We're told repeatedly that global warming or whatever the trendy name for it is nowadays, is a threat to all life on the planet. We're constantly chided to stop using fossil fuels and electrify — everything.
This is especially true of automobiles. Government subsidizes electric vehicles heavily even as sales of them are declining. We're warned of dire consequences if we don't immediately adopt the technology and internal combustion engines are set to be banned entirely.
One would think that those who are raising the alarms about the impact of the human-caused climate emergency would be delighted at the availability of cheap electric vehicles. It's only logical to think that making inexpensive alternatives to traditional vehicles more widely available will speed up their adoption and help the country meet its climate targets. But extraordinarily, this is not the case.
The federal government is now eyeing punitive tariffs on low-priced, Chinese electric vehicles. Our neighbours to the south in the U.S.A. have already imposed a 100 per cent tariff on vehicles imported from China. Europe has done something similar although not quite so drastic.
Here in Ontario, our premier is clambering for similar protectionist actions and our federal finance minister is launching "consultations" that I have no doubt will lead to a response similar to that already taken by our allies.
The reason for these tariffs is glaringly obvious. The federal and provincial governments have put up tens of billions of tax dollars to lure foreign automakers into setting up battery factories, mostly in Ontario.
This government largesse was never debated publicly nor was it ever mentioned in either ruling party's election platforms. Nevertheless it's a done deal. Politicians clearly want to protect their "investment" and they intend to do that by preventing the very people who are footing the bill — taxpayers — from buying cheaper alternatives.
Not only have elected officials taken taxpayers’ money and given it to multinational corporations without so much as a by-your leave, they now intend to make us pay back the "investment" by denying us access to less expensive alternatives.
Government regulations will ensure that we won’t be permitted to buy traditional cars and trucks much longer. We are also to be denied access to cheaper green vehicles. The climate emergency is now a secondary consideration. Protectionism has become the driving factor in government decisions and higher costs will negatively impact the adoption of greener technology.
This raises an obvious question. Is there or is there not a climate emergency?
Government’s messaging has been filled with doomsday scenarios and calls for immediate responses to combat this horrific emergency. Yet faced with the possibility that consumers will switch to Chinese-made vehicles at the expense of more costly homegrown solutions, the situation is suddenly far less urgent.
We have time for consultations and the goal of electrifying transportation as quickly as possible is somehow less important.
It's been said by many that "I'll start believing climate change is an emergency when those in charge start acting like it's an emergency."
These latest developments serve to further dilute the sense of urgency. Politicians don't expect us to see through this bit of hypocrisy. Their actions betray their words.
Canadians, after being hectored for decades to change our ways, are beginning to see that things aren't as we've been told they are. Is it any wonder that Canadians are turning against the carbon tax? Poll after poll demonstrates that very plainly.
If we're in a genuine emergency then emergency action is the only solution. When governments put their priorities elsewhere but continue to proclaim dire consequences for inaction, people lose trust in their elected representatives.
Either an all-out battle against climate change is necessary or a more measured approach is sufficient. Governments saying one thing, then doing something else has me leaning towards something a little more pragmatic.
Please, decide for yourselves what you believe to be the most appropriate course of action.
For me, governments have clearly demonstrated that they don't believe what they themselves have been selling.
I'm not a climate change denier but I'm no longer so certain that it's the emergency that we've been told it is. Government inconsistencies have made sure of that. The environment will surely suffer as a result.
Bob Codd is an avid amateur nature photographer and naturalist who occasionally dabbles in writing. Bob is retired and serves as president of the Midland-Penetanguishene Field Naturalists and as secretary for MTM Conservation Association.
