent in carbon tax rebates. Energy use.

“That is, paying a carbon tax of $ 100, for example, will reduce CO2 emissions, but at the same time, let’s say my daughter is $ 100. [rebate]Gives her money that she wouldn’t otherwise spend, and part of that spending goes on activities such as driving a car that emits CO2 into the atmosphere, “he said.

β€œIn my view, we can’t simply impose taxes on the basis of increased CO2, which benefits vegetation and reduces food insecurity,” adds van Kooten.

“It needs to lead to damage, which is a direct function of the Earth’s temperature. Therefore, when the temperature rises, the tax should go up. When the temperature goes down, the tax should go down. To the social cost of carbon. It cannot simply be taxed. “

The history of carbon dioxide becoming a “pollutant” under Canadian environmental law is that the then Minister of the Environment, Stephane Dion, implemented the federal government’s climate change framework in 1992, making carbon dioxide a “toxic substance.” It goes back to 2005 when it was declared. Cabinet directive.