Article content continued

As the IEA pointed out, “in the United States, natural gas demand spiked 10 per cent … an increase roughly equivalent to the gas consumption of the United Kingdom. That spike was complemented by strong demand for oil, especially from the petrochemical sector. American oil demand was up by 540,000 barrels per day in 2018, the largest increase in the world. That resulted in a 3.1 per cent increase in U.S. carbon emissions.”

Photo by Stan Behal/Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network

While coal demand is declining somewhat in the U.S., China and India are taking up the slack. There are almost three billion people in those two countries. There are 37 million in Canada.

OK, we all know the argument for a carbon tax is that we all have to do our bit, and doing something is better than doing nothing. It’s about the principle. We can all sleep warmer in our beds knowing Canada is doing the right thing. And this is just the beginning: now that the tax is in place, who knows what might be accomplished?

That’s just the concern that worries a lot of people who wonder how high a price should be paid for a point of principle. Fine, the tax is in place, what now? Start raising it to the point the pips start to squeak, as has become the custom with other “sin taxes” on tobacco, gasoline and alcohol? If you listen to Ontario Premier Doug Ford and his chorus of naysayers, that’s exactly the skulduggerous plan the “progressives” have in mind. Even adherents acknowledge the current level of the new tax isn’t anywhere near high enough to have a serious impact on emissions. A recent OECD study reported a gap of 76.5 per cent between real climate costs and carbon prices implemented in 42 countries thus far. Canada could increase its price like a loanshark jacking up the cost of an overdue loan, and it still wouldn’t make much difference. But what’s the alternative? Why have a tax everyone knows is wholly ineffective? If we’re going to have it, shouldn’t we make it work?