Just the (alternative?!) facts, ma'am: Why there's so much carbon tax confusion
Carbon taxes are ripe for misunderstanding in a post-truth political world
Truth, as we know, is having a rough go.
No sooner did Oxford Dictionaries name "post-truth" as word of the year than it was surpassed by White House counsel Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts." Whether Canadian politics will descend into this same absurdity remains to be seen, but if so, history may show the fight over carbon taxes provided the push.
A carbon tax is ripe for confusion, whether because of honest misunderstanding or a more wilful misrepresentation. Between direct and indirect costs, rebates, energy efficiency programs and other complexities, figuring out exact numbers can feel like guesswork. A dizzying amount of political spin from all sides doesn't help matters nor does a view, at least in some camps, that official sources and expert opinion can't be trusted.
In Alberta, getting a handle on the province's new carbon tax has meant wading through waters muddied by any number of inflated figures.
Muddy waters
Only a few days after the levy was introduced, a story made the rounds about a recreation centre in Calgary that expected the new tax to increase its annual natural gas bill of $60,000 by a third. On the electricity side of its bill, the facility was bracing for costs to jump 20 per cent or more than $70,000.
Alarm bells over the sudden spike likely went off for anyone who read the story, and quite rightly so. But a closer look shows the carbon levy applies only to the natural gas used by the facility and not the other fixed charges that make up the entire bill, the upshot being that costs won't go up by nearly as much as suggested. As for electricity, while costs may rise, it won't be because of the carbon tax. Major power producers, which do pay for carbon emissions, are still under legacy rules that didn't change when the new tax was adopted on Jan. 1.
A misunderstanding about the new costs also saw a pair of families charged an extra $100 by a crematorium. According to the province, the extra carbon costs for a cremation should amount to around $1 and no more than $4. Once the error was pointed out, the crematorium apologized and, blaming an errant decimal point, cut the fee to $10.09.
Despite the correction, the confusion was compounded when former federal cabinet minister and current Alberta Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Jason Kenney sent the story to more than 90,000 followers with the tweet: "Disgusting: the NDP's carbon tax has massively increased the cost of cremation for grieving families. No compassion."
The tweet was quickly deleted, but that it was sent at all underscores the heightened political stakes surrounding a carbon tax, as well as the willingness of opponents to believe the worst about its costs.
On that score, at a recent rally Kenney also told supporters: "One school district, Elk Island, told me it's going to cost them $800,000 more to run their buses this year."
According to school board spokesperson Trina Boymook, the carbon tax is currently expected to increase next school year's busing costs by $80,000.
The Elk Island School District, near Edmonton, has about 9,300 students on 161 buses. While $80,000 isn't an insignificant extra cost, it's also just a fraction of the more dramatic figure Kenney used to further fire up a crowd already brimming with an anti-carbon tax fervour.
In the meantime, erroneous figures, such as an extra $800,000 for busing costs, will continue to circulate among Albertans who are still trying to figure out what to make of a new tax.
Part of the blame for the confusion surely rests with the government, which has left some Albertans, and businesses in particular, fumbling to figure out the costs.
Ripe for misunderstanding
If British Columbia's experience is any guide, however, the inherent unpopularity of a new tax, not to mention one with so many ins and outs, makes the smooth introduction of a carbon tax unlikely no matter how well executed the rollout.
"The fundamental nature of a carbon tax is subject to misunderstanding," said Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia. "Opponents of the carbon tax [in B.C.] capitalized on the public's misunderstanding of the carbon tax, in particular, and general antipathy towards all taxes to really reinforce that opposition and, in many ways, mislead people."
In B.C., at least, confusion over the carbon tax lasted for several years, but, eventually, when the sky didn't fall, Harrison said much of the anger, mistrust and political opportunism ended up dissipating.
As carbon taxes make their way across the country, the conversation will be vulnerable to the same post-truth emotional tactics that currently define U.S. politics. Canadians, regardless of political stripe, can hope "alternative facts" are one export that isn't embraced here.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
With files from Robson Fletcher