Pushing to ‘Axe-the-Tax’ betrays our kids

Our parents taught us that if you make a mess, clean it up. Plus: new Hard Truths with David Coletto.

Photo by Ron Lach from Pexels

Axe-the-tax campaigners argue we can’t afford to clean up the messes we’ve made in our air, water and soil, despite the huge risks and costs they create for our kids and for generations to come.

Is that really the legacy we want to leave?

Paul tackled this question in his most recent Globe & Mail column, calling out axe-the-tax rhetoric for what it is: a dangerous kind of smoke and mirrors.

In the name of affordability, Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre is courting voters with his promise to eliminate responsibility to pay for the pollution we create. He’s undeterred by the facts, which show that for every dollar spent on major expenditures (like rent, food and clothing), the price on pollution adds less than a penny. Instead, he’s successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of too many Canadians, who now wrongly believe the price on pollution is causing their financial pain.

Real policy solutions to make life more affordable have little to do with the price on pollution. They are found in Gen Squeeze’s comprehensive frameworks for achieving better child care, parental leave, housing, retirement and health policy.  

Mr. Poilievre’s ‘axe-the-tax’ campaign is distracting us from the real reason we ought to pay for our pollution in the first place. It’s not about the preferences we have as consumers.  It’s our duty as good ancestors. As Paul wrote in The Globe & Mail:

“We pay for pollution because we love our kids and grandchildren. Their health, safety, air, food and drinking water are put in jeopardy when we pollute too much. Pollution accelerates the loss of clean lakes, healthy forests, snow-capped mountains, great plains, and the awe-inspiring wildlife with which we share our lands and oceans when we hike, boat, hunt and fish.

Beyond status, consumption and convenience, we are all driven by deeply ingrained desires to be part of something larger so that we preserve what we hold sacred for our descendants.

By punting the costs of pollution to our kids, Mr. Poilievre proposes to deal with pollution problems later. But later is now too late. Later is an abuse of the authority we wield over our kids and future generations. Since they legally can’t vote, they are trusting us to do more, not less, to fight climate change. This means urgently reducing our smog, litter and trash, and paying for messes made by our pollution – past and present.”

A posse of pollution-price defenders supported Paul’s column and shared with us letters they fired off to The Globe & Mail.  We hope you’ll be inspired by the voices of these generational fairness mavens:

Hart Jansson coined a great phrase we’d love to use more: “If we ‘Axe the tax’, then we ‘Shirk the Work’.” 

“If we want to have an affordable, sustainable life, then whether we are Conservatives, Greens, Liberals or NDP we must insist that our political leaders have an efficient approach to reducing emissions. To do otherwise is to condemn our children and grandchildren to a less affordable and less sustainable world.”

Kathy Halliday urged the generations who allowed pollution to grow, to now take action to clean up its negative effects: 

“We who have been on this Earth for more than a few decades have seen and felt the changes our heedless consumption has wrought. We certainly need to take responsibility. This kind of bad policy is not how we do that.”

Peter Boyer called on public officials to deliver evidence-based policy action, not just catchy phrases: 

“‘Axe the tax’ is a popular slogan, I get it. The problem is that as a serious policy response, it conveys to me a message of irresponsibility: that one can live in society without contributing to its well-being or future… Yes, we should manage our scarce resources better. Yes, alternative policy responses are welcome. But ‘axe the tax’ shouldn’t be one of them.”

Bev LeFrancois had a direct message for axe-the-tax campaigners: “Don’t kill the Carbon tax!  It is a good tax, a tax to save our planet for future generations.”  Neil Reid suggested: “Perhaps a better soundbite for Canada might be to Axe the ‘Axe the Tax’ Campaign!” Joanna Ringrose encouraged the Globe to put pollution pricing front and centre, “to inspire as many ‘Grandmothers and Grand Others’ to take action to save the planet.”

Many of these letter writers belong to Grand(m)others Act to Save the Planet (GASP), a group that reminds us we’re far from alone in believing future generations shouldn’t bear the burden of cleaning up our messes. Alongside these (and other) brave Canadians, Gen Squeeze is calling on Good Ancestors (following the pioneering framing of Roman Krznaric) to defend pollution pricing:

“Our plan is to remind Canadians that pollution pricing helps us fulfill responsibilities to our kids by loyally stewarding sacred resources that are essential to our health.

If enough of us share this reminder, we predict more Canadians will open their hearts and minds to evidence that there are better ways to reduce affordability pressures than axing the carbon tax.

Because nobody wants to feel forced to choose between the financial security of their families right now versus leaving a healthy and safe legacy for their kids, grandkids, and generations to come.  

People want both.

All political parties should deliver both, if we want Canada to work for all generations.”

When we raise our voices together, it grows our power to expose hard truths about the changes needed to make Canada work for all generations. Thanks to our letter-writing posse for leading by example!

We’d love to hear what you think. How do you defend our generational responsibility to clean up our mess?

New Hard Truths: David Coletto

David Coletto has had his finger on the pulse of Canadian public opinion for well over a decade, as the founder and CEO of ⁠Abacus Data⁠ and author of the ⁠inFocus ⁠newsletter. He shares insights into how generational inequality is playing out in our housing, affordability and climate crises.