Roundup: Explaining the intractable

Posted on by

Over at the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative economics blog, Stephen Gordon grapples with the problem of how to explain carbon taxes to Canadians in a way that’s more meaningful and easier to comprehend rather than economics jargon. It’s a perplexing problem, and one that some economists on social media are trying to address – something made more difficult by the constant narrative of lies put forward by the likes of Andrew Scheer and his provincial conservative allies, for whom the verifiable benefits of pricing carbon are lied about and derided as making life unaffordable, or that rebates won’t change behaviours. Except that we have data that they do, but communicating those data is a challenge, and possibly an intractable one.

I would add that oftentimes, journalists don’t help because we largely have an allergy to anything that looks like math. If it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, we immediately default to “it’s complicated” and shrugging, rather than figuring it out and communicating to people. I think we need to do better as well, and I try and to my part (for which I am rewarded with taunts that I am some kind of Liberal apologist, despite that carbon pricing is the favoured tool by virtually every single major economist and anyone who favours market solutions over government regulation), but it can be challenging, particularly when you are confronted by those who actively do not care about the truth. If we’re going to call out dishonesty in politics, we journalists need to do a better job of calling out these lies as we do with other false talking points – which means doing more than letting The Canadian Press write up a Baloney Meter™ article every now and again.

Good reads:

  • The Liberals are holding their caucus retreat in Ottawa, and the word of the day is “positive politics,” which still includes swipes at the Conservatives, apparently.
  • The Americans have not yet filed the paperwork to request extradition of Meng Wanzhou, and have until the end of the month to do so.
  • A former CSIS senior official says that Canada’s decision not to ban Huawei from Canada’s 5G network has left us vulnerable to the Chinese taking hostages.
  • PCO is looking to set quotas for nominations of civil service for awards giving out by the Governor General, to ensure their contributions are better recognised.
  • Bungled military procurements have meant that upwards of $60 million have been paid out in penalties, but DND says the settlement details are confidential.
  • The Liberals have named former provincial MLA Richard Lee to replace Karen Wang as their candidate in Burnaby South.
  • Olympian Adam van Koeverden won the Liberal nomination for Milton, but the previous candidate says he was bullied out of the race by the party.
  • Andrew Scheer held his own town hall over the weekend, that was full of friendly questions and pat talking points.
  • Jagmeet Singh thinks the government needs to be prepared to walk away from the Trans Mountain expansion if they can’t get enough Indigenous buy-in.
  • Singh also says that despite the (many) missteps, he’s ready to be prime minister to make people’s lives better.
  • The NDP also nominated Svend Robinson in Burnaby North–Seymour.
  • Maxime Bernier says he’s no longer keen on trade with China, and says he would do nothing on climate change, leaving it up to the provinces.
  • A lawyer (and political opponent of Jason Kenney) has been digging into Kenney’s financials when he was a minister and finds discrepancies akin to Mike Duffy’s.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a look at the tactics being employed by the Chinese embassy in Sweden, which should be familiar to those paying attention in Canada.

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

One thought on “Roundup: Explaining the intractable”

  1. I am nonplussed by the number of TV political commentators who listen to opponents of the carbon “tax” who say that it will economically hurt Canadians. They never point out that Canadians will receive tax credit of more than they spend or in the case of provinces where the levy is imposed a cheque for more than they spend. Why is that? Where is the fact checking and why is it that these pundits omit this important detail in the program?

Comments are closed.