This letter was written and submitted to the Prince George Free Press the day after the House of Commons reconvened in October 2000. Both leaders of Canada's fiscal conservative parties were calling on the Liberal government to reduce fuel taxes. It appeared in the Prince George Free Press, October 8, 2000 edition in the 'Focus' section.

Canada's 'fiscal conservative' political leaders displayed an unacceptable level of ignorance and/or incompetence in their charge of protecting public interest. As the House of Commons reconvened on Monday, September 18, the 'fiscal conservatives' called on government to cut fuel taxes.

This is not a sound or rational decision considering the ample economic and ecological evidence that has accumulated over the past decade regarding the negative impacts of fossil fuel consumption. The truth is often difficult to accept and requires effort and intelligence to discover and promote. These politicians have chosen to follow rather than lead and are taking the popular media's lead in promoting the interests of the fossil fuel industry and OPEC rather than the public's interest in their call for fuel tax cuts.

How much are we willing to pay for fuel? It appears the British have put their foot down at roughly $1.70 (Ca) per litre of gas. An economist would call such a value the British consumer's 'total willingness to pay.'

What would the Canadian 'total willingness to pay' be for fuel? Could we get to $1.70 (Ca)? Or would Canadian's riot in the streets and shut down industries in protest? They may, but we'll never know what the Canadian 'willingness to pay' is for two reasons.

First, our neighbours to the south subsidize fuel costs indirectly through military spending. What American taxpayers save in low fuel tax they make up for in massive military expenditures. The plethora of missiles and 'smart bombs' utilized in the maintenance of control over oil producing nations carries with it an astronomical price tag (one cruise missile costs US tax payers anywhere between one to five million dollars). A price that is, for all intents and purposes, a direct subsidy to the automobile and fossil fuel industries. Without this subsidy it has been estimated that the true cost of a barrel of oil is roughly $130.00 (US) rather than the low and subsidized $37.00 dollars it is today. These US fuel subsidies set the low bar and check a Canadian government's ability to internalize the many negative external costs of burning fossil fuel.

The second reason is that through meager surface-scratching investigations and selective-truth reporting, Canadians are not getting adequate information from popular media regarding the negative externalities a fossil fuel driven economy imposes. If they did, they would be more willing to accept the true cost of fossil fuel reliance and let the market adjust accordingly.

It makes good business sense for OPEC to blame high costs on taxation and to call on nation states to reduce their fuel taxes. It makes no sense however, for politicians and citizens of nation states to call for cuts to fuel tax. Why? Because OPEC knows what the market is willing to pay for fuel and it will charge what the market will pay. A reduction in tax will lead to a short term reduction in cost, which will lead to an increase in demand which will lead to an increase in price, which will go right into OPEC's pocket rather than that pot-hole on your street, or local hospital or school. If a nation or region reduces fuel tax, it is merely giving OPEC the surplus and paying the very high external costs rather than internalizing them.

There are two fiscally important facts our 'fiscal conservative' political leaders should be made aware of before their band wagon gets moving too fast.

First, it has been shown, both theoretically and empirically that internalizing external costs has always increased wealth. Second, high fossil fuel prices improve a country's economic performance. OECD countries with the lowest fuel costs also have the poorest economic performance (when using indicators such as growth, balance of trade, the number of patents, etc.).

Quite simply, cheap fossil fuel economies are wasteful and non-competitive. Canada's past export economy of reaping, with minimal sowing, of raw material is coming to an end. As resource extraction becomes more costly, those countries and regions that focus on efficiencies (rather than crying like spoiled children for fuel subsidies) will take economic lead.

Artificially low fossil fuel costs are the driving force behind North America's unsustainable behaviour. Consumer goods are shipped hundreds, thousands, of miles rather than created regionally or locally. Many Economic textbooks erroneously refer to what should be the "theory of comparative advantage" as the "law of comparative advantage" (i.e. a country or state should specialize in the production of some 'thing' and then trade that 'thing' for what it needs from another country or state that specializes in the production of the 'thing' it needs). This theory, fueled by dogma and artificially low fuel costs, has thoroughly surpassed its bounds. It is not more efficient to grow a tomato in Mexico, wrap it in cellophane and ship it thousands of kilometers to Canada. No economic theory or law can convince me of that. Nor is it more efficient to mix sugar, water and carbonic acid together, seal it in an aluminum can in Quebec and ship it thousands of kilometers to Vancouver.

But artificially cheap fuel prices can fool us into believing it is. The external costs are bared by third world workers being treated like slaves and by all life forms that have evolved in a 0.03% carbon atmosphere for the last three billion years. Billions of years worth of carbon, pulled from the atmosphere and fixed as coal and oil, has been burned in the last two hundred years.

It is already costing us dearly and will cost our children even greater. We do not even need to look to the earth sciences for evidence of this, merely look at the global insurance industry's books to see the astronomical costs. The insurance industry, armed with information from its actuarial scientists, were the first corporate entity to accept the realities of anthropogenically accelerated global warming and its negative economic implications.

Since the fossil fuel industry and OPEC will not take ownership of the immense negative externalities it and the automobile culture imposes on life, governments must apply taxation to limit consumption and impose a semblance of true cost accounting. Goodwill and technology play an important role in reducing carbon emissions, but alone cannot be relied on to fix our addiction to burning fossil fuel and building strip malls.

Technology will create efficiencies, but with the majority of our current population subscribing to the consumptive, expansionist paradigm, efficiencies gained simply get poured into the construction and consumption of more. If we build a more efficient car, we don't leave the oil or raw material it will not burn or use in the ground, we extract it to fuel and construct more cars based on the technological efficiencies gained. Legislation and taxation are the only effective tools we have to create the necessary incentives for sustainability.

Why is it that those who are most vocal about reducing fuel taxes are also the most ardent supporters of a free market? Perhaps it is because the term 'tax' is used in place of 'operational cost' in describing the small monetary compensation for the huge negative externalities caused by the few who are profiting from mass fossil fuel consumption. Fuel taxes today do not come close to compensating for these negative externalities.

Sound economic evidence from the German Ministry of Economic Affairs suggest that the external costs of burning fossil fuel is roughly 14 % of the worlds GDP, our current tax regime comes no where close to internalizing these costs. If these 'fiscal conservatives' truly support a free market, then they should roll with the punches and support the internalizing of cost. Producers would then pass on the cost to consumers and/or get innovative and competitive. If the consumer decides the price is too much then those businesses that rely on artificially low fuel costs to operate will and should go extinct. Sustainable businesses will fill the gaps with ecologically and ethically produced goods. Considering our current knowledge of the long and short-term ecological and social ramifications of fossil fuel addiction it is imperative that all levels of government act immediately. Unfortunately, effective carbon emission reductions through incentives, taxation and legislation do not appear to be materializing. This is perhaps a result of our federal government's blind embrace of globalization and a shift from government 'by and for the people' to a government by and for corporations.

Politicians are charged with the job of public interest maintenance, not maintaining the interest of Shell, OPEC or Ethyl Corporation. This is difficult when the public does not have access to, or the desire to learn about important information concerning their interest. Artificially low fuel costs are not in the public's interest and governments must find ways to inform the public of this fact. Indeed, politicians must justify current fuel costs and also impose a carbon tax on top of current infrastructure taxes.

And the public must learn that burning fossil fuel at the rate we do is selfish, irresponsible and just plain dumb. The 'American Dream', for the few who achieve it, is being built on a fuel subsidy. It has become glaringly obvious that the American Dream is now a global nightmare.