Miller Says Ban Non-Enviromentally Friendly Toilets
You won't normally find toilet humour on this blog, but I feel the need to talk about Miller's toilet-ban proposal.
Frankly, I am really getting sick and tired of Mayor Miller. I don't even live in Toronto and I am thankful I don't. Next on Miller's wacko agenda is a ban on water-wasting toilets.
Why is it that politicians think that the public is stupid and can't be held to make decisions without the all-knowing-morally-(and-now-enviromentally)-superior government to intervene and make decisions for them. Are we really incompetent members of society that we can't use our brains to respond to incentives, that we need a ban? I would argue no, but these arrogant politicians seem to think so.
I am all for doing more to conserve resources and use them more efficiently, but I don't like the eco-morality that has surfaced. Environmentalists will argue that the end justifies the means, but I'm not so sure.
Let's think about on our history. Does a ban of anything work? In terms of prohibition this didn't work and just fuelled a black market. On the other hand, will there be a black market for 23L/flush toilets....probably not.
The bottom line is how are they going to enforce it? If we think about the life of a toilet, how often do you buy a new toilet? Probably never, unless it breaks down. So even if they ban all new toilets sold, you're neglecting the toilets in existing homes. If your average house has 2 toilets and the life of a house is 50-100 years, you wouldn't be able to get rid of all 23L toilets for many many years to come (By that point the ice caps would have all melted, the world will be burning up anyway...right?). So how efficient is this? Wouldn't it be more effective to offer discounts, rebates, tax-breaks etc... People respond to incentives, especially monetary ones.
I can buy Charmin Extra Strong...but with my low-flush toilet I will either have to flush twice or have to call in a plumber more often... Now if we consider that older toilets may use 23L/flush and new ones are 6L/flush and if I have to flush twice even half the time is still uses less water.
But instead of a ban, why doesn't Mayor Miller consider what they have done in Australia? A company called Caroma has invented the dual button flush toilet. A button for number 1....a button for number 2 with the appropriate water/flush levels.
David Miller was leading the Mayor group for the majority of the show, Test the Nation but he's not making some smart economic policy.
If you read the first comment of the article it pretty much sums it up: "Low flow toilets won't be good for people who are so full of it, like Mayor Miller"
Prediction: Miller's new law: If it's yellow, let it mellow.........or a ban on three-ply tissues or toilet paper in order to conserve paper.
Frankly, I am really getting sick and tired of Mayor Miller. I don't even live in Toronto and I am thankful I don't. Next on Miller's wacko agenda is a ban on water-wasting toilets.
Why is it that politicians think that the public is stupid and can't be held to make decisions without the all-knowing-morally-(and-now-enviromentally)-superior government to intervene and make decisions for them. Are we really incompetent members of society that we can't use our brains to respond to incentives, that we need a ban? I would argue no, but these arrogant politicians seem to think so.
I am all for doing more to conserve resources and use them more efficiently, but I don't like the eco-morality that has surfaced. Environmentalists will argue that the end justifies the means, but I'm not so sure.
Let's think about on our history. Does a ban of anything work? In terms of prohibition this didn't work and just fuelled a black market. On the other hand, will there be a black market for 23L/flush toilets....probably not.
The bottom line is how are they going to enforce it? If we think about the life of a toilet, how often do you buy a new toilet? Probably never, unless it breaks down. So even if they ban all new toilets sold, you're neglecting the toilets in existing homes. If your average house has 2 toilets and the life of a house is 50-100 years, you wouldn't be able to get rid of all 23L toilets for many many years to come (By that point the ice caps would have all melted, the world will be burning up anyway...right?). So how efficient is this? Wouldn't it be more effective to offer discounts, rebates, tax-breaks etc... People respond to incentives, especially monetary ones.
I can buy Charmin Extra Strong...but with my low-flush toilet I will either have to flush twice or have to call in a plumber more often... Now if we consider that older toilets may use 23L/flush and new ones are 6L/flush and if I have to flush twice even half the time is still uses less water.
But instead of a ban, why doesn't Mayor Miller consider what they have done in Australia? A company called Caroma has invented the dual button flush toilet. A button for number 1....a button for number 2 with the appropriate water/flush levels.
David Miller was leading the Mayor group for the majority of the show, Test the Nation but he's not making some smart economic policy.
If you read the first comment of the article it pretty much sums it up: "Low flow toilets won't be good for people who are so full of it, like Mayor Miller"
Prediction: Miller's new law: If it's yellow, let it mellow.........or a ban on three-ply tissues or toilet paper in order to conserve paper.
posted by Spitfire at 2:15 PM
4 Comments:
I actually think this is a good idea.
The thing is it isn't really a "ban" that's being proposed. From what I understand, they're talking about changing the building code so that any new houses, or renovations requiring a permit, will have to install low-flows.
You're right about the dual-flush models; they're a great idea. In fact, many low-flow toilets now feature this option.
The border towns would be hard hit with a ban, they are selling lots of full flush models to the Yankees. It's illeagal to sell them in the USvbut not illeagal to import them. And used full flush are more expensive than new water savers in most places.
While we are talking about being enviornmenetally friendly, someone might remind the mayor that the city of Toronto is still on the list of the top 5 polluters of the Great Lakes.
Toronto's the second biggest city on the great lakes! Of course it'll be one of the top 5 pollutors. Is Toronto expected to pollute less than, say, Buffalo, which has a significantly smaller population?
As for Miller, his latest antics are to threaten to shut down certain TTC services because council won't pass his tax hikes. The man's been spending like crazy since he got in, and now he wants more money. It reminds me of when I'd try to get money from my parents after spending my allowance, then whine in my room hoping to get their sympathy. Miller should spend his time getting the books in order. Focus on quality core services, and spare the expensive wet-dreams of left-wing policy entrepreneurs.
Post a Comment
<< Home