In what is widely seen as a strategic blunder, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pausing the carbon price on home heating oil has kicked off backlash from coast to coast, with new polling revealing collapsing support for his signature climate policy.
It’s the least painful, most economically efficient way to encourage those things and other transitions. When it comes to transportation, higher gas prices have historically resulted in a market for more fuel efficiency (and inflation-adjusted low gas prices have lead to oversizing of vehicles). Unlike the 70s, this time, the carbon tax is brought in slowly and smoothly over many years to encourage conservation (including the things you mention), drive demand for more fuel efficiency, and in the long term, encourage the electrification of the remaining fleet.
The vast majority of Canadians want the government to do something serious about climate change, but they don’t know what that thing is. Economists said a carbon tax and rebate was the most efficient, but public support isn’t driven by economic papers, but by propaganda machines. It’s just too easy to blame the carbon tax for everyone’s problems. It’s the perfect boogeyman for inflation. Heavy handed regulation of industrial emitters would probably be the most supported by the public, but it would have a terrible impact on Canadian industry, and actually be limited in it’s effectiveness, as most of Canada’s emissions would still be “free.”
The market shouldn’t be focused on fuel efficiency but on total energy efficiency. Constantly pushing cars to be more effecient is still significantly less effecient than well built transit and active transport like walking. Our cities are built based on sprawl and strict zoning, consuming more land and requiring more resources to build roads and infrastructure. Existing spaces in downtowns or old retail sit vacant for years while new developments continue outside of town.
The government can reduce carbon emissions by encouraging people to use less carbon during their daily commutes by building effecient cities. Denser housing and commercial units are also more themerally effecient. This could actually reduce the amount of carbon generated from transportstion and heating rather than collect money from the carbon generated.
Increasing the price of carbon means people will have an incentive to stop generating so much of it. If it’s free to put another ton of CO2 into the atmosphere many people won’t think twice about doing it.
Yes, but there has to be viable alternatives to actually let people change.
People won’t stop using the highway for their commute if there isn’t another option like a train, reliable rapid transit bus, or an affordable apartment closer to the office.
Public transit is the standard and the normal around the world. People will commute to work in whichever way is fastest and conveneient for them. Many people would rather read a book or browse the web while a train takes them to work over sitting in traffic. The only reason we don’t currently demand it is because many people in Canada have never experienced good transit and walkability so they really don’t know we could be building much better. Your mobility freedom in this country is nearly dependant on a driver’s lisence or access to a car.
We shouldn’t have to be doing the tax shake down and public revolt steps when we know by the numbers that transit is more energy and carbon effecient. Once those alternatives exist, a carbon tax would be much more effective because now people actually have a choice in their transportation.
The carbon tax isn’t a “shakedown” btw, the income is redistributed.
Are you suggesting there is a city in Canada that doesn’t have some form of public transit? I’m not aware of any large cities like that so I really struggle to understand why you feel the carbon pricing wouldn’t be effective right now.
Having public transit is not the same as having reliable and competitive public transit. The transit has to be reliably competitive in travel time and cost to truly see people shift to using it. If most car commutes in the city are 25 minutes, and the average transit time is 1hr 15 minutes, the transit is not competetive enough to attract riders except those with no other option at all.
Transit can be improved by extending the network, increasing the frequency, improving the speed (like dedicated bus lanes or light rail lines), and competitive pricing.
Did you move into your house before the road to it was built?
Or before the water, sewage, and electricity was built?
If we thought of transit the same way, we could have policies like developers need to consider transit connections on new developments just like they’d need to consider roads, sewers and electrcity. The longer we put off building transit, the longer its gonna take to have it working and reducing carbon emissions.
The carbon tax disincentive came first, and I think most reasonable people would agree it made sense whether it cost them personally or not. The problem is that for a lot of people the disincentive keeps growing while the alternatives haven’t improved at all.
