Election 2008: The Environment versus the Economy?

Looking beyond the mistakes and disappointing personal attacks that obscured policy debate during the first week of the campaign, it’s clear that the environment and the economy were the two big issues. They were the focus of the first policy announcements from parties, and parties’ stances on the topics were the target of opponents and pundits alike.

Here’s a quick rundown on the competing options:

• On Monday, September 8, Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party, called for a moratorium on further tar sands development until a plan for development can be put into place. The plan would need to address the environmental impact of oil sands extraction, including the fact that it is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Negative environmental consequences are already having a detrimental effect on the health of local communities. However, opponents note the tar sands are also a major contributor to Alberta’s economic growth and considerable provincial royalties.
• On Tuesday, September 9, Stephen Harper announced the Conservatives will cut the federal excise tax on diesel fuel by two cents a litre if re-elected. The reduction is aimed at softening the blow of high fuel prices. It has been criticized, however, for encouraging rather than discouraging increased consumption of fuel, while costing $600 million in federal revenues.
• Elizabeth May’s unfair exclusion from the leaders’ debates brought increased profile to the Green Party. On Wednesday, September 10, both the party leaders who refused May’s participation and the media consortium backed down and agreed to include her. As a result, May will have a public platform to highlight the Green Party’s vision for the environment and economy, including their version of a green tax shift.
• Also on Wednesday, Layton announced an NDP plan to support Canada’s industrial economy that would include the creation of “green sector” jobs. While Canada’s unemployment rate has not risen sharply overall despite the significant loss of manufacturing jobs over the past few years, many workers have been forced to move from well-paying jobs into precarious work, with lower pay and no benefits.
• Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has been traveling the country promoting the Green Shift – the Liberal environmental plan, which includes a carbon tax, cap-and-trade system, and tax initiatives to offset the regressive impact of the carbon tax. The plan is intended to provoke significant changes in behaviour in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On Thursday, September 11, both Jack Layton and Stephen Harper attacked the Green Shift, claiming it unfairly targeted consumers and that it would have a negative impact on our economy. The NDP support a cap-and-trade system, while the Conservatives favour an eventual cap-and-trade system, but limited regulation in the short-term.

To the average voter, it can be hard to find a way through so many competing options and arguments, especially given the gravity of the issues. On the one hand, if environmental devastation and climate change are allowed to continue unchecked, we will face significant negative consequences to creation and to ourselves, as well as making developing nations and poor people suffer disproportionately. On the other hand, a recession would mean severe economic hardships for many Canadians who depend on their job to provide for their family, put a roof over their heads and put food on the table.

That doesn’t mean the environment and the economy themselves are in competition, however. The future of our economy depends on the future of our environment. Everything from the health of workers, to the availability of natural resources, to the impact of climate-related catastrophes such as storms and floods depends on our environment. The recent hike in fuel prices due to the approach of Hurricane Ike is a good example.

As well, actions to protect the environment could have a positive impact on our economy. European countries like Sweden have already demonstrated that Ecological Fiscal Reforms can be a source of economic vitality. Focusing on sustainable development will also encourage innovation and the development of new technology and new practices.

That’s not to say changes will be painless. The North American lifestyle is addicted to high levels of fossil fuel consumption. Our entire way of life, our economic choices and our core values about economic growth must adapt with the climate. We will need to reflect on our core values, change our behaviours, and adopt new approaches. These changes aren’t easy or comfortable. But Canadians need leadership that will encourage and assist us in making these changes, rather than leadership that puts off these changes to a later time when they will be even more painful, or even potentially until it is too late. We need leadership that takes a long-term, holistic view, integrating environmental and economic policy.

A declaration last week by Canadians for Climate Leadership (a group of prominent business leaders, academics, scientists, activists and former prime ministers) argued that all parts of society must get involved in fighting climate change, but that government policies are the key to encouraging immediate and effective action: “Governments cannot solve the climate-change problem by themselves, but effective policies are essential to provide the clear, sustained incentives that create space for leadership and stimulate needed actions throughout Canadian society.”

Public justice also calls for government leadership in protecting the environment, as well as involvement from all sectors of society. But it also calls us, as citizens, to hold our politicians accountable for their actions and inactions on the environment. Given the competing options and all the rhetoric, it might not be easy to decipher which way is the best way forward. But here are some public justice questions to keep in mind while you study the options and question your candidates:

• Does this initiative take care for creation seriously?
• Does this initiative promote the economic, physical and social well-being of all Canadians?
•  Does this initiative play off short term economic gain against the environment of future generations?
• Does this initiative emphasize the common good or particular interests?
• Does this initiative encourage Canadians (individuals, businesses, organizations) to change our behaviours?
• Is this initiative regressive – that is, does it impact poor people more?  If so, are there steps that will be taken to offset the regressive impact?

For more questions relating to the environment, see CPJ’s Election article: Can this be Canada’s first “green election”?

Links to more information

• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/issuesanalysis/climatechange.html - The CBC’s “Issues Analysis” on the Environment. This page includes more information on each of the party’s stances.
• http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/climate-statement.pdf - The Declaration of Canadians for Climate Leadership
• For more links, see CPJ’s Election article: Can this be Canada’s first “green election”?