Barry Penner, chair of the Energy Futures Initiative, at a waste-to-energy plant in Copenhagen this month
Eight years ago, Mark Jaccard, a sustainable energy economist at Simon Fraser University, co-authored a paper that warned of the “severe political consequences” that would be faced by a federal government that chose to rely exclusively or primarily on carbon taxes to fuel a climate action strategy.
To achieve federal emissions targets largely on its own, a national carbon tax would need to start at $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions and increase to $200 per tonne by 2030, argued the 2016 paper titled, Is Win-Win Possible?
“It is highly unlikely that our political leaders will implement such a price, given the severe political consequences,” the paper said.
But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government did implement a national carbon tax as a main policy tool. And now, it is facing the political consequences of that choice.
Recent polling suggests that, while British Columbians support climate action policies, that support decreases the more that those policies cost them.
According to Research Co., 70 per cent of British Columbians say they support the federal government’s net-zero ambitions, but that level of support drops to just 49 per cent if average energy costs increase by 20 per cent. Support for federal net-zero policies drops to just 40 per cent if energy costs were to rise by 30 per cent.
The federal carbon tax, which started in 2019 at $20 per tonne of emissions, now sits at a minimum of $80 per tonne. It is scheduled to rise by more than 160 per cent to reach $170 per tonne by 2030.
On April 1, the carbon tax in B.C. jumped from $65 per tonne of carbon dioxide to $80 per tonne, bringing the carbon tax paid on gasoline to about $0.18 per litre.
Now that carbon tax increases are getting costly enough to have their intended effect, which is to deter people from using fossil fuels, inflation-fatigued Canadians are starting to revolt against them.
And as elections loom in B.C. in October, and next year in Ottawa, governing parties will need to re-evaluate carbon taxes or risk losing to politicians who are vowing to scrap them.
Federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has made axing the federal carbon tax a main election promise, and in B.C., John Rustad, leader of the Conservative Party of BC, has likewise pledged to cancel B.C.’s carbon tax.
Kevin Falcon, meanwhile, said a BC United government would eliminate the provincial motor fuel tax on gasoline, and exempt home-heating fuels (natural gas and heating oil) from the carbon tax.
“In a democratic system like Canada, politicians can’t get too far ahead of their voters on issues,” said Barry Penner, chair of the Energy Futures Initiative, a new B.C. energy policy think-tank. “And if the voters decide that various forms of climate action are too expensive or not working properly, it poses a real threat that climate action policies will be unwound.”
Penner served as B.C.’s environment minister when the Gordon Campbell BC Liberal government brought in B.C.’s climate action plan, which included a historic, economy-wide, revenue-neutral carbon tax. It was originally set to rise by $5 per tonne until it hit $30 in 2012.
Today, B.C.’s carbon tax is accompanied by other climate-focused policies that carry their own costs—like the current B.C. government’s legislated zero-emissions vehicle mandate, which will require auto dealers to have electric or hydrogen fuel-cell cars and trucks account for 90 per cent of total light-duty vehicle sales by 2030, and 100 per cent by 2035.
An effective carbon tax should not require other “heavy-handed” policies, Penner said.
“If you were standing behind the carbon tax as a market mechanism, you would think that consumers will make that decision on their own without the heavy hand of government restricting their choices,” Penner said.
“The government’s now doing both—they’re ratcheting up the carbon tax and limiting your choice and prescribing what technology you must choose. I think, taken together, that helps contribute to a backlash from people who don’t like the government telling them what to do.
“I think governments have to be willing to adjust their timelines and possibly their policies because public support for climate action waxes and wanes.”
In an open letter to the federal government, hundreds of Canadian economists and academics defended Canada’s carbon tax and urged the Trudeau government to stick to its guns. The letter counters the argument that carbon taxes have not been effective in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
“Since the federal carbon pricing took effect in 2019, Canada’s GHG emissions have fallen by almost eight per cent, although other policies were at work,” the letter states. Emissions must fall by between 32 per cent and 37 per cent by 2030.
The letter points to a Canadian Climate Institute (CIC) study that shows federal and provincial carbon pricing is expected to account for nearly half of Canada’s emissions reductions. Interestingly, though, most of the heavy lifting comes from industrial carbon pricing for heavy industry, and not from consumer carbon taxes on fuels.
Should the carbon tax be axed in Canada, it would still be possible to have effective climate action policies, Jaccard said, although he added that politicians vowing to “axe the tax” need to state what other policies they would implement.
