Conservative Pork
Conservatives have no shame. CTV's David Akin quotes Dennis Desrosiers:At $5,600 per tonne this policy has the dubious distinction of being even more expensive per tonne of GHG reduction than the previous record holder - the Conservatives' transit pass tax credit ($2,000 per tonne, because about 97% of the subsidy recipients were already daily transit riders). [in fact it’s] The most expensive environment program anywhere in the world by a wide margin.
I wanted to defend this policy as visionary, an example of feebates / revenue-neutral tax shift. Sadly, it appears to be nothing but pork. Check out Transport Canada's listing of qualifying vehicles Who had the bright idea of giving the same $1000 subsidy for buying flex-fuel vehicles that get 12.3 L/100 km (19 miles per gallon) as well as normal cars getting 8.3-6.3 L/100 km (28-37)? Perhaps if those 'flex-fuel' vehicles were actually running on E85 fuel (which I understand isn't even available), they might have comparable CO2 emissions. Given the last-minute include of E85 vehicles and the proximity of the factory producing most of them to the minister responsible, it tastes of poorly cooked pork. Yummy.
What a program like this needs is some serious transparency. Audit auto-makers to get CO2 costs for building the car (the so-called 'embedded energy'), and calculate emissions for cars in CO2 per 100 km. A good formula might be the embedded CO2 / 10 + average yearly CO2 emissions for driving X km. This creates a clear, technology-agnostic metric for auto-makers and consumers alike. Plug-in hybrids, flex-fuel or even flex-fuel plug-ins: it doesn't matter what's under the hood, only what comes out of the tail-pipe.
I'll admit to really liking the idea of a tax shift. This program could have been revenue neutral, with the rebates being balanced out by the fees imposed on the dirtier vehicles. This has the added benefit of avoiding an unnecessary subsidy for cars and appearing 'fair' rather than a tax-grab. If there is a clear commitment to continuing this type of policy over time, it creates a strong incentive for companies to get their cars out of the gas-guzzler category, and continue R&D on efficient models.
The NDP wasn't fond of such approaches at first, but their policy play-book included the idea of a tax shift after the Green Party started getting better poll results. Many left-wingers oppose such a tax policy because it can penalize the poorest while subsidizing the rich (who can afford the more expensive hybrids). This time around however, the NDP complained that this program doesn't do enough to subsidize Canada's poor auto-makers. Sigh. As NDP Auto Industry Critic Brian Masse points out:“There is no change in the research and development tax credit. There is no financing program. There is no auto strategy, period. The Conservatives’ only strategy is distraction and avoidance of the real issues.”
The NDP is not only completely off the mark, they miss an opportunity to call out Conservative incompetence and apparent pork, demonstrate a modicum of vision, and propose a policy that could actually provoke a change in our auto industry.
I'll want to check the Liberal and Green responses to this measure but it's a Saturday night, and I have a movie to watch :)
I wanted to defend this policy as visionary, an example of feebates / revenue-neutral tax shift. Sadly, it appears to be nothing but pork. Check out Transport Canada's listing of qualifying vehicles Who had the bright idea of giving the same $1000 subsidy for buying flex-fuel vehicles that get 12.3 L/100 km (19 miles per gallon) as well as normal cars getting 8.3-6.3 L/100 km (28-37)? Perhaps if those 'flex-fuel' vehicles were actually running on E85 fuel (which I understand isn't even available), they might have comparable CO2 emissions. Given the last-minute include of E85 vehicles and the proximity of the factory producing most of them to the minister responsible, it tastes of poorly cooked pork. Yummy.
What a program like this needs is some serious transparency. Audit auto-makers to get CO2 costs for building the car (the so-called 'embedded energy'), and calculate emissions for cars in CO2 per 100 km. A good formula might be the embedded CO2 / 10 + average yearly CO2 emissions for driving X km. This creates a clear, technology-agnostic metric for auto-makers and consumers alike. Plug-in hybrids, flex-fuel or even flex-fuel plug-ins: it doesn't matter what's under the hood, only what comes out of the tail-pipe.
I'll admit to really liking the idea of a tax shift. This program could have been revenue neutral, with the rebates being balanced out by the fees imposed on the dirtier vehicles. This has the added benefit of avoiding an unnecessary subsidy for cars and appearing 'fair' rather than a tax-grab. If there is a clear commitment to continuing this type of policy over time, it creates a strong incentive for companies to get their cars out of the gas-guzzler category, and continue R&D on efficient models.
The NDP wasn't fond of such approaches at first, but their policy play-book included the idea of a tax shift after the Green Party started getting better poll results. Many left-wingers oppose such a tax policy because it can penalize the poorest while subsidizing the rich (who can afford the more expensive hybrids). This time around however, the NDP complained that this program doesn't do enough to subsidize Canada's poor auto-makers. Sigh. As NDP Auto Industry Critic Brian Masse points out:“There is no change in the research and development tax credit. There is no financing program. There is no auto strategy, period. The Conservatives’ only strategy is distraction and avoidance of the real issues.”
The NDP is not only completely off the mark, they miss an opportunity to call out Conservative incompetence and apparent pork, demonstrate a modicum of vision, and propose a policy that could actually provoke a change in our auto industry.
I'll want to check the Liberal and Green responses to this measure but it's a Saturday night, and I have a movie to watch :)