Comment 29111

By TreyS (registered) | Posted February 25, 2009 at 17:06:18

ok, my fault for bringing the Drive Clean comparison into the discussion. I'd prefer we didn't get the discussion off topic. I agree Drive Clean is flawed bc virtually no car fails, and they make dif requirements for dif vehicles. eg. A Hummer could pass for meeting its emission standards, but an aged Corrolla might fail even though it has less emissions then the new Hummer that passed.

Perhaps an older home might get some accommodation in the way that a Hummer does for Drive Clean.

I would like to see opinions to my original points re: 1. The fact that home energy efficiency will pay for itself. 2. The fact that the other house you move into would've had the same Green Act standards applied to it.

and to some new points raised. 1. Government money spent domestically is circulated money and studies show that five more transactions of this money goes back to the gov in the form of taxes. ie. income tax on the income paid to new bureaucrats, income to Canada Post, income to Green inspectors, and the consumption taxes collected when the extra money is spent. 2. The fact that Solar energy is yet to pay for itself. The investment required for Solar Panels, as they exist today won't last long enough for a return on investment, perhaps that's more to Ryan's point that the current price of electricity and natural gas don't reflect the true cost, if it did then maybe solar is a ROI option. But it's the reality today. An energy plan requires both conservation and renewable source options. This is a conservation option and I'm hopeful the Feds and the Province will start to initiate renewable options.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds