This guy is just garbage
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.
I will say that the carbon taxes made a pretty major difference to my workplace - it pushed up the replacement of our building boiler by a number of years, and switched it to natural gas instead of diesel. Not great objectively, but a marked improvement and the carbon tax was a major factor.
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!
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.
Poilievre has never supported a carbon tax.
cap and trade, whatever, that didn’t work either for the same reason: pay to burn.
Nope. He has always been against that as well.
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.
I feel like starting from this place won’t really help anyone to advance the conversation - this may win views on TikTok but decolonizing Canada and sending everyone back to (insert country here) is never happening nor will Canada divest itself from natural resources completely and become a socio-anarchist state – the best possible outcome is one where we leverage our resources carefully and responsibly and receive guidance from Indigenous communities and environmentalists but Canada going full stop green is not something that we will see in our lifetimes. Reality is all in the details and not the extremes.
Awesome, please produce a reading list here to show how you came to this understanding.
Obviously, criticizing settler-colonialism is not even remotely related to “send settlers back,” and you know that, I know that, because you never see people demanding that. I don’t care if criticizing things makes you catastrophize, you people need to be told this shit because you never actually accept the implications. If you cared about practicality you wouldn’t spend so much time convoluting something like this and instead accept that criticisms of colonialism are a necessary element in whatever gradual measures you pretend to subscribe to.
What a waste of time. Won’t answer to anything but that reading list.
Please keep your ranting on TikTok. This extremism makes it hard for practical leftists to effect change in the world.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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
Holy crap, it is literally a do-over. What in the world… Alberta to propose southern route for new West Coast pipeline, sources say
That opposition, as well as numerous environmental challenges, prompted the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to try to persuade Alberta to change tack and consider building a pipeline that largely follows the right-of-way for the Trans Mountain Pipeline from Edmonton to southern B.C.
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.
It was two divisive for the capitalists he means, he just forgot to finish his sentence
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
But it didn’t work. People just pay to burn, even if that means going into debt. You think a tax will stop Terry two tonnne from buying his new truck? No, he bought his truck and dragged Fuck Trudeau flags off the back. Stupid people are poor.
It’s not the simplest solution, the simplest solution is ban inefficient vehicles from the roads, and restrict commuting to mass transit. Change building codes for house sizes, and solar roofs. Financial incentives don’t work.
Holy misinformation.
It did work. And over 80% of people got money back - it inadvertently worked as wealth distribution, so Canadians were better off financially with it.
Holy misinformation.
It did work
When you correct for lockdown, it certainly did not work. Feel free to provide references.
This doesn’t show the effect of the intervention. It’s not enough to show that Canada has merely flattened out. It’s disappointing and it “didn’t work” in the sense that we still need to reduce emissions a lot, but you would have to show what the effects would have been expected without the intervention.
The full-size pickup graph especially seems like a distraction. So let me raise mine. Animal ag produces more emissions than all categories of transportation combined, and it has zero benefit. We all need transportation and shipping, but each of us could reduce our animal ag consumption to essentially nothing overnight. And yet, it’s all about cars? I’m the most fuck cars guy around, but that’s stupid.
These stupid people vote though. So…
Even stupider people don’t vote, which amplifies the right.
Yeah thats a big problem tbh Nothing worthwhile is ever gonna change while stupid people can still vote…
For someone with your username, that sounds incredibly eugenicist (choosing who can vote), and more typical of someone who believes in liberalism to say (the elitism in blaming people who fall for the propaganda instead of the propagandists themselves). Surely this kind of language plays a part in disenfranchising people who are simply misinformed. Kind of counterproductive.
Well it could be better if we could get more smart people to vote. But the smart ppl are too busy working.
Incorrect. The real solution is to get rid of stupid people. Most stupid people are just poorly educated, particularly in logic and critical thinking. There are very few courses that even touch on those topics, and the majority could easily be taught, especially at a young age. So why don’t we? There are those who argue that we don’t because that would harm those in power and as the years go by I find it harder to disagree with that assessment.
Also, if you’re smart and you don’t see the value in taking the time to vote for those who aren’t actively working against your best interests because you’re too busy working, you’re either stuck in a dystopian hellhole or you’re not smart (in the area of critical thinking).
Ha ha ha, right. You will lose your war on stupidity so resoundingly, it will give you near-fatal perplexation.
