• LeonenTheDK@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Exactly my thoughts, it’ll only be effective if it’s done properly. Otherwise it’s just another half-measure that is more burden than benefit.

    That said though, I wonder how much carbon/money rural heating oil specifically generated. It’s possible this is just a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme and is an acceptable loss to help these folks out. Although I might prefer a bigger push to get people off heating oil altogether (which is where it’s going to have to go eventually).

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not about how much it generated, but about nudging people who are already looking at doing something, to chose the lower carbon option. If people are suffering, the rebate should be increased.

      Now that the Liberals have done this once, our next conservative government will be able to butcher it with vanity exemptions all over the place, just like Harper loved the vanity tax credits to buy various voter segments. It will be useless before long, and just a bunch of unnecessary administrative baggage. They won’t even need to cancel it, because handing out exemptions will be so politically profitable.

      • LeonenTheDK@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hadn’t thought about that angle of it, thanks for the insight. Definitely feels like a valid concern.