Editor’s Note: This article is more than 9 years old. To get latest updates and news on the federal carbon tax, or carbon pricing, visit this page.

Last night Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his house band, the Van Cats, took to the stage at a Conservative Christmas Party in Ottawa. Seated at the keyboard, the Prime Minister warbled through a performance of the Guns n’Roses classic ‘Sweet Child of Mine.’

Less than 24 hour earlier that the Prime Minister was singing a different tune.

Earlier in the day, the Harper railed against the concept of carbon taxes and regulation of the fossil fuel industry during Question Period in the House of Commons. In response to questions from NDP environment critic Megan Leslie about the Conservative’s 2007 pledge to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, he replied:

“Under the current circumstances of the oil and gas sector, it would be crazy — it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral penalties on that sector; we’re clearly not going to do that. …In fact, Mr. Speaker, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I would be delighted if they did. Canada would be there with them.”

All of the above are indeed words, but when used by the Prime Minister in this combination they give a result that’s completely and egregiously incorrect.

In reality, more than half of the world’s population lives in places where CO2 consumption/production is regulated in some form — including a large portion of Canada. Here’s a rundown:

Countries with National Carbon Taxes or Emission Trading Schemes:

· Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Ireland established national carbon taxes in 1990, 1991, 1991, 2002 and 2010, respectively.

· The Netherlands has taxed carbon since 1990. In 2007 it enacted a further tax on carbon-based packaging.

· Costa Rica’s carbon tax funds forest protections for indigenous communities. It began in 1997.

· Since 2001, Great Britain has charged a ‘climate change levy’ on industry, commerce and public sectors.

· The New Zealand Government set up an emissions trading scheme in 2008.

· India has charged a nationwide carbon tax on coal since 2010.

· Switzerland has both a carbon incentive tax and an emissions trading system.

· Since 2010, all new vehicle sales in South Africa have been subject to a carbon tax.

· In 2012 Mexico implemented a carbon tax on fossil fuel imports and sales.

· Japan’s carbon tax has been in effect since October 2012.

· In 2012, Australia instituted a groundbreaking, innovative carbon tax. However, it was repealed two years later by the newly-elected Conservative government, headed up by Stephen Harper’s protege, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

· France began taxing carbon emissions from gas, heavy fuel oil and coal on April 1, 2014.

Regional Carbon Taxes or Emission Trading Schemes:

· China: Starting in 2013, the Chinese Government enacted emission trading schemes in the Guangdong province and cities of Shenzhen, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, the Hubei province and the city of Chongqing. After 2015, the government will work towards a nation-wide tax (potentially as part of its new partnership with the United States).

· United States: Starting in 2009, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont have traded emissions through a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. California’s emissions trading scheme was instituted in 2013. Also in 2013, President Obama issued an executive order to strengthen the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate US power plants.

· Canada: Canada does not have a federal carbon tax, but Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia do. The latter’s carbon tax has been recognized as one of the most effective in the world.

Other countries or regions with pending carbon taxes or emission trading schemes under consideration or in the process of implementation:

· In 2018, Chile’s newly enacted climate pollution tax will take effect, levying a charge of $5/tonne of CO2 on 55 per cent of the nation’s emissions.

· Starting in 2015, The Republic of Korea will start an emissions trading scheme covering facilities producing more than 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – approximately 450 of the country’s largest emitters. A planned ‘smog tax’ on vehicle emissions has been pushed back to 2020.

· Starting in 2016, all new homes built in the United Kingdom are required to have zero emissions for heating, hot water, cooling and lighting.

· South Africa expects to begin its national carbon tax in 2016.

· Kazakhstan, Thailand, Taiwan, Brazil, the Ukraine and Turkey all have plans on carbon taxes or emission trading in various stages of consideration.

With a majority of nations at the UN Climate Talks in Lima agreeing to put wholesale elimination of fossil fuel energy by 2050 on the negotiating table, and crude oil prices dropping below $62 USD per barrel for the first time in five years, smart countries aren’t singing the praises of fossil fuels any longer.

