SUN COLUMN: Many government policies increase emissions

government emissions Canada

Governments routinely urge Canadians to reduce their carbon footprints – “take transit,” “walk to work,” “turn down your thermostat,” – the nudging is constant.

But what about government policies that increase emissions? Shouldn’t governments be equally concerned about how their own policies sometimes lead to higher emissions?

SecondStreet.org recently pulled together a list of 23 government policies and practices that lead to higher emissions – policies that span all three levels of government and cross many sectors.

Here’s a health-care example.

Consider Jeff Krushell’s story. The Edmonton patient was told a little while ago by the government that he would have to wait 1-2 years for back surgery. Unwilling to wait in pain for so long, Jeff did what thousands of other Canadians do each year – he searched online for private options.

While there was a private surgical clinic down the road in Calgary that could have treated his back, government rules don’t allow Albertans to pay for surgery at the clinic. Patients from B.C., Saskatchewan and other provinces are allowed to travel to the clinic and pay for care, but not Albertans. Other provinces have similar rules. Eventually, Jeff ended up flying to Atlanta for his surgery.

One can’t fault Jeff for flying abroad to improve his health, but it’s worth noting that travelling to Atlanta comes with a much higher carbon footprint than travelling down the road to Calgary. Statistics Canada data shows that Canadian patients made at least 217,500 trips abroad in 2017 specifically for health care. If governments kept our public health-care system, but lifted the barriers to private options, some patients would choose to have their surgery locally, reducing emissions at the same time.

Another example would be our nation’s archaic alcohol sales regulations. In many urban centres, consumers cannot purchase their groceries and alcohol in the same store. This means that Canadians often have to drive to two locations instead of just one, resulting in higher emissions. In Ontario, thanks to peculiar rules for beer sales created by the government, some consumers have to travel to three different stores just to pick up some snacks (grocery store), whisky (LCBO) and a 24 pack of cold beer (the “Beer Store”).

These examples are relatively small in terms of their emissions. But don’t forget that governments routinely tell Canadians that “small changes add up” when it comes to helping the environment.

For a couple of larger examples, look to our nation’s natural gas sector.

Consider that China wants to buy enormous volumes of natural gas from Canada. They want to switch their coal powered electricity plants over to natural gas, a fuel source with about half the CO2 emissions. While this would be good for the environment and Canada’s economy, our nation has been extremely slow to approve such projects.

In Eastern Canada, Quebec is also sitting on an enormous supply of natural gas. However, instead of developing this resource, the government has blocked development. As a result, Quebec continues to import natural gas all the way from Western Canada and the United States, which result in higher emissions – using local natural gas could reduce emissions by the equivalent of taking 35,000 extra cars off the road each year.

These are just a few of the 23 examples from SecondStreet.org’s new report. To be sure, if governments conducted more exhaustive reviews of their own policies, they could find even more examples of state policies that contribute to higher emissions. Perhaps it’s time they look in the mirror a bit more.

 

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.

This column was published in Sun Newspapers (Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton) on May 26, 2022.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.