Have you seen that Internet meme going around about 100 corporations being responsible for 71 percent of the world’s GHG emissions? Congratulations, you’re fooling yourself as to what this really means! There’s an interesting piece in the National Postright now that breaks down what that study actually shows, and it’s not what you may think. The problem with the report that shows this statistic is that it shifts the blame for the emissions upstream to producers rather than downstream to consumers – so Exxon is being blamed for emissions from cars, when it’s consumers who are driving demand for their gasoline by, well, driving. And when you sort out upstream and downstream emissions, it turns out that those 100 corporations are really only responsible for about seven percent of those emissions – the rest are really the responsibility of consumers.

Why is this important? Because by presenting the problem as being driven by those 100 companies, it gives the impression that they can be dealt with as corporate bad apples who can be regulated into reducing that tremendous chunk of emissions. More importantly, it tells consumers that they’re not the ones responsible, it’s the fault of evil corporations – never mind that they’re responding to consumer demand. And this takes us back to the conversation around carbon pricing. When hucksters like Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer insist that they can meaningfully reduce carbon emissions without carbon taxes (note: Kenney’s carbon tax plans only target large emitters that pay into a “technology fund”), it once again leaves consumers off the hook, which defeats the purpose.

Consumers drive demand, which drive emissions. If you target consumer behaviour by putting a price on the emissions they’re causing, you’re working to change demand, whether it’s through better fuel economy, insulation in housing, or making different choices about what it is they’re consuming and how carbon intensive their consumption is, you’re dealing with the problem where it starts. Carbon taxes are a transparent way for consumers to see what it is they’re using, and allows them to make choices. When you target companies instead, you’re simply passing along the costs to them in the form of higher prices in a non-transparent way, and in a costlier way because regulation is a far less cost-effective way of driving emissions reductions. So indeed, rather than trying to ensure that consumers aren’t being hit by the costs of carbon pricing, you’re actually ensuring that they’re hit even more (particularly because the costs of doing nothing will be even greater still). You can’t pretend that this problem can’t be solved without a focus on consumers, and that starts with recognizing that consumers are the problem, not corporations.

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau says that the new Quebec government’s plan to raise the legal age of cannabis to 21 will only fuel the province’s black market.
• Unsurprisingly, certain charities are unhappy with the government’s draft legislation regarding how limits on political activities.
• VADM Mark Norman’s lawyers are seeking PMO documents, and are questioning the involvement of Scott Brison, calling him a friend of the Irvings.
• Apparently the RCMP investigation into the Cabinet leak that Norman is charged for is still ongoing.
• There is some question as to whether the New NAFTA is also signing onto the US’ trade war with China.
• Here is a look at Amarjeet Sohi’s challenge as he asks Alberta for patience on the Trans Mountain expansion file.
• Adorably, Andrew Scheer keeps insisting he’d have signed a better NAFTA deal than the current government has.
• Brian Mulroney got in a huff with Library and Archives when he found out that they helped pay for some research Paul Martin did for his memoirs.
• Stephen Harper says that if the Trans Mountain expansion fails, it will fuel populism.
• Philippe Lagassé offers yet more thoughts on the Mikisew decision, and how it reflects the evolution of the Westminster system on the separation of powers.
• Paul Wells reviews Stephen Harper’s new book, and while it’s a bit of a self-serving calling card for his consulting business, it also has some insights into his beliefs.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.