The alternative to the status quo is the incentive to change. If you build the transit and make it a viable alternative in terms of costs and time, people will take it: millennials, gen z, and soon gen alpha aren’t driving at the rate of previous generations for many reasons, they want public transit but they are forced to drive. If cities actually start to prioritize public and active transit infrastructure improvements over those for single occupancy vehicles in a meaningful way people will take them. This is one of those candy for dinner scenarios where the public wants what they want without understanding why it’s not good for them and the gov’t needs to step up and do what’s right instead of caving to the pressure.
The alternative to the status quo is the incentive to change
That doesn’t even make sense because it assumes there’s already an alternative and public transit is not an alternative method of transportation for many if not most people.
It works for me, so I use public transportation daily but I know many people I work with drive in because they live far from work and public transit is a nightmare if you have to transfer between train/bus or bus/bus. Even then, my bus is often late, or doesn’t show up and there’s nothing I can do about it other than complain to the city, which they just ignore anyway.
Adding a cost to driving will force people to reconsider their habits and when enough people have to change, we can demand the city do better with transit. Right now, if you have money, you will not take public transit. It doesn’t make sense for people with money and poor people have no choice to take public transit.
Adding a cost to driving will force people to reconsider their habits and when enough people have to change, we can demand the city do better with transit. Right now, if you have money, you will not take public transit. It doesn’t make sense for people with money and poor people have no choice to take public transit.
And if there is no viable alternative for then to turn to they will not change their minds. We build the infrastructure first, and change the public’s mind second with improved commute time, more money in their pocket, etc. I’d rather not wait several years after the public has finally got it through their “me first mentality” to start the decades long process of expanding our pathetic transportation infrastructure to bring us to s21st century standard. We are a half a century behind countries in Europe and Asian in regards to our transit infrastructure, the best time to build it was 50 years ago, the second best is today not in 5 years when driving a car is no longer possible for the majority of people.
I could take the bus to work, but it turns my 2hrs of driving a day into 5 hours of commuting. I would never give up my car until that option is viable, and that’s not going to happen until we have the infrastructure to make it viable.
And if there is no viable alternative for then to turn to they will not change their minds.
Policy like this isn’t meant to impact everyone the same way.
If a city has public transit, they likely have coverage targets. Every city does this differently, but in most cities, the majority of people are targetted to be covered.
This means that if more people start using the system who are covered, it’s more likely the system itself will be expanded to cover more places.
But you’re all missing the 2nd incentive, this could also incentivise people to move to places near transit and could encourage higher density buildings near better transit.
Both of those are things you want, and both of them are things the carbon pricing helps do.
Viable is subjective. If you have enough money, public transit is never viable. Poor people already can’t afford to drive so we’re trying to change the minds of people who can afford to drive but don’t want to take public transit. The ‘me first mentality’ is what got us into this mess to start with so the solution needs to speak to those people and money does that.
My buddy at work just changed his driving habits due to increasing costs so he’s going from a 25m drive to 1h15m taking public transit. Hardly ideal but that’s the point as no city government has the money to spend on new public transit infrastructure until enough voters want it to happen.
Using your own example, you’ll continue to drive despite the negative impact to the environment unless the city magically makes your 5 hour commute as quick as your 2 hour drive or the cost of driving forces your hand. Speaking of ‘me first mentality’…
How do you build transit infrastructure when you don’t know where the demand is?
I encourage you to look into China’s bullet train network, they did what you’re suggesting. And the last I heard the system is struggling because the stations and lines weren’t built where people actually needed them so it’s heavily underutalized.
The most successful public transit systems were ones built up over time. It’s going to take decades to fix public transit in many of our cities, are there any cities that aren’t doing this?
Also remember that city policy falls under provincial jurisdiction. I was surprised this year to even see the feds start trying to throw money at that problem and incentivise cities to rethink zoning. But it takes time, and it also takes voting people who care into the right spots (city hall and provincial governments)
No city can just build alternatives if they don’t know where the demand is.
Before a city can justify building anywhere,there needs to be demand. Both sides need to increase in stride.
Viable, but not perfect alternatives do already exist, and if more people use them they will get better, that is exactly what putting a price on carbon does.
