If you’re looking for more detail on NDP MLA Wab Kinew’s proposed “pollution tax,” including specifics on greenhouse gas reduction targets, tax rates, how the tax would be applied, what the objectives of the tax are, etc., don’t bother, he doesn’t have any.

Kinew announced this past week that if he becomes Manitoba’s next NDP leader, he will move forward on a new proposed “pollution tax.”

Trouble is, Kinew appears to have done no homework whatsoever on his proposed tax, except to lay out how he would spend the money from that tax if he ever became premier one day.

Kinew says Manitoba needs to do something about climate change. As a result, he’s proposing a new pollution tax, or carbon tax, to fight it. But he doesn’t say how the tax would reduce carbon emissions, if at all, what the tax rate might be or where it would be applied. The only thing he appears focused on is the money the proposed tax would generate and how he would spend it.

The principle behind carbon pricing is that it’s supposed to have an impact on the consumption of carbon emitting products, like the gasoline we put in our vehicles and the natural gas we heat our homes with. If the pricing is significant enough, it can discourage people from using those products, forcing them to reduce consumption and seek alternative sources of energy. Funds generated from carbon pricing can be used to invest in clean energy technology or to help reduce emissions in other ways.

The catch is, carbon pricing has to be significant enough to affect consumption behaviour, otherwise it doesn’t work. Adding a few cents a litre at the pumps, for example, has little to no impact on consumption. That’s been proven over time in jurisdictions like British Columbia.

But applying onerously high carbon prices would almost certainly have devastating economic consequences, including reducing after-tax incomes and triggering sharp price inflation. In other words, there are no good carbon pricing models. Carbon pricing doesn’t work, unless its chief objective is to raise government revenue, which is what it appears to be for most politicians, like Kinew, who are promoting it.

Kinew says carbon pricing in Canada will be mandatory by 2018. No it won’t. He’s mistaken on the facts. The federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction to force provinces to charge a tax of any kind. If the feds want to charge their own tax, they have every legal right to do so. What Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said is that all provinces must have their own carbon tax or equivalent cap-and-trade system in place by the end of 2018, or Ottawa will impose their own in that province. That doesn’t make it “mandatory.” It means the feds will charge a new tax if a province doesn’t implement its own. So let them. And let Trudeau be accountable for his own tax grabs, which he can try to justify to voters during the next election.

Kinew’s proposed pollution tax is nothing more than a tax grab. It’s designed to raise government revenue he says will be dedicated to fund initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases, like electrifying public transportation. But just like the NDP’s PST increase — which was supposed to be used solely for new infrastructure – these new taxes are never really dedicated at all. They end up funding things government already spends money on.

Electrifying public transit and taking other initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are laudable goals. But those can be funded through existing revenues. Canadians on average already shell out 42% of their income on taxes, according to a recent Fraser Institute study. That’s more than people spend on food, shelter and clothing combined. They can’t afford to spend more on government.

Kinew’s proposed pollution tax has nothing to do with reducing greenhouse gases. It has everything to do with raising taxes to grow the size of government. He can call his proposed tax increase anything he wants. But if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a tax hike.