|
|
|
Carbon tax complainers out of gas, out of touch |
|
|
Written by NEIL GODBOUT
Citizen news editor
|
|
Thursday, 08 May 2008 |
The complaining from area residents about the provincial government’s carbon tax doesn’t match the reality of local fuel consumption or the sensibilities of other Canadians.
The argument that northern B.C. residents should be exempt from the carbon tax because they have greater distances to go doesn’t hold water for Prince George drivers.
The median commuting distance from home to work for Prince George residents in 2006, according to the last census, was 5.4 kilometres, the same as it was in 2001. That’s a number that would make most Lower Mainland people laugh, particularly the ones whose daily pilgrimage from Langley or Surrey into downtown Vancouver and back would cover more distance in one day than the median P.G. commute in a week.
More than three quarters of Prince George residents have a one-way daily commute of less than 10 kilometres. Only 6.3 per cent of city workers drive more than 25 kilometres to work, a 0.5 per cent decrease from 2001.
Here’s the real kicker. The census lumped in everyone who lives in the surrounding electoral areas into the Prince George numbers so if you live outside of the city but in the regional district, these numbers still apply.
So this prevailing notion that the tax punishes northerners more than it does folks in Vancouver and Victoria is not only wrong, it’s exactly the opposite.
The overwhelming majority of local drivers cover less distance on a daily basis than we would if we lived and worked in the Lower Mainland.
Furthermore, we’re out of step with what the majority of Canadians think about a carbon tax.
According to a new poll released this week, 61 per cent of respondents favour a tax on businesses and people based on emissions they generate. The number climbed higher when respondents were told the revenues from the tax would go towards incentives for more efficient energy use.
Along with B.C., Quebec and Manitoba have also introduced carbon tax initiatives and have paid little or no political price for the move.
In fact, the poll suggests that political parties could actually make gains with the electorate by framing the tax as a user-pay system that targets the highest users the most, which is close to what the provincial Liberals have been trying to do.
As Bruce Strachan pointed out in his column Thursday, high gas prices, combined with a carbon tax, encourages drivers to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, as car dealers are already starting to see. In other words, drivers can be induced to change their lifestyle behind the wheel if there’s a payoff.
Some people do need a giant pickup for work but I’d be willing to wager many Prince George pickup owners have their wheels for vanity, not practicality. Now if you’re willing to pay for that luxury, that’s one thing, but you shouldn’t expect everyone else to pay for it, too.
What about me, bombing around town in my 1979 Ford, a rig my colleague Rodney Venis tells me would be more appropriate hauling Taliban through the mountains of southern Afghanistan.
Even with gas prices as they are, it’s still cheaper for me to drive Old Blue than replace it with a smaller truck. My commute to work is less than five kilometres so gas prices would have to hit $3 a litre before it would really pay for me to downsize, carbon tax or no.
So I’ll pay the tax, knowing I really should upgrade someday but also knowing I’m still getting a bargain in the end.
Paying $1.30 for gas a bargain?
Now that’s a different way of seeing things.
Neil Godbout is The Citizen's news editor.
 |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 08 May 2008 )
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I will agree with you though, seeing as you drive an older vehicle, as do I. Assuming you own it 100%, you have no lease or any other of the expensive monthly payments that a new vehicle brings with it. $500-$1000 per month can buy a bit of fuel.