It’s the least painful, most economically efficient way to encourage those things and other transitions. When it comes to transportation, higher gas prices have historically resulted in a market for more fuel efficiency (and inflation-adjusted low gas prices have lead to oversizing of vehicles). Unlike the 70s, this time, the carbon tax is brought in slowly and smoothly over many years to encourage conservation (including the things you mention), drive demand for more fuel efficiency, and in the long term, encourage the electrification of the remaining fleet.
The vast majority of Canadians want the government to do something serious about climate change, but they don’t know what that thing is. Economists said a carbon tax and rebate was the most efficient, but public support isn’t driven by economic papers, but by propaganda machines. It’s just too easy to blame the carbon tax for everyone’s problems. It’s the perfect boogeyman for inflation. Heavy handed regulation of industrial emitters would probably be the most supported by the public, but it would have a terrible impact on Canadian industry, and actually be limited in it’s effectiveness, as most of Canada’s emissions would still be “free.”
The market shouldn’t be focused on fuel efficiency but on total energy efficiency. Constantly pushing cars to be more effecient is still significantly less effecient than well built transit and active transport like walking. Our cities are built based on sprawl and strict zoning, consuming more land and requiring more resources to build roads and infrastructure. Existing spaces in downtowns or old retail sit vacant for years while new developments continue outside of town.
The government can reduce carbon emissions by encouraging people to use less carbon during their daily commutes by building effecient cities. Denser housing and commercial units are also more themerally effecient. This could actually reduce the amount of carbon generated from transportstion and heating rather than collect money from the carbon generated.
Increasing the price of carbon means people will have an incentive to stop generating so much of it. If it’s free to put another ton of CO2 into the atmosphere many people won’t think twice about doing it.
Yes, but there has to be viable alternatives to actually let people change.
People won’t stop using the highway for their commute if there isn’t another option like a train, reliable rapid transit bus, or an affordable apartment closer to the office.
Most people won’t demand any of that if gas is cheap. It requires political will to get public transit built and funded.
Public transit is the standard and the normal around the world. People will commute to work in whichever way is fastest and conveneient for them. Many people would rather read a book or browse the web while a train takes them to work over sitting in traffic. The only reason we don’t currently demand it is because many people in Canada have never experienced good transit and walkability so they really don’t know we could be building much better. Your mobility freedom in this country is nearly dependant on a driver’s lisence or access to a car.
We shouldn’t have to be doing the tax shake down and public revolt steps when we know by the numbers that transit is more energy and carbon effecient. Once those alternatives exist, a carbon tax would be much more effective because now people actually have a choice in their transportation.
The carbon tax isn’t a “shakedown” btw, the income is redistributed.
Are you suggesting there is a city in Canada that doesn’t have some form of public transit? I’m not aware of any large cities like that so I really struggle to understand why you feel the carbon pricing wouldn’t be effective right now.
Having public transit is not the same as having reliable and competitive public transit. The transit has to be reliably competitive in travel time and cost to truly see people shift to using it. If most car commutes in the city are 25 minutes, and the average transit time is 1hr 15 minutes, the transit is not competetive enough to attract riders except those with no other option at all.
Transit can be improved by extending the network, increasing the frequency, improving the speed (like dedicated bus lanes or light rail lines), and competitive pricing.
All of those improvements do and are happening though, but ridership is used to inform the changes.
The denser parts of cities do have transit that accomplishes what you’re asking for.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905
This post might help you understand how the carbon tax and rebate system works
But what comes first? An incentive to change or an alternative to the status quo that’s been here for over 100 years?
Incentives are needed. Otherwise, as long as it’s free to pollute, people won’t do anything.
Public transit is public infrastructure.
Did you move into your house before the road to it was built? Or before the water, sewage, and electricity was built?
If we thought of transit the same way, we could have policies like developers need to consider transit connections on new developments just like they’d need to consider roads, sewers and electrcity. The longer we put off building transit, the longer its gonna take to have it working and reducing carbon emissions.
What does that have to do with a carbon tax or what I said? Seems you’re making an argument on my behalf and then arguing with yourself.
