Our society has built itself on the use of petroleum in almost every aspect of the life we know of. The environmental and social damage of the petroleum is sharply increasing. Drastic measures must be taken to combat the problems in the near future that are being born for the overuse of the fuel. Our planet is in the beginning of a climate crisis and the portion of the world that can make a change is currently doing very little to do so. Studies show that inaction on climate change well cost exponentially more than investing in the policies and technology now. The study concludes that it would be cheaper to take aggressive action to cut greenhouse gas emissions than it would be to suffer the consequences of a changing world. "The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be, the report states (Renee Schoof). The stats on how much climate change will cost are different with each study. But one thing is consistent with every single study not funded by oil companies. The similarity is how much more inaction well cost in the future from doing nothing, than spending now to increase development and implication of green policies and technology.
The society we live in is designed around the automobile. The roads are wide enough for multiple cars side by side. Our cities are full of park aids and fuel stations. In Halifax, every rental unit is required to have at least one parking space. As the price of fuel goes up slowly people complain their way to the fuel stations and fill up. The attitude is that it is just a slightly larger dent to the wallet than last time. As long as the price is as cheap as it is, and there are not personal ramifications to careless use of the non-renewable resource, people well continue to buy. Currently the price of fuel is higher than it has ever been in history. Rush hour traffic is still clogged in cities all across Canada, and people still burn five litres of fuel to buy two litres of milk.
The 2004 Pontiac Sunfire burns through an average of 9.4 Litres per 100km/s of gasoline. At 30000kms per year it would produce 8.3 metric tons of CO2 per year, costing the operator $4000 annually at current fuel prices of $1.4L. Even with that cost, of a compact sedan, people continue to drive (fuel economy).
The price of fuel needs to be so high that the average person cannot afford to use their vehicle unless absolutely necessary. A massive tax scheme should be implemented at the fuel pumps to funnel money directly from drivers to infrastructure designed to assist people to travel without using automobiles. Not everyone should pay the same amount for fuel. Some people choose to drive vehicles that are completely unnecessary. Those who drive pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles on their daily commute to work should pay the most if the vehicle is not used for business. Those who drive mopeds or sub compact cars should still pay a high price, but not as much as they don't pollute nearly as much and make more efficient use of the fuel. Those who need their vehicle for business and those who may need it due to a disability or handicap should pay less than the average person. A very diverse and fair scheme could easily be developed. The additional funds from the tax would go to great use in making public transit and active transportation more affordable, efficient and effective. A similar system was put in place in Norway for the specific purpose of getting people away from their personal cars. Although it’s not a perfect system as many people don’t have access to good public transit in the rural areas. We can learn a lot from the tax scheme used in Norway. Their fuel costs USD 11. The rest of Europe also has fuel prices substantially higher than North America and the public transit in Europe is spectacular in general and cycling is a primary form of transportation for a much larger population.
Cycling in Nova Scotia is dangerous because the government has designed the roads without any consideration. “The Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works says “the Province does not consider or take into account bicycles on any level when provincial money is acquired for road infrastructure” (Person wishes to remain Anonymous). The trunk highways are all very popular routes for cyclists but there is not enough room for cyclists to comfortably ride. A cyclist cannot get on or off the Halifax peninsula without travelling through dangerous high speed merges or massive multi-lane intersections. If a person chooses the safer route of using a bus they are welcomed by long waits for infrequent runs and extremely cut back service on weekends along side of no service at all between mid-night and six am. Money for public transit and active transportation is badly needed, and the addition funds from a fuel tax would go above and beyond to fund the required infrastructure to make travel safe and carefree in all of Nova Scotia.
Our addictive use of the automobile is one factor contributing to the obesity epidemic in Nova Scotia. According to Cancer Care Nova Scotia, “The rate of obesity in Nova Scotia has doubled between 1985 and 1997 for adults between the ages of 20 and 64. More than 37 per cent of Nova Scotian adults in this age range are now considered obese compared to 18.4 per cent in 1985.” (KJD). If the price of fuel was higher people would walk and cycle to more places. They would generally feel better about themselves and increase the physical activity on their leisure time along with their commute routine. The additional money from a high fuel tax could also be spent in many areas of health promotion and recreation. Recreations is another area in the Maritimes which is badly under funded as our athletes have to spend their own money to get to the Canada Games, and Olympics unlike Ontario and British Columbia's athletes.
Drastic measures must be taken. Politicians must begin to look further than the next election. Steps as drastic as raising the cost of fuel are what is needed to make our world healthier for ourselves, our planet, and our overall state of being. We need to learn to get out of our cars and enjoy the great outdoors or pay for the real cost of our addiction to the petroleum fuel. The real cost of using petroleum is far greater in health and environment than it well ever be on our precious wallets.
Works Cited
"2004 Pontiac Sunfire." Fueleconomy.Gov. 11 June 2008. US Dept. of Energy. 12 June 2008 (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm).
Anonymous interview, Engineer with the Gov't, Personal interview. 01 June 2008.
D, K J. "Obesity in Nova Scotia Doubles in 12 Years." Government of Nova Scotia. 29 Mar. 2000. Cancer Care Nova Scotia. 10 June 2008 (http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20000329003).
Schoof, Renee. "Study Cites High Cost of Global Warming, Says Action Would Be Cheaper." Sacbee.Com. 23 May 2008. McClatchy Washington Bureau. 12 June 2008 (http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/961211.html).
Author, Douglas M Smith