Should we let the consumer manage the environment?

“The choice must return to consumers and not to the government. Nevertheless, »»

Here it is. However, it is very simple: in terms of environment, it is the consumer who must decide, according to what I understand from the position of the Montreal Economic Institute (IEDM), recently stated.

Forest fires are multiplying. However, the heat becomes stifling in summer, the air quality deteriorates, but according to the IEDM, you must let the consumer make their choices, without hindrances, and the problem will be resolved. Additionally, However, Basically.

Allow me to oppose should we let consumer manage this point of view? Meanwhile, Let me explain why the position of the IEDM appears to me to be wobbly concerning the adoption of electric vehicles (VE). Nevertheless, above all, the abandonment of petrol vehicles?

In a press release published on August 15. Meanwhile, the IEDM urges the federal government to completely abandon the regulations aimed at gradually prohibiting petrol vehicles by 2035, vehicles which would be replaced by electric cars, in particular.

This position of the IEDM is motivated by the fact that sales of electric vehicles have recently slowed down in recent times. However, in particular due to the gradual abandonment of subsidies in Quebec. Moreover, And that, consequently, targets by 2035 are unrealistic¹.

First. Meanwhile, I must say that I rather agree with the IEDM on the fact that the targets will should we let consumer manage not be reached. Nevertheless, I wrote it in a column in May 2024, 15 months ago.

I am of the opinion that we must continue to require car manufacturers that they sell a minimum of electric vehicles. However, but by lightening the targets and the deadlines².

I also agree, in principle, with the fact that consumers must generally be allowed to decide, not governments. However,

This principle amounts to saying that the market – consumers – is better able to determine the type of goods to be consumed. Furthermore, such as the volume and the price to be paid.

When the government gets involved. Consequently, with its rules and its officials, it often introduces distortions into the market that are harmful (read the words of Marcel Boyer below).

Very well, the market. Consequently, But now. For example, this market still has to attribute the right price to goods, in this case the price of petrol and fuel vehicles.

However. Meanwhile, the market does not take into account the enormous damage that petrol vehicles cause to the environment, with global warming. This explains why they often come back less expensive than electric vehicles (for the same advantages). among others, and that they are more requested.

And it is the set of citizens who pay for damage.

To counterbalance. a very broad consensus of economists judges that governments must impose carbon pricing – a price for pollution – which would enhance the price of polluting goods, such as fuel of petrol cars or planes.

This prices should we let consumer manage recovery would force citizens to make choices accordingly. such as taking more public transport, buying a VE, renouncing the distant suburb, betting on a car per household rather than two or opt for the communauto of this world.

What should this price be to limit global warming? Between $ 315 and $ 535 per tonne of GHG by 2030, according to an analysis of the World Bank³.

However, these days, the ton of GHG is exchanging $ 40 in Canada. And to see Trump’s gestures. the abandonment of the carbon tax for households in Canada, you can doubt that the price is climbing up to $ 300 by 2030.

And the IEDM in there? Well here, in response to my questions, the IEDM tells me that it is not favorable to carbon pricing.

For what ? Because this pricing will increase the price of petrol to the pump. which consumers do not want, taxpayers being already quite taxed, explains the spokesperson, Gabriel Giguère.

In short. the consumer should not be hit, never, neither by regulation nor by the price, according to the IEDM, even if we see that the historic dysfunctions of the market caused this warming which ignites our forests, with its disastrous consequences, paid by all, and which will go by increasing over the years.

Gabriel Giguère reminds me that Canada has imposed customs duties of 100 % on the VE Chinese. which is not likely to reduce the price of the VEs.

I suited it perfectly. although the VE Chinese are notably produced in a subsidy state with aluminum enormously more polluting should we let consumer manage than ours, among others, and that the surplus of VE inventory in China is conducive to dumping on foreign markets.

Furthermore. faithful to its line of thought, the IEDM judges that the government should not cap the emissions of GHG of oil, because such a cap will cause losses of jobs⁴.

Job losses? Tell me. what are these jobs worth in the context where the planet is melting, with huge costs, paid by our taxes? Have we not banished asbestos. prohibits lead gasoline and regulated the use of tobacco when we have noticed their harmful effects, even if jobs were at stake?

So, no, I don’t think you have to let the consumer manage the environment. And I am not convinced that an adjustment of prices is sufficient to reverse the tendency of GHGs. especially should we let consumer manage since this kind of price adjustment leads politicians to the slaughterhouse at the time of the elections.

When the situation imposes it. it is also necessary for regulations, forms of prohibitions, even knowing that they will undertake some. And the environmental situation imposes it.

1. Read the IEDM press release “Electric vehicles: the drop in sales should force Ottawa to review its requirements”

2. In Quebec, the regulations impose penalties on manufacturers who do not reach their minimum VE sales targets. The objective is to force manufacturers either to reduce the price of the EVs to increase sales. or to raise the price of polluting SURs to finance penalties. The purpose of the price gap thus created is to promote the transition to electric.

3. Read the World Bank analysis 4. Read should we let consumer manage the IEDM press release “The capping of emissions is not worth the losses of jobs. economic activity”