Getting too far ahead of the curve?

One of the more poignant ironies I heard this week was the assertion that “the homeless leave the smallest environmental footprint.”

Other than perhaps explaining Steven Harper’s hidden agenda on the environment, the force of this sad fact shouldn’t be set aside too quickly. An example of it at work is the enthusiasm with which the American environmental vanguard moved Midwest agricultural production to ethanol, contributing to the current rise in the cost of food for the poor. Unintended consequences are not well seen by those of the vanguard.

This policy danger is mimicked in the processes of democratic politics. I’ve never been able to hit a curve ball, but I do know that it involves not committing too early until, that is, one senses the presence and projection of the curve.

In political terms, it’s to see where the future may well need to go, but not to get too far ahead of the people who you will need to get there. Getting too far ahead of the curve is often a certain swing and a miss. Sometimes the missed curve ball is found, lamentably too late, to have been well outside the strike zone.

The walk back to the dugout can be a long and lonely one, and the game can be lost.

Ideological vanguards are often the stuff of the future; we need them if we are to progress as peoples and polities. But they are often keen to swing too early, with the sort of urgency that only a vision of the long ball over the centre fence would explain.

The trick for political leadership is to be alert to the curve in the ball that the vanguard is predicting, but still to ensure that when one swings one contacts solid wood. And to be sure that one doesn’t foul off, hitting innocent bystanders in the face.

Carbon tax transfer

Having used the baseball metaphor to distraction, allow me to use it one base further, in language laziness that surely indicates I’m swinging at this ball with a broken bat. It appears, ahem, that our friend Stéphane Dion, a champion who is certainly not guilty of steroid use — one of the reasons we like him — is about to step up to the plate. He will propose, in extended discussions over BBQs this summer, that Canada move dramatically to a massive change to our tax system.

The idea is an intriguing one: simply put, that we tax the heck out of those who use carbon sources for heat, light, and motion and subsidize those most stung by this tax with cuts to income tax to compensate.

This would be revenue neutral for most of us and has the effect of producing a very powerful incentive to use fuel less liberally. If you turn down the heat of the house at night or never idle your car, you will save not only the greater proposed tax on the fuel unused, but pocket the income tax that you would have otherwise paid that year.

Now, as usual, things aren’t that straightforward. The cost of the tax shift will be much more expensive for industry and transportation than it would be for others, and although the Dion plan will likely offset this risk to the economy with lower corporate taxes and special subsidy, and though this heavier burden for industry would induce much more of an interest in greening their practices and technology, those who are working in the oil patch - our current engine of growth nationally - are not going to be amused.

A second clear problem is how those who are now not paying income tax will pay for home heating, lights and the rest. Plainly, some sort of progressive guaranteed income plan will need to be added to this brave step to the future if we aren’t to build our environment progress on the backs of the poor.

Still…so far, this appears to be thoughtful, forward-thinking public policy. Whether Stéphane is too far ahead of the curve politically is far from clear. There’s a lot of spin to be taken into account before this pitch is hit over the left field fence.