I came across these two articles (1 and 2) today on the Globe and Mail’s website. The federal government is going to give low income households $250 to help with heating costs this winter since the prices of oil, gas, and electricity have all risen big time, partly due to the Gulf Coast hurricanes. But prices have been rising steadily for a while now and this policy, like that of the Nova Scotian government, implies that future cost increases might also be mitigated by such rebates.
This is awfully short-sighted. As fuel costs rise, not only will these fuel rebates increase, but the number of people claiming them will also increase, driving the total cost of such a programme through the roof. So it’s disappointing that the articles, and the comments posted by the general public, have been focusing on how much everyone pays in fuel taxes and wouldn’t it be nice if the government would just let us keep some more of our money. Well yes, it would be nice but wouldn’t it also make sense to spend this money improving the thermal performance of these homes so that less energy is required to heat them in the first place, insulating (pardon the pun) against future price rises? The article makes only a one sentence mention of this option plus a soundbite from the NDP.
In contrast, this article on the BBC website at least briefly mentions energy efficiency, as well as supply-side measures. This is not a one-off though and I’ve noticed a general difference between North America and European media on energy issues. In the UK, the BBC and the broadsheets almost always mention some form of demand side management when discussing energy policy issues but in Canadian or American media, efficiency or conservation hardly ever appear. The only exception is when there is an energy-related crisis; e.g. when prices rise so much (as with gasoline recently), that people start to notice and change their behaviour according or in the case of Ontario’s summer energy shortages, there is a threat of blackouts. In Europe, I would say that the already high cost of fuels (and perhaps greater awareness of environmental issues) forces decision makers to consistently explore all options. Maybe if prices keep rising in North America, demand side measures and other considerations will be integrated into policies which appear to be almost exclusively supply-side driven.
2 Comments
That’s an interesting point. When I think of my mom living alone in a house built for 5 people and using a 35-year old furnace to heat the place, I shudder at how much energy is being used needlessly. It’s not just a change in policy or rebates that’s going to solve this problem but rather a wholesale shift in attitudes and lifestyle or else we’re just going to keep throwing money at these sorts of problems. In Japan, I can simply look across the street and spot rows of houses that have solar panels on their roofs. In North America, people who use solar power are dismissed as freaks.
Yeah I remember you saying that it had been so cold one year that the gas valve to the town froze and things got very cold very fast because of the poor insulation.
By the way, I found this page on the Natural Resources Canada website, showing that things aren’t quite as bad as the Globe and Mail made them out to be. Poor fact checking on my part… but it does make me wonder how that $800 million for public transit will be spent. It seems like a lot of money – wonder if anything big is planned?