Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Do you have a link to that report? I’m interested in how they calculated the value as with many of these types of programs some of the benefits claimed are suspect.
Did that account for the time value of money?
Did that account that simply banning incandescent bulbs would have the same affect on the light bulb side?
|
We can probably assume the report is a bit (if not a lot) rose-coloured with a lot of best-case assumptions, but it seems unlikely that a totally pragmatic/realistic analysis would drive it back down into the red.
And while we shouldn't readily accept wasteful/inefficient elements of any program, I'd argue that this was generally the best kind of 'waste' - money paid to frontline workers, which is generally recirculated locally pretty efficiently. Using an Ontario based company to administer the staffing was unfortunate, though IIRC there simply wasn't an AB based alternative.
And we need to remember this was all in the context of a new carbon tax, and this program was simply a measure to help people adapt.