Apart from saying that he would support nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, Poilievre hasn’t spelled out what other climate action policies a Conservative government might maintain or implement.
“If a politician promises to kill carbon taxes but won’t tell you what they’ll do instead, you should assume they are not climate-sincere,” Jaccard told BIV. “For example, innovation does not replace carbon pricing. Innovation is an outcome of policy, not a policy.”
When B.C. first introduced a carbon tax in 2008, it was revenue neutral, but revenue neutrality was eventually abandoned. Penner said he thinks there might be more support for carbon taxes if people saw other taxes—such as income taxes—go down by levels commensurate with carbon tax increases.
“I think it was a strategic error to diverge from revenue neutrality,” Jaccard said.
Ken Peacock, chief economist at the Business Council of British Columbia (BCBC), agrees.
“Definitely part of the problem is that they abandoned revenue neutrality,” he said. “If they were truly interested in reducing emissions, while continuing to foster investment and make business viable, they would provide some offsetting tax relief.”
It is worth noting that, if governments decide to rethink some of their climate action policies, one option might be to at least maintain carbon pricing for industry—the so-called large-emitter trading system. Alberta has had a variation of this in place since 2007. In B.C., it’s called an output-based pricing system.
In a recent paper, the CCI wrote that, of all the major climate action tools adopted by the federal government, large-emitter trading systems are the single most effective in terms of avoiding GHG emissions.
By 2030, the large-emitter trading system would account for 23 per cent to 39 per cent of avoided emissions from all federal policies implemented to date, the CCI report estimates. That compares to just eight per cent to nine per cent for the “fuel charge” paid by consumers purchasing gasoline and diesel.
The second-largest emissions reduction would come from an emissions cap on oil and gas production. Methane reduction regulations would account for the third-largest reduction.
“We know that the current package is working, and of the current package, large-emitter trading systems are by far and away the single most impactful policy,” said Ross Linden-Fraser, senior researcher for CCI.
“That makes that policy really important. If governments want to change the policies they are relying on, they’re going to need to come up with alternatives that fill any gap created by missing policies.”
Jaccard’s paper eight years ago suggested that Canada could implement effective climate action policies without having to rely on carbon taxes as a policy cornerstone.
“We must have at least one of these compulsory policies to achieve emissions effectiveness. But it does not have to be carbon pricing,” the paper argued.
Examples of compulsory federal policies include apartial zero-emission vehicle standard, a low-carbon fuel standard and sector-specific performance standards for industry that set declining percentage emissions intensities.
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona voters have approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access up to fetal viability, typically after 21 weeks — a major win for advocates of the measure in the presidential battleground state who have been seeking to expand access beyond the current 15-week limit.
Arizona was one of nine states with abortion on the ballot. Democrats have centered abortion rights in their campaigns since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Abortion-rights supporters prevailed in all seven abortion ballot questions in 2022 and 2023, including in conservative-leaning states.
Arizona for Abortion Access, the coalition leading the state campaign, gathered well over the 383,923 signatures required to put it on the ballot, and the secretary of state’s office verified that enough were valid. The coalition far outpaced the opposition campaign, It Goes Too Far, in fundraising. The opposing campaign argued the measure was too far-reaching and cited its own polling in saying a majority of Arizonans support the 15-week limit. The measure allows post-viability abortions if they are necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the mother.
Access to abortion has been a cloudy issue in Arizona. In April, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for the enforcement of a long-dormant 1864 law banning nearly all abortions. The state Legislature swiftly repealed it.
Voters in Arizona are divided on abortion. Maddy Pennell, a junior at Arizona State University, said the possibility of a near-total abortion ban made her “depressed” and strengthened her desire to vote for the abortion ballot measure.
“I feel very strongly about having access to abortion,” she said.
Kyle Lee, an independent Arizona voter, does not support the abortion ballot measure.
“All abortion is pretty much, in my opinion, murder from beginning to end,” Lee said.
The Civil War-era ban also shaped the contours of tight legislative races. State Sen. Shawnna Bolick and state Rep. Matt Gress are among the handful of vulnerable Republican incumbents in competitive districts who crossed party lines to give the repeal vote the final push — a vote that will be tested as both parties vie for control of the narrowly GOP-held state Legislature.
Both of the Phoenix-area lawmakers were rebuked by some of their Republican colleagues for siding with Democrats. Gress made a motion on the House floor to initiate the repeal of the 1864 law. Bolick, explaining her repeal vote to her Senate colleagues, gave a 20-minute floor speech describing her three difficult pregnancies.
