As prime minister Justin Trudeau trails in polls, opposition seek to persuade voters environmental policy is a burden
Mass hunger and malnutrition. A looming nuclear winter. An existential threat to the Canadian way of life. For months, the country’s Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has issued dire and increasingly apocalyptic warnings about the future. The culprit? A federal carbon levy meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
In the House of Commons this month, the Tory leader said there was only one way to avoid the devastating crisis: embattled prime minister Justin Trudeau must “call a ‘carbon tax’ election”.
Hailed as a global model of progressive environmental policy, Canada’s carbon tax has reduced emissions and put money in the pockets of Canadians. The levy, endorsed by conservative and progressive economists, has survived multiple federal elections and a supreme court challenge. But this time, a persistent cost-of-living crisis and a pugnacious Conservative leader running on a populist message have thrust the country’s carbon tax once more into the spotlight, calling into question whether it will survive another national vote.
I don’t think it’s odd, because people vote based on whatever their understanding or misunderstanding is. Therefore this popularity is what drives upstream decisions on keeping, modifying or repealing this policy. Not what the true, factual reality is.
I don’t have the numbers on Obamacare but lets assume for sake of argument that 80% of people wanted it repealed, while only 20% if it was called ACA. If at a given point in time the law was referred to by Obamacare by 80% of the people and they wanted it repealed, then I’d say it’s unpopular. Of course I can see how this applies to the CT and I’d refer you to my previous paragraph. People will vote and demand change on the basis of their current beliefs, however well they match reality. If someone managed to manufacture belief one way or another, that’s what counts at the ballot box. Today I think the beliefs on CT can’t be framed as popular. Worse, I think they shouldn’t be framed this way because it could lead to counterproductive results.
I think it’s a rose by any other name. As a political name, I think you are right. As a policy, I think it is broadly popular.
Think of Obamacare. It is basically unchanged and now, fairly popular as more have experienced it instead of conservative misinformation. At the beginning, like the carbon tax, it was broadly popular in all but name.
Now, people will absolutely vote based on their misunderstanding of the situation. (This is a program wherein most Canadian citizens get money from the government but more than half of us don’t think we got it and of those who do understand they received it, a sizeable proportion has no idea it has to do with carbon rebates.)
If you took the exact same policy, branded the cheques “Poilievre’s Policies Payback to Canadians” or whatever, it would (minus the chicanery) be broadly popular.
So sure, the name of a thing is unpopular but the thing itself is popular. Your call which you think is more important I guess?