As we know, the best guarantee of a low carbon footprint is not ecological awareness but poverty. Non-consumption always prevails over “green” consumption.
The problem is that non-consumption is generally perceived as deprivation. I can’t afford a car, a trip, a new phone. Even when it is a choice of voluntary simplicity, we see it more as a sacrifice. However, non-consumption could be celebrated as a contribution to the community! Every airplane flight avoided and every car not purchased improves our carbon footprint for all.
Overconsumption can be discouraged by taxation, but reward always works better than punishment. Suppose that the local pedestrian or tourist saves us collectively more or less 2 tons of carbon per year, why not grant them the equivalent of a carbon credit, a nice check for some $150?
Sending checks always raises eyebrows. However, in Canada, an individual can obtain $13,000 to buy a new electric car (a luxury purchase after all). Over 10 years, this amounts to giving more than $1,000 per year to save approximately two tonnes of CO annually.2or nearly $500 per ton (the carbon credit is less than $100/tonne).
Considering that most of this money goes abroad, isn’t it more profitable and efficient to pay people not to buy a car at all? And then, even if electrification has its virtues, it will only perpetuate the dependence on individual cars while increasing the collective demand for electricity.
The idea may seem far-fetched, yet a bill providing for a tax credit of $1,000 per year for every car-free household is about to be voted on in California (SB 457). Beyond ecology, the project is envisaged as an inflation relief measure for low-income families, the most likely to benefit from such credit.
A triple effect
Let’s reiterate that the idea here is not to punish drivers, who often have no choice but to own a car, nor those who want to have fun with a trip: these two things would not be more expensive.
Rather, it is about rewarding those who manage to do otherwise. In doing so, we create a triple ripple effect: encourage additional effort, increase demand for interesting alternatives, and then contribute to their sustainability.
For example: when leaving for an apartment, the young adult who received his non-consumption check will have to give it up if he has to buy a car. This opportunity cost makes it less attractive while increasing the attractiveness of housing that allows people to do without it. Once the decision has been made, the reward financially supports the maintenance of this decision (higher rent, public transport costs, etc.).
Thus, the measure is not only an individual incentive, but a subsidy for the development of new transport solutions. Similarly, a reward for not flying would de facto fund local tourism infrastructure.
A century of consumer society has accustomed us to being rewarded for our ever more numerous, ever more sumptuous purchases. We now know that the happiness is not there, but the habits are deep. Since the transition can only be technological, we have to give ourselves the means to change socially and culturally – and that’s the most difficult thing.