A few clarifications
My short blog on tarification, and possible abolition, of on-street parking has led to some reaction, especially concerning whether there are actual proposals to ban on-street parking or simply to systematically charge for its use.
To be clear, most protagonists are calling for tarification, but this is in view of reducing car-ownership (by making it more expensive) and of reducing on-street parking.
I apologise for any ambiguity, though it does not affect the key points I was making. These details – important as they are – miss the wider issue that I am trying to raise.
The wider issue: equity and possible backlash
There is considerable evidence that popular opinion is turning against environmental policies. As Etienne Leblanc wrote on Radio-Canada, 5th December 2023:
“How can governments justify new constraints or new costs at a time when people are struggling? How can they convince the electorate that the planet’s future is at stake when these same people are struggling to reach the end of the month? How can they promote an exit from fossil fuels when it is the country’s [or the region’s – my addition] cash cow?”1
An academic paper has just come out, “The green transition and its potential territorial discontents” showing how transition to a greener economy in Europe would impact certain regions (mainly poorer peripheral ones) and benefit others (mainly more central, richer ones). We know, in Canada, that it will impact people in oil-producing regions such as Alberta and Newfoundland far more than it will people in Montreal or Toronto.
It is also, unfortunately, well-established that many urban environmental initiatives (e.g. vegetation and parks) tend to benefit wealthier neighbourhoods. The systematic tarification of on-road parking, which I suggest will be regressive since it will hit modest-income car-owners more than wealthier ones, is just an example that illustrates this wider point.
The key point
The key point is this (already made in conclusion to my previous blog):
The problem is how can we transition towards [a greener society] without exacerbating inequalities and generating a backlash?
It is important that this be openly discussed: it is not sufficient to have virtue or science on one’s side in order to convince people, i.e. voters, that environmental action is urgent.
***
1 “Comment justifier de nouvelles contraintes ou de nouvelles charges financières alors que les gens sont pris à la gorge? Comment convaincre les électeurs que c’est l’avenir du monde qui est en jeu alors qu’ils peinent à boucler la fin du mois? Comment promettre la sortie des énergies fossiles quand c’est la vache à lait d’un pays?”
Richard Shearmur 