Dion’s Green Shift Naïve?

In light of the embarrassingly childish Conservative propaganda aimed at Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader may be in a position to capitalize on his current wounded-puppy image, securing the trust and perhaps sympathy of Canadian voters. Enter: Dion’s Green Shift plan.

Announced three months ago, Dion’s plan proposes to tax carbon consumers while cutting income and corporate taxes. Designed to raise $15 billion in four years, Dion believes that his policy is superior to Harper’s plan to limit industrial carbon emissions.

Dion optimistically, if naively, predicts that the carbon tax would be standardized across the country and that it is advantageous because the government would not have to hire civil servants to implement it.

Furthermore, he argues that the costs of fossil fuels will only increase. Therefore, the most effective and sustainable solution is to help farmers, fishers and truckers reduce their dependency on fossil fuels and invest in eco-friendly alternatives. Dion also predicted that Green Shift would attract investment in emissions reduction technology.

But is this all too good to be true?

Dion, despite his crisp ideals and perceived good intentions, may be attempting to capitalize on the Al Gore-inspired green frenzy that can be described as the zeitgeist of our times. In other words, he’s banking on the hope that his Green Shift (“green” being a major buzzword as of late) will be passively gobbled up by Canadians. However, one should carefully examine the somewhat utopian, if unrealistic, ideals that back such an endeavor.

Dion’s Green Shift is all well and dandy as long as he’s able to offer an efficient fuel supplement, so as not to devastate the trucking, farming, fishing and forestry industries. While Dion promised he will do so, it is a task that he may be greatly underestimating.

Some industry workers worry that his carbon tax plan is regionally divisive and isn’t revenue neutral. Dion hopes to counteract these sentiments by adding almost $1-billion in annual subsidies for farmers, truckers and fishermen. He believes that these incentives would create enough revenue for farmers to ease the pain of fuel price hikes.

Furthermore, Dion claims that taxation will be on consumption of energy, not on production. This is true enough, since 46 per cent of industrial emissions in 2002, the last year calculated by Statistics Canada, were on goods and services exported from Canada. In theory then, much of the carbon tax would be passed onto foreigners, not Canadian consumers. But will this hurt foreign relations?

Critics have termed Dion’s plan, “The Green Shaft,” worrying it’s actually a thinly-veiled tax grab that will only increase prices on many daily expenses, such as home heating, electricity and consumer goods.

While Canadians may be seduced by his green ideals to a certain extent, ultimately, a hole in one’s pocketbook may be perceived as having immediate and graver repercussions than a hole in the ozone layer. I suppose we’ll know once the October 14th election rolls around.