While Gress was first elected to his seat in 2022, Bolick is facing voters for the first time. She was appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to fill a seat vacancy in 2023. She has not emphasized her role in the repeal vote as she has campaigned, instead playing up traditional conservative issues — one of her signs reads “Bolick Backs the Blue.”
Voters rejected a measure to eliminate retention elections for state Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices.
The measure was put on the ballot by Republican legislators hoping to protect two conservative justices up for a routine retention vote who favored allowing the Civil War-era ban to be enforced — Shawnna Bolick’s husband, Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, and Justice Kathryn Hackett King. Since the measure did not pass, both are still vulnerable to voter ouster, though those races hadn’t been decided by early Wednesday morning.
Under the existing system, voters decide every four to six years whether judges and justices should remain on the bench. The proposed measure would have allowed the judges and justices to stay on the bench without a popular vote unless one is triggered by felony convictions, crimes involving fraud and dishonesty, personal bankruptcy or mortgage foreclosure.
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska voters supported a measure Tuesday that enshrines the state’s current ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy in the state constitution, and they rejected a competing measure that sought to expand abortion rights. Nebraska was the first state to have competing abortion amendments on the same ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending the nationwide right to abortion and allowing states to decide for themselves. The dueling measures were among a record number of petition-initiated measures on Nebraska’s ballot Tuesday.
What were the competing abortion measures?
A majority of voters supported a measure enshrining the state’s current ban on abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in the state constitution. The measure will also allow for further restrictions. Last year, the Legislature passed the 12-week ban, which includes exceptions for cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
Voters rejected the other abortion measure. If they had passed it by a larger number of “for” votes than the 12-week measure, it would have amended the constitution to guarantee the right to have an abortion until viability — the standard under Roe that is the point at which a fetus might survive outside the womb. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Abortion was on the ballot in several other states, as well. Coming into the election, voters in all seven states that had decided on abortion-related ballot measures since the reversal of Roe had favored abortion rights, including in some conservative states.
Who is behind the Nebraska abortion measures?
The 12-week ban measure was bankrolled by some of Nebraska’s wealthiest people, including Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, who previously served as governor and donated more than $1.1 million. His mother, Marlene Ricketts, gave $4 million to the cause. Members of the Peed family, which owns publishing company Sandhills Global, also gave $1 million.
The effort was organized under the name Protect Women and Children and was heavily backed by religious organizations, including the Nebraska Catholic Conference, a lobbying group that has organized rallies, phone banks and community townhalls to drum up support for the measure.
The effort to enshrine viability as the standard was called Protect Our Rights Nebraska and had the backing of several medical, advocacy and social justice groups. Planned Parenthood donated nearly $1 million to the cause, with the American Civil Liberties Union, I Be Black Girl, Nebraska Appleseed and the Women’s Fund of Omaha also contributing significantly to the roughly $3.7 million raised by Protect Our Rights.
What other initiatives were on Nebraska’s ballot?
Nebraska voters approved two measures Tuesday that will create a system for the use and manufacture of medical marijuana, if the measures survive an ongoing legal challenge.
The measures legalize the possession and use of medical marijuana, and allow for the manufacture, distribution and delivery of the drug. One would let patients and caregivers possess up to 5 ounces (142 grams) of marijuana if recommended by a doctor. The other would create the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, which would oversee the private groups that would manufacture and dispense the drug.
Those initiatives were challenged over allegations that the petition campaign that put them on the ballot broke election rules. Nebraska’s attorney general said supporters of the measures may have submitted several thousand invalid signatures, and one man has been charged in connection with 164 allegedly fraudulent signatures. That means a judge could still invalidate the measures.
Voters also opted Tuesday to repeal a new conservative-backed law that allocates millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund private school tuition.
Finally, they approved a measure that will require all Nebraska employers to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave to their employees.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in one of seven victories for abortion rights advocates, while Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place.
Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again it 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York.
The results include firsts for the abortion landscape, which underwent a seismic shift in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for bans to take effect in most Republican-controlled states.
They also came in the same election that Republican Donald Trump won the presidency. Among his inconsistent positions on abortion has been an insistence that it’s an issue best left to the states. Still, the president can have a major impact on abortion policy through executive action.
