... you have an old car you can get rid of.
The National Post is reporting that John Baird will announce an initiative to encourage people to get rid of old cars. The details are not announced yet, but the article speculates that it may be based on the British Columbia system that gives car-dumpers money towards a new hybrid car, a bike or a transit pass.
Mr. Baird admitted it is a "huge challenge" to persuade Canadians to change their behaviour to help combat climate change. But he said the Conservative government is pursuing numerous options, including incentives for individuals who get rid of old and inefficient vehicles.
"We will have an initiative in the coming weeks on that," Mr. Baird told the Economic Club of Toronto.
While this will help some people make a change in their lives, for a serious shift in our consumption patterns, economists keep repeating that the only way is through a carbon tax or cap and trade system.
The federal government has allocated $6 million dollars for the program, an amount expected to impress any recently thawed Dr. Evils. Assuming a system similar to BC, this might be enough to remove a few thousand old cars from the road.
Comments
GMD (not verified)
I do get tired of incentives
Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:27I do get tired of incentives to high energy users to reduce, rather than rewarding those who are already consuming less.
The problem for the time being I'd guess is political. Paying people a subsidy out of general tax revenues gets less heat than imposing a targetted carbon tax that would hit most people ... even if it did far more to change behavior.
vic
My suspicion is that this is
Thu, 12/06/2007 - 10:40My suspicion is that this is mostly a ploy to get people to buy new cars, to help Canada's slumping auto industry.
Tone (not verified)
If you really believe in the market
Thu, 12/06/2007 - 11:20The best thing to do is introduce some sort of broad-based carbon tax, and use the revenue to reduce income taxes (so the overall tax burden would remain unchanged).
Moreover, if Toronto was really serious about reducing congestion and pollution, it would quickly act to increase parking fees at its city-owned lots, implement road tolls and use the resulting revenue to seriously upgrade the service of the TTC.
During the transition period, these kinds of policies will be disruptive -- for example, it would seriously impact the Alberta oil sand, which are a driver of economic growth nationally. Similarly, if Toronto made the moves I suggest, some businesses would move out of the core and into 905, particularly those with a lot of 905 employees.
But, eventually, cleantech businesses would grow and flourish -- and ideally provide exportable technologies and services. And, frankly, moving businesses closer to their employees is a better regional strategy than spending millions of dollars to find new ways to get people to work from the 'burbs to downtown. 905 isn't going to be dismantled, so it's much better for all of us if those communities combine residential and business uses in a way that greatly reduces commuting -- and opens up the opporunity for more people to bike to work.
We'll end up doing these or other similar policies eventually; as the cost of energy goes up, there won't be a lot of choice. The advantage of doing them now is that we can plan the process to reduce the negative impacts and give companies that could benefit from the "new realities" (cleantech, alternative energy, etc.) an opportunity to grow and develop early enough that they could be globally competitive.
The Green Party seems to advocate similar policies, and I sincerely hope public opinion swings towards these kinds of answers soon rather than later.
The EnigManiac
I concur...
Thu, 12/06/2007 - 13:20...completely that if the City was truly serious about reducing air pollution and congestion and make our roads safer, they would dramatically increase parking rates and introduce a 'congestion tax' or other form of road toll, funneling the revenue directly into the TTC. I have been inundating the Mayor's office as well as other councillors with those suggestions and others such as dramatically increasing meter parking rates and imposing 'taxes' on private parking facilities while offering lower rates to car-pooling behicles, fully electric behicles and maybe even hybrids.
I disagree, however, that any initiatives Toronto employs would seriously impact the Alberta oil-sands. The US is the lkargest purchaser of oil generated from the sands and Canada actually receives very little oil from the sands. Oddly, we actually import the oil we use from cheaper-to-produce countries like Saudi Arabia and sell our domestic oil to foreign markets.
Perhaps some businneses might move, but I suspect most would remain---they have often invested far too much in their infrustructue to allow a few taxes to make them pack up and leave. Their public image and perception of being anti-environment would be of serious concern to them. I would suspect most companies would get on board simply due to the fact that the initiatives would improve travelling efficiency and decrease airborne pollutants. Right now, millions are lost by big corporations in lost revenue and wages while employees are delayed by traffic congestion and their employees frequent illnesses. That is, in part, why some companies have moved some of their operations outside the city. I have even heard of some companies in the core encouraging their career employees to buy properties close to their work locations recently. Change is gradual.
Tone (not verified)
Poor sentence structure!
Thu, 12/06/2007 - 16:53Regarding my comments about the oil sands in Alberta -- I didn't mean to imply that measures in Toronto would impact business there. What I was trying to say was a broad-based (federal) carbon tax would likely cool development on the oil sands (since there would now be a much greater cost for using/produing CO2 in the production process) which could ripple through the entire Canadian economy.
My syntax was a little weak ... my bad!