If that’s the case, then the whole process is as wrong-headed as can be. You can only choose an alternative if a viable alternative exists. Transit isn’t supported enough to be a universally practical option while electric vehicles are too expensive and have infrastructure requirements that can’t necessarily be met by everyone. And speaking as someone who’s tried cycling, well, Edmonton is making some big moves, but In Calgary? Maybe I’ll give it a shot again when I get tired of living.
And none of that covers the fact that what is being paid at the pump as a surcharge to cover carbon taxes holds no relationship at all with what the oil companies are paying. It’s being used as an excuse to bilk the consumer even further and to line the pockets of investors.
People below a certain income and have less options get that tax money spent back.
Those who are wealthier and can afford other options like Electric vehicles and heat pumps don’t get the money back. That money goes ideally towards developing green infrastructure like charging stations (no idea if they actually do, but that’s the idea)
It’s not wrong headed at all. There is always an alternative.
In some cases that alternative is transit.
In some cases that alternative is cycling.
In some cases that alternative is carpooling.
In some cases that alternative is driving an existing car more efficiently.
In some cases that alternative is choosing to buy a ICE smaller car.
In some cases that alternative is buying a BEV.
In all those cases, even a small step will reward someone for making that choise.
I think the idea is that you will not necessarily choose near zero carbon alternatives such as cycling to work or buying an electric car. Those simply won’t work for most for a variety of reasons. But by bumping the price of gas, it makes people who can’t or won’t choose an alternative very aware of the cost of going anywhere, and causes many to drive more sparingly by carpooling, waiting until they have multiple reasons for trips or choosing not to go out every weekend. For those with deep pockets it is probably little more than an annoyance that won’t change their behaviour, but increasing fuel prices works very well to curb overall demand.
While yes it looks like things are more expensive, it’s still effectively a wealth transfer where the poorest get more money back from the system.
It’s sorta genius in that way, poorer folk are still rewarded for picking the less polluting option, but in the end don’t actually end up payijg more after the quarterly rebate
If that’s the case, then the whole process is as wrong-headed as can be. You can only choose an alternative if a viable alternative exists. Transit isn’t supported enough to be a universally practical option while electric vehicles are too expensive and have infrastructure requirements that can’t necessarily be met by everyone. And speaking as someone who’s tried cycling, well, Edmonton is making some big moves, but In Calgary? Maybe I’ll give it a shot again when I get tired of living.
And none of that covers the fact that what is being paid at the pump as a surcharge to cover carbon taxes holds no relationship at all with what the oil companies are paying. It’s being used as an excuse to bilk the consumer even further and to line the pockets of investors.
You tax what you want less of. Its pretty simple.
That’s why the rebate.
People below a certain income and have less options get that tax money spent back.
Those who are wealthier and can afford other options like Electric vehicles and heat pumps don’t get the money back. That money goes ideally towards developing green infrastructure like charging stations (no idea if they actually do, but that’s the idea)
It’s not wrong headed at all. There is always an alternative.
In some cases that alternative is transit. In some cases that alternative is cycling. In some cases that alternative is carpooling. In some cases that alternative is driving an existing car more efficiently. In some cases that alternative is choosing to buy a ICE smaller car. In some cases that alternative is buying a BEV.
In all those cases, even a small step will reward someone for making that choise.
I think the idea is that you will not necessarily choose near zero carbon alternatives such as cycling to work or buying an electric car. Those simply won’t work for most for a variety of reasons. But by bumping the price of gas, it makes people who can’t or won’t choose an alternative very aware of the cost of going anywhere, and causes many to drive more sparingly by carpooling, waiting until they have multiple reasons for trips or choosing not to go out every weekend. For those with deep pockets it is probably little more than an annoyance that won’t change their behaviour, but increasing fuel prices works very well to curb overall demand.
Ahh, a poor people’s tax then. Nice.
It’s actually the opposite.
While yes it looks like things are more expensive, it’s still effectively a wealth transfer where the poorest get more money back from the system.
It’s sorta genius in that way, poorer folk are still rewarded for picking the less polluting option, but in the end don’t actually end up payijg more after the quarterly rebate