|
Light bulbs and plastic bags: Are we on the right track with government intervention?
Michael Hlinka
Ontario is the most heavily populated province in Canada, and the manufacturing hub of the country. Whether the rest of Canada likes it or not, Ontario often assumes a leadership position…and it’s happening again with environmental policy.
In the past month, there have been two policy announcements from the
provincial government. Incandescent light bulbs will be phased out over the next five years.
The province has also announced a “partnership” with the private sector to reduce the use of plastic shopping bags by half. These seem like unrelated stories, but to my mind, they’re really not.
Within the social interest
Remember when Bill Clinton was running for US president in 1992? Business conditions were lousy and his slogan was: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Fast forward to 2007.
The economy is as good as it has ever been, which means we have the leisure to say: “It’s the environment, stupid!”
There’s a heightened interest in saving the planet and this affects how business and government interact. Which approach ultimately
dominates—government ruling by fiat or government taking a more active role in micro-managing private industry—will also have important implications in the years to come. The former is the better way… and by a country mile!
Business is uniquely good at doing one thing and that is ensuring resources are allocated where they do the most good. By the most
good, I mean the pricing mechanism decides who should get what and when and for how much. Reasonable people recognize there must be limits to commerce. If there is an over-riding social interest in prohibiting something, then it’s perfectly appropriate for government
to take action.
Give business rules. Make them simple. Then the people who generate wealth can go about their business. Incandescent is out and fluorescent is in. Let’s get some quotes, install the new lights and get going!
Okay. Now plastic bags. If there were an across-theboard elimination, every business would compete on an even playing field. There are substitutes and we’d soon come up with more. The market would sort it out quickly. But a 50 per cent target makes me queasy.
Who’s going to decide where the reductions should be made, in what sectors… and how?
I envision committees and endless meetings and industry consultation. We’re going to see more environmentally motivated intervention in the years to come and it’s far preferable that government legislates where necessary, instead of this namby-pamby
“partnering.” b2b
Toronto-based Michael Hlinka provides daily business commentary to CBC Radio One and a column syndicated across the CBC network. He also conducts financial planning courses.
|
