conservative transit policy

ok, so i feel bad for my previous piss-taking entry on the conservatives.  so im going to give them some props for a good idea:  the transit income tax deduction thingy.

ok, so given my u-pass status (and who knows if the upass program, with its $200ish figure as part of ubc tuition/ams fees, will qualify), id save around $42.  people who buy translink monthly passes, or westcoast express tickets, would save much more. 

good idea, yes.  poorly executed, yes.  i say poorly executed cos i dont like the way this has been framed.  they stress that this transit rebate is a "Made-in-Canada!!!!" approach.  i think by this, they mean "unlike that kyoto thingy rick mercer keeps plugging."  the way theyre selling it has left a vile taste in my mouth i cant quite blame on the putrid instant coffee ive been drinking.  i really get the feeling the conservatives want to pursue a few small initiatives without assuming the responsibility the kyoto protocol places on us.  did you know everything could be solved with tax breaks?

it's a great idea, but they should stop framing it as more than what it is.

the upass is a financial incentive for ubc students to take transit.  at $22/month, its exponentially cheaper than driving to school for most kids.  there's been a distinct increase in ridership, so it is effective.  still, i dont know that this kind of initiative addresses the whole problem of emissions reduction.

Comments

[Candace]

From a student's perspective, it may not mean much. But what percentage of Canadians are students?

Looking at Kyoto overall, we could likely debate for days. Instead, let's narrow it down to one question.

Can you explain, in plain, non-economic-business-political English (i.e. layman's terms) how Syncrude cutting a cheque to ... I dunno, Korea (I could have the wrong country picked, don't shoot me), for "carbon tax credits", while continuing to pollute (and I'd recommend you check their site - they and other AB companies have instituted a number of changes in view of Kyoto, sort of environmental kevlar if you will) as is... will do anything for our environment?

I'm not being cheeky, I'd really like to know the logic behind this. I'm not seeing any sense to Kyoto.

[ainge]

im in favour of a multilateral approach to emissions reduction because pollution knows no borders. local initiative is important as well, but the fact of the matter is it must be a global priority. the conservatives stressing 'made in canada' seems like theyre politicizing the issue, trying to curry favour from people who have a predilection against multilateralism.

some things are more effective and efficient when you fly solo, but i really dont think *global* warming falls in that category.

the emissions credits aspect of kyoto is actually the one i find most troubling.

i brought up the upass to discuss the effects of a similar transit subsidy on the 40 000 students of ubc.