Colby Cosh says that waste from government is bad for our environment too

Article content

Second Street, a think tank, published an Interesting policy paperMonday morning. It provides an overview of how Canadian government policies increase greenhouse gases emissions as an unnoticed side effect. There is also a methodology paragraph on page one, explaining that data collection was largely based on reading newspapers and speaking to experts.

Article content

However, it will get an open-minded person to think about the Canadian Federation in general, what kind of country we have chosen to be and how we prioritize different species of climate-change combatting.

Second Street, located in Regina, can be described as an outgrowth or side project of Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF). It is a CTF veteran’s company that has at least a close relationship with it. It won’t surprise you to learn that much of the paper, written by James Skinner, policy analyst, is dedicated opposing the same types of government waste that CTF is dedicated.

The report highlights the excessive emissions that are created when fossil fuels must be transported by rail or truck, rather than via pipelines. It also has fun with the ridiculously swollen political delegations that we send to climate change conferences abroad. It also notes that some of the pro-environmental benefits are offset by the fact that fuel taxes force consumers to cross the border to purchase gas.

Article content

While it’s not surprising that a sibling of CTF opposes taxes, these arguments are all true. The report’s wider theme is even more fascinating. It identifies protectionist measures that are expensive and should be abandoned by Canada in the name societal efficiency. However, they are also environmentally harmful.

For example, the airline protectionionism that protects our duopoly domestic carriers encourages Canadian holidaymakers to take longer trips and drive across the border to avoid paying exorbitant Canadian airport fees. This creates a lot unnecessary emissions, isn’t it?

Canada has also outsourced a large portion of its health-care spending to the United States or foreign destinations in one way or another: cross-border medical trips reportedly number in the hundreds of thousands each year. Many people have traveled south for private surgery or an MRI.

Article content

It is mostly ideology that stops us from being better prepared as a country. Wrong or right, there is an environmental cost. This cost is not quantified and is never mentioned as a criticism of the status quo.

The report also contains a sly resistance to modernity thread. The report includes discussions about virtual courts, government service departments, and virtual health care. These discussions highlight the absurdity of Canadian life. This would be astonishing to citizens from advanced countries.

The pandemic demonstrated how much potential the internet has to eliminate unnecessary doctors visits, physical courtroom hearings and other tribunal hearings. There is a danger that some of the progress made in the COVID era with remote work and digital governance will be lost.

Article content

The report is nonpartisan and carefully selected. It focuses on other Canadian idols. For example, it points out that Bombardier receives incalculable fortunes from the federal government to design and build business planes, a source for greenhouse gas emissions that is generally not considered to be possible.

It also notes that every litre this country dumps into its sewers to keep supply-management limits in place comes at a alleged cost to the country of around a kilogram worth of carbon dioxide. Canadians don’t mind implicitly throwing away money or they won’t get to elect a government willing stop it. But we are supposed to view avoidable and gratuitous environmental harm as a problem.

Article content

The report aims to bring attention to the many similarities between the CTF narrative of government waste, and the ethical narratives of popular environmentalalism. Is the rule that small is beautiful good for government or only those who are subject to it?

Private life is now expected to accept the moral imperative of carbon calculus. If we don’t, the taxman will encourage us to make smart choices. Our economy’s protectionist features, which fleece citizens, and even old habits that require no effort to change, are hindering better policy-making. Governments are constantly, ostentatiously, trying to send us a message that they don’t always hear.

National Post
Twitter.com/colbycosh