In the meantime, Missouri is positioned to be the first state where a vote will undo a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with an amendment that would allow lawmakers to restrict abortions only past the point of a fetus’ viability — usually considered after 21 weeks, although there’s no exact defined time frame.
But the ban, and other restrictive laws, are not automatically repealed. Advocates now have to ask courts to overturn laws to square with the new amendment.
“Today, Missourians made history and sent a clear message: decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care are personal and private and should be left up to patients and their families, not politicians,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement.
Roughly half of Missouri’s voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 2,200 of the state’s voters. But only about 1 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in all cases; nearly 4 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in most cases.
Bans remain in place in three states after votes
Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota became the first states since Roe was overturned where abortion opponents prevailed on a ballot measure. Most voters supported the Florida measure, but it fell short of the required 60% to pass constitutional amendments in the state. Most states require a simple majority.
The result was a political win for Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican with a national profile, who had steered state GOP funds to the cause. His administration has weighed in, too, with a campaign against the measure, investigators questioning people who signed petitions to add it to the ballot and threats to TV stations that aired one commercial supporting it.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the result is “a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country,” praising DeSantis for leading the charge against the measure.
The defeat makes permanent a shift in the Southern abortion landscape that began when the state’s six-week ban took effect in May. That removed Florida as a destination for abortion for many women from nearby states with deeper bans and also led to far more women from the state traveling to obtain abortion. The nearest states with looser restrictions are North Carolina and Virginia — hundreds of miles away.
“The reality is because of Florida’s constitution a minority of Florida voters have decided Amendment 4 will not be adopted,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for the Yes on 4 Campaign said while wiping away tears. “The reality is a majority of Floridians just voted to end Florida’s abortion ban.”
In South Dakota, another state with a ban on abortion throughout pregnancy with some exceptions, the defeat of an abortion measure was more decisive. It would have allowed some regulations related to the health of the woman after 12 weeks. Because of that wrinkle, most national abortion-rights groups did not support it.
Voters in Nebraska adopted a measure that allows more abortion restrictions and enshrines the state’s current 12-week ban and rejected a competing measure that would have ensured abortion rights.
Other states guaranteed abortion rights
Arizona’s amendment will mean replacing the current law that bans abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The new measure ensures abortion access until viability. A ballot measure there gained momentum after a state Supreme Court ruling in April found that the state could enforce a strict abortion ban adopted in 1864. Some GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to repeal the law before it could be enforced.
In Maryland, the abortion rights amendment is a legal change that won’t make an immediate difference to abortion access in a state that already allows it.
It’s a similar situation in Montana, where abortion is already legal until viability.
The Colorado measure exceeded the 55% of support required to pass. Besides enshrining access, it also undoes an earlier amendment that barred using state and local government funding for abortion, opening the possibility of state Medicaid and government employee insurance plans covering care.
A New York equal rights law that abortion rights group say will bolster abortion rights also passed. It doesn’t contain the word “abortion” but rather bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Sasha Ahuja, campaign director of New Yorkers for Equal Rights, called the result “a monumental victory for all New Yorkers” and a vote against opponents who she says used misleading parental rights and anti-trans messages to thwart the measure.
The results end a win streak for abortion-rights advocates
Until Tuesday, abortion rights advocates had prevailed on all seven measures that have appeared on statewide ballots since the fall of Roe.
The abortion rights campaigns have a big fundraising advantage this year. Their opponents’ efforts are focused on portraying the amendments as too extreme rather than abortion as immoral.
Currently, 13 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more bar abortion in most cases after about six weeks of pregnancy — before women often realize they’re pregnant. Despite the bans, the number of monthly abortions in the U.S. has risen slightly, because of the growing use of abortion pills and organized efforts to help women travel for abortion. Still, advocates say the bans have reduced access, especially for lower-income and minority residents of the states with bans.
The issue is resonating with voters. About one-fourth said abortion policy was the single most important factor for their vote, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 110,000 voters nationwide. Close to half said it was an important factor, but not the most important. Just over 1 in 10 said it was a minor factor.
The outcomes of ballot initiatives that sought to overturn strict abortion bans in Florida and Missouri were very important to a majority of voters in the states. More than half of Florida voters identified the result of the amendment as very important, while roughly 6 in 10 of Missouri’s voters said the same, the survey found.
___
Associated Press reporters Hannah Fingerhut and Amanda Seitz contributed to this article.
___
This article has been corrected to reflect in the ‘other states’ section that Montana, not Missouri, currently allows abortion until viability.
