Save the ecoEnergy program

I'm a home­owner. So that puts me in a fairly priv­i­leged posi­tion, I admit. Nev­er­the­less when the fed­eral gov­ern­ment came up with the notion of the ecoEn­ergy pro­gram the envi­ron­men­tal­ist and social jus­tice in me (which is, I'll admit, rather a large part of me) was actu­ally stunned at how much sense it made.

A sub­sidy to (rel­a­tively priv­i­leged) home­own­ers yes, but for once they're spend­ing money to cre­ate jobs and do some­thing con­struc­tive. So many other gov­ern­ment pro­grams that cre­ate jobs have nasty side effects: jets, jails, tax­a­tion cen­tres, etc etc. This just seemed like a no-brainer.

It's also true that peo­ple should be retro-fit­ting their homes to make them more energy effi­cient any­way and the shouldn't need an extra cash rebate to do it. But you can apply that argu­ment to seat­belts, cycling hel­mets and home insur­ance too. Just as requir­ing these things saves lives, encour­ag­ing energy effi­ciency saves energy.

And com­pared to the cur­rent gov­ern­ment which seems to be hell bent on using tax rev­enue to scrape every last bit of oily tar out of North­ern Alberta no mat­ter the envi­ron­men­tal cost, giv­ing peo­ple $20 to buy a toi­let that uses less water seems pos­i­tively saintly.

Nat­u­rally the pro­gram had to be killed. Any­thing less might make peo­ple think run­ning out of cheap energy was a poten­tial real life prob­lem.

Well, for­tu­nately peo­ple aren't lay­ing down and giv­ing up on this one. Not on the OAS either, but that's a sub­ject for another blog.

If you think the gov­ern­ment should still be in the busi­ness of encour­ag­ing energy effi­ciency in homes, please send this mes­sage to a whack of fed­eral politi­cians.