The carbon tax disincentive came first, and I think most reasonable people would agree it made sense whether it cost them personally or not. The problem is that for a lot of people the disincentive keeps growing while the alternatives haven’t improved at all.
The alternative to the status quo is the incentive to change. If you build the transit and make it a viable alternative in terms of costs and time, people will take it: millennials, gen z, and soon gen alpha aren’t driving at the rate of previous generations for many reasons, they want public transit but they are forced to drive. If cities actually start to prioritize public and active transit infrastructure improvements over those for single occupancy vehicles in a meaningful way people will take them. This is one of those candy for dinner scenarios where the public wants what they want without understanding why it’s not good for them and the gov’t needs to step up and do what’s right instead of caving to the pressure.
That doesn’t even make sense because it assumes there’s already an alternative and public transit is not an alternative method of transportation for many if not most people.
It works for me, so I use public transportation daily but I know many people I work with drive in because they live far from work and public transit is a nightmare if you have to transfer between train/bus or bus/bus. Even then, my bus is often late, or doesn’t show up and there’s nothing I can do about it other than complain to the city, which they just ignore anyway.
Adding a cost to driving will force people to reconsider their habits and when enough people have to change, we can demand the city do better with transit. Right now, if you have money, you will not take public transit. It doesn’t make sense for people with money and poor people have no choice to take public transit.
And if there is no viable alternative for then to turn to they will not change their minds. We build the infrastructure first, and change the public’s mind second with improved commute time, more money in their pocket, etc. I’d rather not wait several years after the public has finally got it through their “me first mentality” to start the decades long process of expanding our pathetic transportation infrastructure to bring us to s21st century standard. We are a half a century behind countries in Europe and Asian in regards to our transit infrastructure, the best time to build it was 50 years ago, the second best is today not in 5 years when driving a car is no longer possible for the majority of people.
I could take the bus to work, but it turns my 2hrs of driving a day into 5 hours of commuting. I would never give up my car until that option is viable, and that’s not going to happen until we have the infrastructure to make it viable.
Policy like this isn’t meant to impact everyone the same way.
If a city has public transit, they likely have coverage targets. Every city does this differently, but in most cities, the majority of people are targetted to be covered.
This means that if more people start using the system who are covered, it’s more likely the system itself will be expanded to cover more places.
But you’re all missing the 2nd incentive, this could also incentivise people to move to places near transit and could encourage higher density buildings near better transit.
Both of those are things you want, and both of them are things the carbon pricing helps do.
Viable is subjective. If you have enough money, public transit is never viable. Poor people already can’t afford to drive so we’re trying to change the minds of people who can afford to drive but don’t want to take public transit. The ‘me first mentality’ is what got us into this mess to start with so the solution needs to speak to those people and money does that.
My buddy at work just changed his driving habits due to increasing costs so he’s going from a 25m drive to 1h15m taking public transit. Hardly ideal but that’s the point as no city government has the money to spend on new public transit infrastructure until enough voters want it to happen.
Using your own example, you’ll continue to drive despite the negative impact to the environment unless the city magically makes your 5 hour commute as quick as your 2 hour drive or the cost of driving forces your hand. Speaking of ‘me first mentality’…
How do you build transit infrastructure when you don’t know where the demand is?
I encourage you to look into China’s bullet train network, they did what you’re suggesting. And the last I heard the system is struggling because the stations and lines weren’t built where people actually needed them so it’s heavily underutalized.
The most successful public transit systems were ones built up over time. It’s going to take decades to fix public transit in many of our cities, are there any cities that aren’t doing this?
Also remember that city policy falls under provincial jurisdiction. I was surprised this year to even see the feds start trying to throw money at that problem and incentivise cities to rethink zoning. But it takes time, and it also takes voting people who care into the right spots (city hall and provincial governments)
No city can just build alternatives if they don’t know where the demand is.
Before a city can justify building anywhere,there needs to be demand. Both sides need to increase in stride.
Viable, but not perfect alternatives do already exist, and if more people use them they will get better, that is exactly what putting a price on carbon does.