Usually, decision documents referred to cabinet include three potential options for approval. One is too hot, one is too cold, and one is just right. The middle ground tends to represent the choice of perfect porridge in the story of Goldilocks. In the draft version of carbon pricing, Liberals obviously opted for the not-too-hot and not-too-cold approach.
By SHEILA COPPS
First published on Monday, January 22, 2018 in The Hill Times.
OTTAWA–Elizabeth May is horrified and Brad Wall plans to take the federal government to court.
Liberals must have done something right because they occupied the moderate middle in last week’s proposed legislation on carbon pricing.
Co-authored by the ministers of finance and environment, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was unveiled to criticism from the left and the right.
The starkest complaints were that the government was going too easy on industrial emitters.
According to the Green Party, the plan weakens regulations for industrial producers. Instead of tying the carbon price to fuel purchase, the legislation averages carbon output across industries, rewarding companies that reduce their emissions more than average and punishing those that don’t.
Conservatives, including the premier of Saskatchewan, are claiming the plan is too aggressive and, given the non-compliance approach of U.S. President Donald Trump, our tough new laws will cost jobs.
In actuality, Liberals have adopted the Goldilocks approach to carbon pricing.
Former Liberal interim leader Bob Rae first coined that term in an autobiography chronicling his tenure as Ontario’s first New Democratic Party premier.
He described the options that the bureaucracy usually laid before cabinet to shape any legislative package.
The same approach is used in federal circles. Usually, decision documents referred to cabinet include three potential options for approval.
One is too hot, one is too cold, and one is just right. The middle ground tends to represent the choice of perfect porridge in the story of Goldilocks.
In the draft version of carbon pricing, Liberals obviously opted for the not-too-hot and not-too-cold approach.
Their decision to provide a separate track for industrial polluters reflected concerns about competitiveness in relation to the United States, since it will not face the same federal framework with a climate denier as president.
The fact that only Wall vehemently attacked the plan means that most premiers believe it strikes a good balance.
Wall has become an isolated oil patch cheerleader, increasingly marginalized from any serious discussion about how to tackle climate change.
The four Canadian provinces with the most robust economies have already incorporated some form of carbon pricing into their regulatory frameworks. Saskatchewan is not one of them.
The Canadian framework, which runs more than 200 pages, is extremely complex. That complexity makes it even more difficult for opponents to fight the legislation.
May, a fantastic communicator, was hard pressed to distill her opposition into manageable sound bites.
Most Canadians believe that a competitive economy is equally as important as a healthy environment.
Their first responsibility is putting food on the family table and for that, they need decent-paying jobs.
The positive performance of the Canadian economy helps Catherine McKenna and Bill Morneau soft sell the national carbon framework.
The middle ground they chose on industrial emission measurements will make that job sell easier.
Solutions to global warming are challenging and so is the legislation. That complexity makes it difficult for the public to engage. In turn, the absence of public involvement makes it easier for sectoral interests to seek and achieve changes.
Industrial emitters are going to be a lot more engaged in this legislation than the average voter, and their voices will be heard. The complexity makes it difficult for critics to even explain their opposition.
The New Democrats have been unusually quiet on the proposals. They are strongly supportive of carbon pricing and will likely tweak some of the industrial emission elements.
But, especially with their strong union membership, this is not a hill that New Democrats will be prepared to die on. As for the Tories, they will oppose but they also run the risk of simply being seen as merely oil-centric if they are too a vociferous or strident in their criticisms.
This proposed legislation is a game-changer for the acceleration of a green economy. We can also expect the promotion of a whole new raft of jobs related to sustainable development.
All in all, the legislation was not blockbuster. That was why the disappointment expressed by Elizabeth May was so visceral.
But in the balancing act between the environment and the economy, the ministers of environment and finance chose the Goldilocks solution.
In doing so, they can expect their global warming porridge of legislative changes is just right.
The issue of comprehensive legislation has been on the government agenda since the first International Panel on Climate Change met in Montreal back in 1994.
Twenty-four years later, this isn’t perfect but the country is finally moving in the right direction.
Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.
