It was both brave and naive of the minister to speak the truth. I knew him as a peer when I was in the NGO world and I greatly admired him then and my respect for him continues to grow. Just an all round decent, deeply informed human pushing the climate conversation where he can while trying not to hand the controls to the populists. Effing discouraging.
I think the issue is that no new roads --> no new residential/commercial developments --> nowhere to escape the increasing cost of housing. Of course the answer is to crack down on NIMBYism and other barriers to densifying existing built-up areas. Perhaps a really skillful politician would be able to divert the anger of the crowd towards the NIMBYs?
One possible benefit of no new roads is that existing roads would be better maintained, or at least one would hope.
I live in Calgary AB, and very much appreciate the Minister's comments. I have reduced driving my hybrid PriusC as much as possible, but public transport doesn't go where I want, when I want or need, and cycling in Calgary (despite many improvements) isn't wise. Electric cars still depend on fossil-fueled electrical systems in Alberta, so not a big improvement. Most drivers seem to regard the bicycle/ist as a nuisance, not to be tolerated... it just isn't safe unless there are dedicated bike lanes. However, change is occurring.
The problem is with inter-urban or inter-city transport. We have lost Greyhound and the pop-up replacements don't seem to effectively serve the smaller towns. To take the train somewhere requires first going to Edmonton (by bus) and finding the rail station (taxi? Uber?), and the infrequent passenger train is delayed by freight priorities, taking days to achieve what a 'plane achieves in hours :-(.
Remedies? Restore passenger train between big cities (or better, build high speed [passenger] rail. Restore (hybrid or electric) bus services to serve small towns to cities, especially on the prairies. Twelve-passenger (diesel :-( ) minibuses, also carrying freight, did the job effectively in Colombia when I was there 20 years ago. Use the carbon tax to support these public services, rather than hand out rebates which effectively negates the value of the tax.
I don't know what all the studies would say but my understanding of the carbon tax is that, even though there is a rebate, there is still an incentive to reduce the carbon intensity in your life. I believe the logic is that if you don't change anything you break even but if you reduce your carbon intensity then you are ahead financially. I mean it's pretty small potatoes but that's the general idea.
"Small potatoes ... general idea". That's the problem; the government is too timid to take the bull (Ram?) by the horns. Rebating the tax is just returning what you (governemnt) shouldn't have collected in the first place. My idea of an *effective* carbon tax is to show it when you pay it, such as at the diesel or gas pump, or on your fossil gas or electricity bill, just like the GST. Then, don't just rebate it to everyone; apply the revenue by rebating it to the people who actively try to reduce their fossil fuel consumption, by insulating, sealing and ERV ventilating houses, and installing energy efficient windows. People who complain about the cost of gas for their 'vanity' big pick-up trucks or SUVs might be motivated to downsize, and so on.
It was both brave and naive of the minister to speak the truth. I knew him as a peer when I was in the NGO world and I greatly admired him then and my respect for him continues to grow. Just an all round decent, deeply informed human pushing the climate conversation where he can while trying not to hand the controls to the populists. Effing discouraging.
"Where we're going, we won't NEED roads..."
Excellent article. I wanted background and analysis to this topic and you provided it in a clear unemotional manner. Thanks
I think the issue is that no new roads --> no new residential/commercial developments --> nowhere to escape the increasing cost of housing. Of course the answer is to crack down on NIMBYism and other barriers to densifying existing built-up areas. Perhaps a really skillful politician would be able to divert the anger of the crowd towards the NIMBYs?
One possible benefit of no new roads is that existing roads would be better maintained, or at least one would hope.
You can only trust politicians to lean whichever way the wind blows.
I live in Calgary AB, and very much appreciate the Minister's comments. I have reduced driving my hybrid PriusC as much as possible, but public transport doesn't go where I want, when I want or need, and cycling in Calgary (despite many improvements) isn't wise. Electric cars still depend on fossil-fueled electrical systems in Alberta, so not a big improvement. Most drivers seem to regard the bicycle/ist as a nuisance, not to be tolerated... it just isn't safe unless there are dedicated bike lanes. However, change is occurring.
The problem is with inter-urban or inter-city transport. We have lost Greyhound and the pop-up replacements don't seem to effectively serve the smaller towns. To take the train somewhere requires first going to Edmonton (by bus) and finding the rail station (taxi? Uber?), and the infrequent passenger train is delayed by freight priorities, taking days to achieve what a 'plane achieves in hours :-(.
Remedies? Restore passenger train between big cities (or better, build high speed [passenger] rail. Restore (hybrid or electric) bus services to serve small towns to cities, especially on the prairies. Twelve-passenger (diesel :-( ) minibuses, also carrying freight, did the job effectively in Colombia when I was there 20 years ago. Use the carbon tax to support these public services, rather than hand out rebates which effectively negates the value of the tax.
I don't know what all the studies would say but my understanding of the carbon tax is that, even though there is a rebate, there is still an incentive to reduce the carbon intensity in your life. I believe the logic is that if you don't change anything you break even but if you reduce your carbon intensity then you are ahead financially. I mean it's pretty small potatoes but that's the general idea.
"Small potatoes ... general idea". That's the problem; the government is too timid to take the bull (Ram?) by the horns. Rebating the tax is just returning what you (governemnt) shouldn't have collected in the first place. My idea of an *effective* carbon tax is to show it when you pay it, such as at the diesel or gas pump, or on your fossil gas or electricity bill, just like the GST. Then, don't just rebate it to everyone; apply the revenue by rebating it to the people who actively try to reduce their fossil fuel consumption, by insulating, sealing and ERV ventilating houses, and installing energy efficient windows. People who complain about the cost of gas for their 'vanity' big pick-up trucks or SUVs might be motivated to downsize, and so on.