Global News ran a long story today detailing the frustration of folks in Nova Scotia with the rise in their electricity bills. There is some of that in New Brunswick and more will be coming as the ~9% rate increase kicks in. Traditionally electricity utilities have been mandated (mostly) to offer a high quality, reliable service at the lowest possible cost (relative to the reliability standard). This would mean paying off debt in a timely fashion and considering the cost structure based on customer class, etc. There was a regulator to help the process along.
The problem as I see it is simple. The government should get out of paying for decarbonization and do what they are mandated to do...regulate. There is no way around the need to reduce carbon emissions, and the levels we must attain are known.
There is a point where carbon capture is cheaper than carbon reduction, and we should let industry determine where that point is. Let the vehicle and energy suppliers figure out how they will get to zero or near zero carbon vehicles. But vehicles are 7% of the problem while concrete and steel are 34%; agriculture is 19%, and there are no obvious easy and cheap solutions to anything.
Regulate carbon levels and let industry figure out how they will get there. The present system of 'tax and subsidize' inserts two middle men into the equation, both involving inefficient government bureaucracy and dramatically increasing costs. The voter senses there is something wrong with what governments are doing, and governments can't expect the voter to accept it. For them, the solution is simple...throw out whoever is in power and try something else! And if that doesn't work, keep doing it until politicians catch on! "I promise to reduce carbon emissions by taxing you and giving the money to industry" won't work anymore.
Spending the time communicating “the why” trips up governments over and over again. The work all gets done in a bubble
and people forget that the general population is distracted. Communicating the why is a fundamental step in change management but gets lost in politics. Instead, copious amounts of efforts are invested after the fact to justify decisions and really, the battle has already been lost.
The problem as I see it is simple. The government should get out of paying for decarbonization and do what they are mandated to do...regulate. There is no way around the need to reduce carbon emissions, and the levels we must attain are known.
There is a point where carbon capture is cheaper than carbon reduction, and we should let industry determine where that point is. Let the vehicle and energy suppliers figure out how they will get to zero or near zero carbon vehicles. But vehicles are 7% of the problem while concrete and steel are 34%; agriculture is 19%, and there are no obvious easy and cheap solutions to anything.
Regulate carbon levels and let industry figure out how they will get there. The present system of 'tax and subsidize' inserts two middle men into the equation, both involving inefficient government bureaucracy and dramatically increasing costs. The voter senses there is something wrong with what governments are doing, and governments can't expect the voter to accept it. For them, the solution is simple...throw out whoever is in power and try something else! And if that doesn't work, keep doing it until politicians catch on! "I promise to reduce carbon emissions by taxing you and giving the money to industry" won't work anymore.
Spending the time communicating “the why” trips up governments over and over again. The work all gets done in a bubble
and people forget that the general population is distracted. Communicating the why is a fundamental step in change management but gets lost in politics. Instead, copious amounts of efforts are invested after the fact to justify decisions and really, the battle has already been lost.