They’re stepping up with regulations like their futures depend on it.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada is “flying under the radar” at this year’s UNFCCC COP20 climate talks in Lima, Peru according to Canada Youth Delegation member Brenna Owen.

Canada’s negotiators are working hard to sidestep the issue of the country’s growing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector according to Owen, while simultaneously keeping quiet about the oilsands as nations come up with their “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs) in the global climate agreement.

“They’re not going to be able to do that much longer,” she added. “And they’re not going to be able to avoid talking about the tar sands.”

Aleah Loney, another member of the 10-person youth delegation, said the group is eager to push Canada’s ministers and negotiators to address the issue of oil and gas emissions rather than employing evasive tactics to avoid the concerns outright.

On Tuesday, as ministers and delegates from around the world continued to arrive at the climate talks to negotiate an internationally binding climate agreement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons he would not regulate emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector.

“Under the current circumstances of the oil and gas sector, it would be crazy – it would be crazy economic policy – to do unilateral penalties on that sector,” he said. “We’re clearly not going to do that.”

The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. In October, Canada’s environment commissioner Julie Gelfand said the country has “no overall vision” when it comes to oil and gas regulations and as a result will not meet its 2020 international greenhouse gas reductions targets agreed to in Copenhagen.

In the House of Commons Harper also claimed “nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector.”

“I’d be delighted if they did, Canada will be there with them. But we are not going to impose unilateral penalties.”

Harper’s comments add another layer of insight into the activities of Canadian negotiators in Lima who are actively skirting the issue of national responsibility by pointing fingers at other nations.

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq told delegates at the climate talks Canada is interested in an agreement “that would see all major emitters commit to do their fair share.”

Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence, told DeSmog that Canada “for the longest time has been trying to…talk about all major emitters to put everyone in the same boat.”

“On the one hand you could argue there are major developing countries that could do more, but from what I see in terms of historical responsibility countries like Canada have much, much greater responsibility to act and much greater resources to act and should take on greater commitments.”

“When you point at countries like China and India,” Marshall said, “you’re essentially deflecting blame and making it easy for Canada to stay with very weak targets.”

Christian Holz, international policy director with the Climate Action Network, said Canada has “maneuvered itself into a corner of insignificance,” at UNFCCC talks.

He said instead of talking about oil and gas regulations and growth in the oilsands, Canada is redirecting attention to a new commitment to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are used in air conditioning and heating.

“They decided to focus on one of the smallest areas of Canada’s emissions profile. HFCs account for about one per cent of Canadian emissions and the oil and gas sector is about 25 per cent right now. So of course, we’re not picking the right areas to focus on.”

Holz said this kind of diversion tactic isn’t even generating controversy within the negotiations or at home because “nobody’s really taking Canada seriously anymore.”

“I guess that’s why you don’t see the outrage that you would expect from bait and switches like that if Canada was considered a genuine participant in this global effort to address climate change.”

Loney from the Canada Youth Delegation said her group is putting effort into keeping the oil and gas sector relevant to Canada’s participation in the climate negotiations.

“We really want to talk about the oil and gas sector as a whole and that includes fracking. But we feel it’s important to highlight the tar sands as well,” she said. “We’re talking at a very high level at the UNFCCC and people know what the tar sands are here.”

Kelsey Mech from the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition and a member of the youth delegation in Lima said it’s important for their group to keep the pressure squarely on Canada.

“We’re linking the two worlds,” between Lima and Canada, Mech said, “trying to bring back to Canada what’s going on here.”

“One of the reason why it’s important for folks like us to be here is to put that pressure on internationally on our own government. They’re not going to bring something strong to the table internationally if there isn’t that pressure back home domestically.”

“We’re here to put tar sands back on the table.”

Loney added that this process benefits from being complicated. “They take climate negotiations to such a high-brow that it cuts people off.”

“It’s been important for me to bring these issues back down,” she added.

On Tuesday, Loney brought the question of the oilsands to the negotiations, asking Canadian representatives, “what can I bring back to my friends in Alberta? What can I take back to my friends in Fort McMurray and my friends in treaty territory that are dealing with the effects of living downstream of the tar sands?”

“These are real things that impact real people.”

Image Credit: Environment Canada via Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.