Angry in the Great White North

Towns in British Columbia are facing jumps in energy costs thanks the the province's new carbon tax.  Some towns are planning not to pay the carbon tax:

Williams Lake Mayor Scott Nelson said his council will be looking at withholding payment of the carbon tax on municipal fuel purchases and directing the money into a savings fund until the province proves the tax will be revenue-neutral for municipalities.

The idea has won qualified support from Quesnel Mayor Nate Bello, who said he is prepared to look at joining such a protest.

The response from the government?

B.C.'s Community Services Minister is challenging northern towns uneasy with the province's carbon tax to reduce their emissions instead of refusing to pay the levy on municipal energy costs, a form of protest some are considering.

Ida Chong encouraged municipalities to look at retrofitting buildings and taking other measures to reduce their fossil-fuel emissions.

"There may be some costs associated that they will not recover immediately, but this is not something that is short term. This is long term. We're all in it for the long haul about reducing our greenhouse-gas emissions. There are mayors out there who are prepared to look at what can be done."

The first thing that came to mind when I read Ida Chong's response was David Tsubouchi.  Tsubouchi was the Minister of Community and Social Services in the Mike Harris government.  When the Harris government cut back on welfare payments, Tsubouchi suggested that welfare recipients ought to haggle over the price of dented cans of tuna in order to make ends meet. [Thanks to my friend at the Globe and Mail for helping me recall the details.]

Needless to say, the sheer insensitivity of the comment defined the issue.

And that's what I expect will happen with the carbon tax issue.  Someone, either Stephane Dion, or one of his MPs, or some other spokesperson for the federal Liberals, is going to respond to some criticism about the Liberal carbon tax proposal with some dismissive offhand comment.

You know, like how government-operated daycare was better than just giving Canadian parents money directly, because given the money, parents would spend the funds on beer and popcorn instead of on their kids, or so said Liberal Scott Reid, the director of communications in the Paul Martin campaign of 2006.

A gaffe like that defines the issue.  Government-operated daycare was no longer a government service, but an insult to Canadian parents.  Indeed, someone is going to say something equally stupid (and I won't even venture a prediction about what that is going to be) in response to a criticism of the carbon tax, and that stupid comment is going to define the carbon tax better than any Tory attack ad ever could.

Ida Chong started to edge in that direction.  Just reduce your emissions, she says. Well, if it was that easy, doesn't she think municipalities would have done it already?

Welfare, daycare, carbon tax -- they all represent attempts by government to manage people's behaviour using money.  That's a contentious area for government to meddle in, since it represents attempts by government to limit people's freedom of action.  People don't like that, and they'll say so.  And some Liberal is going to tell them that they don't deserve to have freedom of action in the case of carbon emissions and efficiency, because they can't be trusted to manage their own affairs competently.

Now distill what I just said in to a beer-and-popcorn sound bite, and the carbon tax is dead on arrival.