Letter to the editor

I do believe the rationale for carbon pricing is valid. By increasing the cost of fossil fuels for individuals the aim is to make us think about how we take ourselves from point A to point B with less negative impact on the environment. 

Considering alternative methods of transportation, deemed less damaging to the environment is not a bad goal. The rebate is intended to compensate for additional costs incurred towards the goal.

I recall how we cringed when plastic bags in stores were discontinued, yet we have somehow managed to find our way. The goal being less damage to the environment.

When I lived in Vancouver in the mid 90’s there was a “gas tax” implemented for similar reasons. The City of Vancouver, however, had a high functioning public transit system.

Carbon pricing is a sound consideration if you happen to live in an urban area where real alternatives to driving a personal vehicle exist, and for the most part are practical. Not so for the thousands of rural residents who are pretty much solely dependent on a personal vehicle to go anywhere.

All levels of government abandoned rural Canadians when the Greyhound bus service was allowed to collapse in western Canada. For all the subsidies doled out by all levels of government, to my knowledge, no consideration has been given to the drastic impact the lack of any form of public transit has had on many people in remote, rural communities. Not to mention that not everyone has a personal vehicle, or perhaps for other reasons are unable to drive. This is social negligence.

So, at the end of the day, rural folks end up paying the carbon pricing on fossil fuel, which is essential for their personal vehicles, without having any other transportation alternatives available. And pay we do as the cost of fuel is typically higher in rural areas.

I’ll retire to bedlam.

C. LeBlaca, Columbia Valley