As an urban ratepayer in Ontario, I would very much not like my electrical fees to subsidize the recreationally remote, thanks. Rural/wilderness homes in Ontario already have heavily subsidized road infrastructure and get a larger cut of the carbon tax rebate per person. It's one thing to subsidize agricultural communities, but this is different. If you have some deep burning need to be a woodsman, more power to you, but that's your decision and your money.
And looking at the article, if off-grid is more economic for the resident for that kind of life, then it's also more economical for the government. Everybody wins. Subsidizing that would eliminate that win/win.
That said, as carbon pricing rises, the calculus on propane power may shift over time... which, I assume, will result in such residents loudly opposing carbon pricing.
Why do you expect the rural taxpayers to pay for urban/city only improvements like transit/subways or money to fight guns/gangs but balk at the thought of paying for electrical hookups in rural areas.
Pretty sure they don't pay anything since people living outside cities is net minus everywhere, maintaining all the infrastructure id expensive as fuck. I'm five with it but the reality is that they are being subsidised everywhere per capita. Economies of scale, capitalism 101.
Anecdotally, Philadelphia is the poorest county in our state, while Chester county is the richest. Seems like suburban areas bring in the most money and can afford excellent infrastructure, while infrastructure in the city is in constant disrepair.
"One could say the same if you choose to be a car-less urban dweller who relies on transit and high-density infrastructure.
You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion."
Car-less urban dweller pays ticket fees for transit, so the argument doesn't work.
They aren't car-less because they are saving money - if you give everyone who uses public transport a car, gridlock will get so bad there will be bodies in the street.
Sigh.. sure, you can find faults in anyone's examples if you're just interested in doing that instead of debating the broader point.
Neither side can be diluted down to an anecdote, but I guess here we are all trying to do it anyways.
My point was actually about the stereotyping and the painting of all rural dwellers as recreational, as if urban dwelling is the only valid choice and everyone else is intentionally choosing a lesser or more difficult lifestyle.
The _overall_ point here is that connecting to any public utilities should not be made prohibitively expensive just because you live in rural areas.
> The _overall_ point here is that connecting to any public utilities should not be made prohibitively expensive just because you live in rural areas.
In this case, the argument is not that it was "made" prohibitively expensive. It's that it is prohibitively expensive, and the debate is whether or not it should be made less expensive through subsidy by government actors.
This same debate will be occurring with providing other services to remote locations as carbon costs get incorporated into the prices of distribution of services. It's not going to get better.
And looking at the article, if off-grid is more economic for the resident for that kind of life, then it's also more economical for the government. Everybody wins. Subsidizing that would eliminate that win/win.
That said, as carbon pricing rises, the calculus on propane power may shift over time... which, I assume, will result in such residents loudly opposing carbon pricing.