It's only divisive for stupid people - carbon tax is the simplest solution to curbing carbon output. Also, it's not expensive when the money goes right back to the tax payers
post
Yeah, can't we save the planet on the cheap? I mean how clean do your water and air need to be??
Wait til you find out how much climate change is going to cost to live through!
Canadian governance is basically a few resource companies, banks, and a couple of telecoms bundled together in a Roots trench coat with a maple leaf on it.
Yes. That is what all settler-colonial states ever are, extractive enterprises. Everyone please remember that when you celebrate So-Called Canada Day.
"Divisive" as in morons and corporate shills don't care while the rest of normal people are saying its obviously urgent to do something? lol
A climate plan can be divisive if it saves the climate.
The climate will be fine. We won't.
oh my god don't make me fucking say "maintains a survivable climate" the fuck is wrong with you
The Earth goes through cycles, once it kills us it will do another ice age and stuff will return.
Just remember we are a cancer to the universe, and it wants to kill you!
Whereas abandoning climate targets is apparently unifying?
Not to me, any of you all feel that way?
Apparently "unity" means we just do what the O&G industry wants.
In a market system, a carbon tax is the best way to punish carbon emission. Buuuut it was politically unpopular :(
I think we have a decent industrial carbon tax, right? Which kinda has a similar-ish effect as the consumer carbon tax, though slightly less efficient.
Let's check back in 50-100 years and see what's more expensive.
You mean 5-10 years. What's the value of >1000 deaths in Europe so far this summer?
He's not wrong. It also was not successful. The idea behind carbon tax (first proposed by Harper and Poilievre) is that a levy would incentivize people to burn less. Didn't work, large truck and pickup sales doubled, air travel increased. People just pay to burn.
We should have put in laws to limit vehicle size and fuel economy, not leave it up to consumer fashion. Just roll in a ban of ICE vehicles in large urban areas.
Taxing carbon doesn't work. We need to restrict activity.
We should have put in laws to limit vehicle size and fuel economy, not leave it up to consumer fashion.
Fixing emissions requirements! I drive a 2 seater compact pickup with a 4 cylinder engine, it gets 8-9L/100km depending on the season and conditions. That's as good as some modern sedans, and better than ANY pickup on the market. But no one makes a 4 cylinder compact pickup anymore because emissions limits are calculated partly by the footprint of the vehicle.
It's far too late now but this whole truckzilla problem could have been stomped over a decade ago with intelligent policy. I strongly suspect that we will not get any intelligent policy today, particularly when the intelligent solution is both expensive and counter to industry.
this whole truckzilla problem could have been stomped over a decade ago with intelligent policy.
the problem is Canada does not have it's own policy, we use US laws. Because we make their stupid trucks here.
Outside of North America, these are real work trucks:

That's the truck I want, damnit. You can fill it with dirt, or knock it flat to carry sheet goods and lumber!
If you search "compact pickup" in Canada you get the godamned Jeep Gladiator, the Hyundai Santa Cruz, and the Chevrolet Colorado. All three are enormous and one of them just an SUV that's missing row of seats! And despite weighing 1300lbs more than my shitty old ranger they have the same payload capacity!
Poilievre has never supported a carbon tax.
The idea didn't fail because it's inherently flawed. Taxing carbon could easily work, so could restricting activity. Neither is going to meaningfully happen in a resource-based colonialist country.
People seem to be misunderstanding Carney's point here, which is that the plan gave someone like Polievre ammo and a damned good chance of burning down Canada.
It really is worth watching the video, or reading the transcript (I couldn't find one as of yet.) But he talks about the original plan which was entirely appropriate for the comparatively rosy pre trump era in which it was devised. These are different and bad times.
The Right, the radically anti climate right, is ascendent kind of across the globe. Had trump not been such a spectacular asshole, there's a good chance Poilievre would be running things. Canada in contrast is one where you could see the Liberals walk this tightrope between the Left and Right. So while the Trudeau era plan is the one I'd prefer personally, I see a Carney plan as actually happening, in the long term (which is what matters) rather than being undone shortly by Poilievre or whomever.
Funny how the government can do tlvery unpopular things it didn't campaign on like the surveillance bill C22, but when it comes to caring about the climate (which it did campaign on), it just isn't "viable". Just more neolib bullshit.
This is my biggest fear with Carney and the Liberals: they refuse to do anything about the political NGOs in Alberta funded by US Foundations, nor do they require NFP organizations to be transparent about how they are funded. There are no socialist "think tanks" or "institutes" because there is no USA backdoor funding for them.
The fact that everyone is cool with Jamil Jirvani, once a US-based and educated fraudster, being a sitting MP and travelling to Washington to collude with long time friend JD Vance during USMCA and CUSMA talks is incredibly disturbing and really makes me wonder if we really have a multiparty system in Canada at all.
"I shouldn't have to make personal decisions! Corporations should be forced to change so I don't have to."
"NOT LIKE THAT!"
I agree, it was divisive and costly. The Trudeau climate plan forced a pipeline expansion through a province that didn't want it, after other provinces rejected alternative pipelines, at a cost of $34 billion for that single expansion, a whopping 459% over budget. Divisive and costly.
Good thing Carny isn't trying to do that again, right? /s
top 50 comments