Last week we cited, as evidence of Mark Carney’s ongoing climate fanaticism, the decision to resume the federal excise tax on gasoline after Labour Day. And then (ahem) the day our Newsletter went out, news broke that his regime would instead continue the suspension through January, then impose it at half its former rate through March then put it back up. Which we submit is not evidence that he has abandoned his climate fanaticism, or his belief that the Green Energy Transition will make us all healthy, wealthy and blithe, but that practical difficulties in getting us to the New Jerusalem with radiant green walls excuse a little hypocrisy. If he and his colleagues really believe in Net Zero, and moreover are convinced the public does too, they’d go ahead with the hated tax. Instead as reality bites they spin. Asked why they don’t simply scrap the tax altogether, Finance Minister François-Philippe] Champagne babbled “‘We are quite happy to do our part,’” whatever that verbiage means. “‘Will you extend it permanently as the Conservatives are calling for?’ asked a reporter. ‘We’ve done a lot,’ replied Champagne. ‘That’s my message to Canadians.’” As in we must regrettably destroy the economy to save it, but first we have to save our electoral prospects to destroy it. So we suspend the most visible burden on consumers of hydrocarbon fuels while, as Dan McTeague of Canadians for Affordable Energy stresses, keeping a bunch of other expensive taxes and regulations on gas, diesel and other fuels as they stagger toward the green mirage of decarbonization and Net Zero prosperity.
They really are committed to Net Zero, or at least hurtling toward it through inertia. They keep putting out press releases saying stuff like:
“As Canada transitions to a net-zero carbon future, the federal government is partnering with public transit and school bus operators to help electrify their fleets and reduce carbon emissions.”
And they keep emitting money in quest of this mirage. As the Fraser Institute recently warned:
“Canadian discourse on all things energy is locked into a false narrative, about how Canada has been and will be powered. Canada, we often hear, is ‘transitioning’ from a past – where most energy was generated by combusting fossil fuels—to a future where most energy will come from non-fossil-fuel sources such as wind and solar power. And according to Prime Minister Carney, his government will ‘lead the energy transition while ensuring affordable energy at home and building the strongest economy in the G7.’ Carney’s been pushing the transition for some time. As governor of the Bank of England, as far back as 2015, he warned audiences about a ‘potentially huge’ risk to investors from stranded energy assets because vast reserves of coal, oil and gas could become ‘literally unburnable’ because we ‘need to mainstream this transition to net zero if we are going to get to where the world needs.’ But what if there’s no ‘energy transition’ happening? What if it’s a false narrative?”
Well, they’d stagger about babbling as they try to square circles they insist aren’t round, leading to verbal contortions like:
“Canada’s energy and electricity sector, which includes oil, gas, and electricity, plays a pivotal role in supporting the growing demand for electrification and clean energy sources.”
Got it? Solar gas. Diesel wind. Nuclear coal. Or um uh…
And on this specific measure, the hapless Finance Minister put out a statement that said:
“With many families still feeling the pressure of higher costs, we’re extending the federal fuel tax suspension to keep more money in Canadians’ pockets. This will provide meaningful relief for families and businesses and help make everyday life more affordable.”
And the odd thing here is that in one sense it’s clearly true. Putting whacking great taxes on essentials like gas makes everyday life less affordable. (And the non-everyday life too, whatever it is; intermittent life, perhaps, or weekend life, or holiday life.) But they’ve been telling us for decades, literally decades, that moving from oil and gas to wind and solar (plus hydro) would lower costs. So why doesn’t taxing already overly expensive gas force us to switch to cheaper and better alternatives? They cannot explain and when you can’t understand something you don’t cope well with it. (See Thomas Kuhn’s classic account of what happens when experiment subjects asked to identify cards going by quickly were shown a black four of hearts or a red six of spades.)
As Reuters “Sustainable Switch” put it on Sept. 4, welcoming higher prices due to the Iran war:
“Economics 101 says if you want people to use less of something, raise its price. That’s what’s happened as a result of the shipping constraints caused by the Iran war, with various stories and studies showing how consumer fuel demand has dropped dramatically so far this year.”
Which is exactly what Carney and his predecessor have wanted for years (the price rise and consumption drop, not the war). So why aren’t they happy?
The extent to which the Liberals are thrashing intellectually as well as practically was plainly on display in that as recently as May 26 of this year, the Conservatives moved for a suspension of the tax through December 2026 (and some other fuel-tax-related relief) and the Liberals voted it down in Parliament. Now they’re doing it and taking credit for it.
The real question is what the Liberals are up to, or think they are. And the answer is, they’re trying to push through a policy to make energy cheaper by transitioning, while having to push through a policy to make energy cheaper by not transitioning because the transition isn’t working and they’re certain it must be about to. Now as of next April, apparently.
