Good morning,
Every now and then, a Canadian academic captures the greater public’s attention, for better or worse. The self-described “Food Professor,” Sylvain Charlebois, is one of them. Charlebois is a business professor at Dalhousie University whose area of research includes food distribution, security and safety. He tweets consistently on X, is a regular commentator on radio shows, is routinely interviewed by journalists and crosses the country giving speaking engagements.
His interest in the economics of food prices have led him to weigh in on two political hot potatoes: food prices and the carbon tax.
Charlebois doesn’t come right out and blame the carbon tax for boosting food prices, a causal relationship refuted by many other Canadian economists. But he says the tax might be a contributor, and argues that it should be paused until its full impact is assessed. He says this so often and at such high volume that conservative politicians who oppose the tax have adopted Charlebois as one of their leading experts on the matter.
The federal Conservative Party wrote in an early February tweet that the Food Professor is "right to say we must pause the Liberal carbon tax."
Charlebois insists he’s apolitical, and that as an academic he only seeks to uncover the facts. But the fact that he argues for a carbon tax pause and uses inflammatory language, such as calling carbon tax supporters the "intellectual C-tax mob" and decrying the “woke movement of influencing food policies,” has made him a darling of the right.
Regardless of Charlebois’ stated political intent, his public commentary serves to bolster Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s determination to make the carbon tax the single biggest issue heading into the next election. And to a large degree, Poilievre’s efforts are working.
Support for the tax has plummeted; even David Eby, the NDP premier of B.C. the province that introduced Canada’s first carbon tax, waffled recently, stating if the federal government abandoned the consumer portion of the tax, B.C. would follow suit. He’s in a tight election and against the BC Conservatives, who unsurprisingly argue the tax must go.
It bears repeating that carbon pricing makes emissions-intensive activities more expensive and alternatives more affordable. As my colleague Barry Saxifrage has pointed out many times, it is designed to impose a cost on emissions which are harming our world and are a proven method of bringing down planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions caused by burning fossil fuels. It is not a punishment — most people get as much as they spend in carbon tax back through rebates. It is also not a cash grab — Canada’s carbon tax was designed to be revenue neutral.
Charlebois questions the value of the carbon tax through a food and price lens without being able to prove unequivocally the two are even connected. Critics rightfully point out that regardless of the answer, there are additional important climate change considerations, including extreme weather events and impending sea level rise created by climate change.
Worth remembering as our earth is pummeled with more violent storms, droughts and destructive fires.
— Adrienne Tanner
TOP STORY
🥫A profile of Sylvain Charlebois, Canada’s “Food Professor’. His public stand on food prices and the carbon tax is at the nexus of our country's food and climate policy.
Marc Fawcett Atkinson reports
Number of the Week
MORE CNO READS
🪵Wood, once our primary building material, was supplanted by steel and glass in the 20th century. It is now making a comeback as Canada’s construction industry looks for sustainable building options. Properly managed forests, lucky enough to avoid fires, can regrow, sucking planet-heating carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere along the way, making wood an attractive green option. One of the most promising developments is mass timber, a term for wood-based materials engineered out of laminated lumber, veneer and wood strands.
Darius Snieckus reports
🏦Consider this: if Bay Street were a country, it would be the fifth biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world. That’s what researchers at U of T’s Toronto Climate Observatory found in a study that tallied emissions associated with financial institutions in Toronto’s storied business district. The study considered all emissions a bank is responsible for, including its own energy use and operations, as well as emissions generated by projects they loaned or invested in, called “financed emissions.” As the world transitions to clean energy, the $1.4 trillion Bay Street is dumping into fossil fuel investments seems like awfully risky business.
John Woodside reports
🇨🇳You’ve all heard the argument, specious though it is. It goes something like this: why should Canada, with its tiny population, work to reduce its sliver of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions while China, the world’s second-most populous country, continues to belch out far more? There are a million reasons, not the least of which being we have promised to do our part to slow global heating, caused primarily by extracting and burning fossil fuels. But more to the point: when you take a hard look at what China is doing to reduce global emissions, our efforts pale in comparison. Ross Belot writes
👍🏽Talk about an accomplishment. On Oct. 1, the United Kingdom shuttered its last coal-fired power plant. This from a nation that was the very cradle of the coal-driven industrial revolution and simultaneously the cradle of the carbon crisis. Britain has made great strides in drawing down its greenhouse gas emissions and closing the last coal-fired power plant proves just how much a country can do to decarbonize when it puts its mind to it. “The fall of coal in the very birthplace of the Industrial Revolution is like a bell tolling in the distance. It’s the sound of hope.”
Sandy Garossino writes