Stupidity is found uniformly across all classes and divisions of humans. Every percentile IQ has the same stupidity. Every social and financial class. Educating people doesn’t make them do fewer stupid things. Giving people access to reason and logic doesn’t prevent them from doing stupid things. Stupidity is completely orthogonal to the concepts you think oppose it.
Alright, what do you believe causes stupidity in humans? Remember, you can’t use the hand-wave of “it’s endemic to the condition,” because that’s just a fancy way of saying we dont know yet.
I am not smart, but I voted for both NDP for the Provincial, and Federal elections. In my county, the results were both for Conservative. We got Doug Ford.
We got Doug Ford because 22% of stupid people voted, but more stupid people did not vote.
This is because the Ontario political parties are indistinguishable from each other and the left ignored workers.
Should have called it the “polluter tax and rebate”
Or even “carbon tax and cash back” system
Some people just choose to be stupid, and other people abuse that. I’ve heard someone complain that 15-minute cities are cities where you aren’t allowed to go more than 15 minutes from your home. She saw it on YouTube, so it had to be right.
They should have physically mailed the cheques to people. And have all financial institutions have a separate account just for the rebate so people could see the amount in their banking app or statements but could only access it if they cached the cheques.
DoFo mailed out cheques before the last election.
The alternate universe where it was set up and marketed differently would be interesting to see.
“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!
May I recommend decaf?
Look. “The climate” does not have interests. It will not be fine and it will not not be fine. It will simply exist without possessing its own subjective point of view on its state. You know damn well that when I invoke a subjective comparison, I am speaking from my own point of view, not that of fucking Gaia. We’ve put up with this rhetorical obtuseness for a very long time and I’m afraid I am going to stand by my outburst.
Perhaps an herbal tisane?
Hey, you’re not wrong. And neither am I.
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?
Let’s say the next few months and every summer from now on, we got forest fires season now!
Northern Ontario burns year around now. No seasons.
Fairly sure north every where burns all year round, maybe I should say smoke season.
Wait til you find out how much climate change is going to cost to live through!
Yeah, can’t we save the planet on the cheap? I mean how clean do your water and air need to be??
“I shouldn’t have to make personal decisions! Corporations should be forced to change so I don’t have to.”
“NOT LIKE THAT!”
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.
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.
everyone is cool with Jamil Jirvani
I think almost no one was cool with that. Heck, you might read a more Conservative take on the negative reactions he received: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/liberals-attack-jamil-jivani-help-trump-offer
I see a Carney plan as actually happening, in the long term
I agree, but…
The only problem with that is governments change on a shorter time scale, and new governments frequently hobble or completely eliminate the previous government’s long term projects for ideological reasons while claiming that they haven’t shown results and therefore are useless.
It happens all the time, and it is a large part of “this is why we can’t have nice things”.
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.
Would you prefer something bigger, more ambitious and cancelled in four years?
I want to see something where funding is allocated now with no way to claw back the funding.
Offer huge rebates for solar installations on residences or commercial buildings, with ties to maximum $/kw install costs so its not just more profit.
Offer more funding for clean energy projects with requirements they’re under construction by the time they leave office.
Cancel tax breaks offered to o&g companies now, and force whoever comes in to justify adding the breaks back in.
Don’t drop your ZEV policy, but state it will be in force. Make car companies do the r&d now so they’ll be locked in anyway by the time you leave office.
Enshrine the right to the healthy environment for children in our charter, so any changes that damage that in the future will be challengeable legally.
To argue that he’s doing what he can, and if he doesnt toe the line of moderate (ie way too little action) well lose and things will rebound is ridiculous. There’s a non-zero chance things will rebound anyway. Take action that can’t be undone NOW, and make it harder for pp to undo.
More ambitious than nothing? Yes absolutely
To call the current plan and actions “nothing” is either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way, it’s an incredibly silly thing to say.
What are our currentnplans and actions then? Expanding oil and gas is a already a net negative when it comes to climate action and I honestly don’t see the feds doing much else.
The largest thing, imo, is expanding the electrical grid. All of our talk about green transition is nonsense if we don’t have a grid or system which can support the transition. None of the Trudeau era plans really grappled with this fairly obvious problem, because in my humble opinion, Trudeau was more concerned with sounding good than doing good.
The Darlington nuclear project is among the first of the announced national projects; North America’s first small scale nuclear reactor. Really useful for Canada especially where we have a lot of remote communities without easy access to other energy inputs. (You should see how much is power in the North is diesel and other really dirty fuels.)
