Re: “Carbon-tax numbers show PM full of hot air on emissions,” column, March 17.
In his column, Lawrie McFarlane worries about “garbage” math, but his real problem is garbage economic theory.
By arguing it’s pointless to control Canada’s carbon production because it’s relatively minor globally, McFarlane describes an economic problem identified in the 19th century and subsequently dubbed the “tragedy of the commons.” That is when a resource is held in common — a community pasture, for example — it’s understood that overgrazing will destroy the pasture, but there is reluctance for individuals to reduce their herds for fear others won’t and subsequently gain an economic advantage. The result is a dead pasture.
McFarlane also makes the economic error of assuming taxes are a zero-sum game — that is, every dollar of taxes reduces the economy by an equal amount. This theory has hundreds of years and thousands of books standing against it, and there would be no Canada if it were so.
And finally, McFarlane’s underlying argument is that fossil fuels constitute the only available source of energy and by attaching a higher cost to it, we will be left with no options.
Clearly, McFarlane’s intention was a partisan attack on the prime minister. Fair enough.
However, perhaps McFarlane should direct his arguments to William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, who walked away with last year’s Nobel Prize in economics for their work in adapting economic theory to account for environmental issues and technological progress. There might be a Nobel in it.
Gerry Klein
Maple Bay
