"Pain at the pumps" is the point.
"Pain at the pumps" is the point. That should go without saying, but for some reason, it needs to be said. A couple of weeks ago, when Biden announced tax relief on gasoline, some Canadians clamored for the same treatment.
Trudeau’s government held fast. Just days before Chrystia Freeland had openly bragged about raising the carbon tax even in an inflationary period — proof of their commitment to fighting climate change. And even now, the federal government has released a new plan for “Clean Fuel Standards” that will further increase the price of gasoline through a slate of mechanisms aimed at fuel suppliers that include:
Undertaking projects that reduce the lifecycle carbon intensity of fossil fuels (e.g., carbon capture and storage, renewable electricity);
Supplying low carbon fuels – like ethanol in gasoline or biodiesel in diesel; and
Supporting the switch from fossil fuels to lower carbon fuels or energy like electricity or hydrogen in vehicles.
Critics, of course, have called it a second carbon tax. A regulatory change “disconnected from reality” which will affect low and middle income earners disproportionately.
Duh.
That’s the point. For a man of inconsistency, a sweeping and ubiquitous climate policy is one of the few things that Trudeau has been consistent about. The idea that he would just abandon this policy in the face of inflation is to ignore the fact that these policies are designed to be inflationary. In a way, the global increase in fuel prices are speeding up the intended effect of carbon taxes. They see no problem at all.
Obviously, for those of us who do live in reality, there are many problems even if we bought into the idea that there is an impending climate crisis.
The Clean Fuel Standards is made even more ridiculous since, in a result none of the researchers wanted, biofuels may actually increase GHG emissions by up to 24%. That is from a study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Wildlife Federation written not by oil industry lobbyists but environmentalists. And it does not even fully account for the decreased energy efficiency/mileage of using biofuels in tanks meant for petrol.
Aside from that, the demand for gasoline is highly inelastic in the ‘short term’ (which is measured in years here). For a certain proportion of people, there is absolutely no choice but to buy gasoline to get to work or buy groceries, and there is very little wiggle room to cut down on usage.
Nor can they simply switch to an electric vehicle. Most EVs, Tesla being the prime example, are marketed towards the upper middle class (at least). They are expensive. Buying a used EV is inviting disaster due to the short battery life of the vehicle and extremely expensive replacement costs. Access to a power outlet is required, which means most people that live in apartments or lower income housing cannot purchase one.
More broadly, the convenience is limited. Canada is huge — and cold in the winter. Two things that make it hard to reconcile owning an EV for those who need to travel for work and work in winter. On the former point, most of the country simply does not have the infrastructure in place to charge on demand. One would have to search for a charging station and hope they don’t end up stranded before getting there. On the latter point, the chances of being stranded are going to increase in the winter when the country becomes a frozen tundra and the battery becomes less efficient. Ever been stranded in -45 degree (Celsius or Fahrenheit doesn’t matter at that point) weather?
Of course, we don’t even need to go into the long-term investments needed in the power grid to actually sustain a Canada-wide adoption of EVs because if Trudeau’s plan is to source that energy from ‘green energy’ then we are talking about extremely long term solutions to begin with.
So yes, creating inflationary pressures on gasoline in the short term does not make sense. But it never did. Not last year, not in 2019, not in 2015. Yet politicians still ran on it and people still voted for it. Nothing has changed and nothing is surprising. The point, you see, is not to reduce carbon emissions, but to channel the pain of Canadians to signal the most virtue possible. A spirit bomb of virtue that allows Trudeau to show the world that he can have as much impact as his daddy did.
I heard recycling electric cars' batteries is hard. They are still quite expensive. I think they are only useful for city driving or for small European countries. And they use electricity. Where is that going to come from? I just saw a documentary about Egypt where they built the Asswan dam to get lots of electricity from the Nile, but now their farmers have no more water from the Nile for the fields, the ground is totally used up, and chemicals no longer help. The interviewed farmers were the last generation to work the field. No more food. But lots of electricity ! Humans are so great at creating disasters!
The issue is bigger: even for those who DON'T own cars/drive to work, etc... the impacts from the transport companies and city tax increases (to purchase vehicles that meet EPA requirements so they can take care of the infrastructure (IE Snow plows, road repair crews, etc) that meet the EPA requirements, hits people HARD.
For example: Subtracting that I now have to drive more often to work (and it's further away), subtracting that I had to take a job paying 15% less than I made before (thanks CMS COVID Vax Mandate), my cost of living is STILL double what it was this time last year just because the increase in gas prices has made food costs, electricity, water, etc, etc. go up too. It doesn't matter how you slice it. These kind of things impact the poor and 'lower'middle-class' (misnomer - there is NO 'lower-middle-class anymore) far more harshly than anyone else.
And don't get me started on how Environmentally UNfriendly it is to even build the EVs (or even hybrids) to begin with.