If memory serves, the Alberta pipeline MOU comes with the world’s (possibly just North America’s) largest carbon capture mechanism, which is incredibly useful if we want to down the road join into the EU CBAM with other countries, which would be a climate change game changer.
The next tranche of major projects is supposed to include a major wind one for the North Atlantic (again, really useful and targeted transition as a lot of power used there is oil/gas for heating.)
On Conservation, Carney has announced plans to effectively double our protected Conservation both marine and land.
Also, just today, Carney announced an MOU that doubles BC’s clean power capacity while also upholding our northern tanker ban, which while not really climate change is really reassuring to hear as that ecosystem is fragile and very much at risk.
Again, is there more that could be done? Sure. But, instead of my temporary feel goods, I much prefer a plan and mandate that I think can effect long lasting change. These are the moves that position Canada for a durable green transition, without relying on a trump ex machina to win the Left the election every time. Carney’s approval rating is uniquely high in the G7 I think in large part because he’s doing a good job of straddling the line between the Right and Left on climate. That compromise means that I won’t see everything I want but neither will my Conservative friends.
Edit: Oh, and I completely forgot allowing tens of thousands of affordable Chinese EVs into the Canadian market over the strenuous objections of Conservative premier Doug Ford.
This is serious cope. The nuclear and wind projects were planned before Carney, the only difference I am aware of is that he’s promised these projects more federal dollars and loosening regulations to try to speed those things along.
If memory serves, the Alberta pipeline MOU comes with the world’s (possibly just North America’s) largest carbon capture mechanism, which is incredibly useful if we want to down the road join into the EU CBAM with other countries, which would be a climate change game changer.
Direct air carbon capture is vaporware. Literally no proven scale-able methods exist. The cost of any serious carbon sequestration would be high enough that the only reason you would do it over just building renewables and reducing oil and gas usage is to funnel green energy dollars to oil and gas companies.
Oh, and I completely forgot allowing tens of thousands of affordable Chinese EVs into the Canadian market over the strenuous objections of Conservative premier Doug Ford.
I am in favor of this but let’s not forget the fact that Carney removed the EV mandate from domestic manufacturers and the only reason the tariffs were dropped was because China responded with counter tariffs on canola.
Any of the climate gains from these green energy projects is effectively neutered by expanding oil and gas production. It makes no sense to be giving more of our money to these companies when the rest of the world is doing their best to transition away from them. In fifteen years when we have an oil pipeline and China has monopolized the EV and battery market, will we admit that we fucked up? Or will we do what the USA is doing and double down further on O&G while banning green energy projects because they threaten oil profits?
Can someone remind me again what we avoided by electing Carney instead of Poilievre?
I’m with you on carny sucking ass, but common we know what happened in the us, it’s kleptocrisy that’s what we sort of avoided
Celebrating our nation’s birthday Saturday instead of Wednesday?
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.
“Politically unpopular” is doing a lot of work behind the scenes here. Who believes people just organically came to the opinion that they don’t want to receive a tax rebate when industry pollutes, and that they’d rather the pollution just go on instead of that?
In a market system, a carbon tax is the best way to punish carbon emission
So pickup truck sales and air travel did not skyrocket after 2019?
Canadians all drive small cars and don’t do fly away vacations any more?
Carbon tax just ended up being pay to burn. Meanwhile, Ontario is increasing highway speeds 10% which increase fuel use 20%.
Solution X wasn’t 100% effective, hence solution X was ineffective.
We’re talking about federal policy. Stuff that the federal government can do. Can it do more? Definitely. Is it actively doing stuff contrary to what would be considered as “climate protection”? Yes. But that does not make carbon taxes good or bad policy.
The logic behind taxing carbon is the following:
- carbon emissions are a negative externality
- taxing something tends to reduce that behavior
- subsidizing something tends to encourage that behavior.
- a tax that taxes consumption of goods, where the act of consumption and production of that specific good leads to carbon emissions, discourages consumption of that good. The collected tax was redistributed to folks.
The effect of the above was simple. If you lived a lifestyle that resulted in more carbon emissions, you suffered a loss. If your lifestyle involved less carbon emissions, you profited. Regardless, the tax encouraged you, and through your consumption habits, the entire economy to reduce carbon emissions.
Right now, the federal government has dropped the consumer carbon tax and instead increased the industrial carbon tax. The effect is literally the same. Industries pass on the tax to consumers. Except, you don’t get a rebate anymore lol.
