The numbers behind higher bridge tolls
In today's Coast I call for increasing the tolls on the two bridges across the Halifax Harbour, and using the additional revenue to fund increased transit services. This is, I argue, the only way for Nova Scotia to meet its legally mandated greenhouse gas reduction targets.
I've discussed the dimensions of the problems we face many times before (see here, here, here and here), but let's look more closely at only the transportation numbers.
As detailed in Canada's most recent Greenhouse Gas Inventory (a very large PDF file, page 630), road transportation in Nova Scotia accounted for 3.26 million tonnes of GHG emissions in 1990. That number increased 18.4 percent to 3.86 million tonnes in 2005.
Nova Scotia law---as enacted by the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act---requires us to reduce our GHG emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. For transportation, that means we must reduce GHG emissions to 2.93 million tonnes by 2020---a 24.1 percent reduction from 2005 levels. The real number is probably still higher, as absolutely nothing has been done to reduce emissions since 2005 and population and driving distances have increased, so let's call it an even 25 percent.
How do we reduce our car emissions by 25 percent? While worthwhile, anti-idling campaigns and the like don't get us anywhere near the target, that's for sure. And certainly building bigger roads with higher speed limits doesn't help.
What about adopting California emission standards? I could go through all the numbers, but let's just cut to the chase: California, which has one of the most aggressive GHG reduction campaigns on the planet, hopes to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020---that is, California's targets are less strict than Nova Scotia law.
It wouldn't hurt to adopt California emission standards but, er, we haven't. There were rumours last summer that the eastern Canadian premiers were going to announce a collective policy of adopting California standards, but their meeting came and went with no such announcement. The Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act requires the province to adopt California standards by 2010---we'll see if it comes to be; I'm doubtful, for a variety of reasons I won't get into here. But even if the legislature actually adopts the standards, they won't take us as far as the law requires, especially given that older cars tend to be on the road longer here than in California.
Add to all this that the 2020 target is an interim goal---the province is committed to (PDF) meeting an ultimate GHG emission reduction target of 75 - 85 percent, or "sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat to the climate," which means more like a 90 or 95 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, if not sooner.
Clearly, we don't achieve any of these targets by maintaining our car culture. We must move away from the automobile as our means of transportation, and that means building an extensive and effective mass transit system. And the sooner, the better.
In the short term, increasing bridge tolls to pay for new transit systems only makes sense.We can, and should, argue about the right way to go about this---the level of tolls that are needed, the kinds of programs that should be funded, etc. But in the end, it's the right thing to do.
|
