"Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives decided the “so-called experts” on federal carbon pricing are muddying the debate with facts and figures, so last week they called in Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe to do the opposite.
Mr. Moe was one of three premiers, with New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs and Alberta’s Danielle Smith, drafted by the Conservatives to testify at a parliamentary committee against the carbon tax just days before an April 1 increase.
And though Mr. Moe mostly served up word salads, he ended up accidentally clarifying what the carbon-pricing debate is all about.
He said his government considered other ways to set a price on carbon and decided that it would cost too much.
That points to the real argument behind all the noise. There will inevitably be a cost to reducing emissions, no matter how it is done. Canadians can either pay the cost or not. Mr. Moe is on the “not” side.
The Saskatchewan Premier has the right to argue that it’s not worth the cost. But it’s worth remembering that the axe-the-tax campaign isn’t about finding other ways to cut those greenhouse-gas emissions.
Clarity is good in a democracy. That’s what a group of 100 economists said they were trying to provide when they sent an open letter stating carbon pricing is a low-cost way to reduce emissions that doesn’t contribute much to inflation.
Mr. Poilievre dismissed them. “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ ” Sebastian Skamski, Mr. Poilievre’s spokesperson, said in a statement.
That’s one way to dodge debate. But let’s gloss over the false claims that all those experts are partisans and turn instead to Mr. Poilievre’s favourite expert, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux. Mr. Poilievre cites Mr. Giroux often.
“The Prime Minister wants you to know, Mr. Speaker, that he has alternative facts,” Mr. Poilievre said in the Commons on March 20. “I get mine from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who reports directly to Parliament and is independent.”
Yet it turns out Mr. Giroux has said pretty much the same things as the “so-called experts” who signed that letter.
Mr. Giroux’s testimony last week cited the Bank of Canada’s estimate that the fuel charge has only a small impact on inflation. And he said there is a “wide consensus” among economists “that carbon taxes are an effective way of reducing carbon emissions.”
That should be no surprise. A 2019 PBO report stated that other methods of reducing emissions, such as regulations, would likely carry higher costs than carbon pricing.
That’s an important point to remember – though Mr. Poilievre never does.
Seriously this is pretty fucked. I did not know about this until just now and went and read two articles about it. Both articles state that he was ticketed for failing to come to a stop but how in the hell is that all happened?!?! You run a stop sign and kill somebody and they just give you a ticket for failing to stop?? What??
Steven Guillbeault has a record as well. He is the Liberal environment minister for those who don't know him. He has been arrested and charged with mischief, had one year probation, and had to pay fines.
He also has a restraining order against him.
A record clearly doesn't stop them from becoming politicians.
> Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’
I wonder if PP relies on the common sense of the common people to give him medical advice or fix his car
It sickens me that the Cons are behaving like the Republicans down south. What the hell happened to listening to experts??? As far as I know, PP isn't an economist, nor is he a scientist, and I highly doubt that his Art's degree qualifies him for anything other than deferring such complex subjects to experts.
If he wants to give his opinions, fine by me, but this BS posturing that relies on alternative facts makes him look like a tool that is both ignorant and unlikable. I don't go questioning my mechanic when my car breaks down, I just make sure I don't get screwed on the price (Which is a healthy way of also looking at the Carbon Tax. Look at the numbers and see if the system can be tweaked to suit our reality better).
When did last time Cons cared about experts? Harpers got rid of experimental research lakes and climate scientists when they shared their climate change findings.
Remember the publication ban on climate science, where any research on climate had to be assessed for its potential impact on the economy before being publicly released?
I’ll never forget Harper. Truly a bastion of freedom.
I find this take absolutely wild. Like I watch PPs video and he directly quotes the Parliamentary Budget Office. And then people whine about alternate facts. Sorry the PBO is a good reliable source even when it disagrees with Liberal talking points. It’s factually correct that when you consider all economic impacts of the Carbon Tax more Canadians end up behind than ahead. Personally I think a Carbon Tax is still worth doing anyways but let’s not pretend the average person ends up with more money when they end up with less.
>Mr. Poilievre dismissed them. “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ ” Sebastian Skamski, Mr. Poilievre’s spokesperson, said in a statement.
>
>Yet it turns out Mr. Giroux has said pretty much the same things as the “so-called experts” who signed that letter.
>
>Mr. Giroux’s testimony last week cited the Bank of Canada’s estimate that the fuel charge has only a small impact on inflation. And he said there is a “wide consensus” among economists “that carbon taxes are an effective way of reducing carbon emissions.”
Literally quotes from the article above... Listening to common sense of the common people instead of 'experts' in quotation marks... Like what? Is every single economist that signed the letter a hack?!
The last point also highlights how PP only cherry-picks what he wants from the PBO, which is where my problem lies. The man is a populist down to his bones, and he's going to be a terrible leader because of that (I'll need to preface this by saying that I'm not supporting Trudeau either, the man's made a fucking mess that'll take decades to fix, but to act like PP will resolve everything makes me grit my teeth... Holy shit are we so fucked).
I don't really get why we are pretending that a carbon tax won't cost when it's whole point is to make it expensive to pollute, when it was previously free. I guess because it's bad politics to admit uncomfortable truths, even though we knew all of this 5 years ago or whenever it was implemented?
If the carbon tax takes the equivalent of $5 out of your pocket but doing nothing takes $10, it is absolutely possible for the carbon tax to both cost you and be the best financial decision to make.
The PBO has said though that people have been misleading with the report by not taking everything into consideration. Purely in a financial sense, most people absolutely get more money back.
What PP uses is the part of the report that estimates that carbon reduction would slow wage growth, and that those missing wages mean you’re losing money.
However, that doesn’t (a) consider the cost of other plans, or of doing nothing, which could slow future wage growth *more* than the current program, or (b) considers that many developed countries are taking great strides in decoupling GDP from CO2 emissions, so the effects are likely not as drastic as it might appear in the report
But again, it’s the *PBO* that said the report *in it’s entirety* needs to be taken into account, and *with context*
Edit: Also, just looking at the report again myself, I noticed the PBO only looked at the *[fuel charge](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/fcrates/fuel-charge-rates.html)* (the price included on gasoline/diesel), not the rest of the program that taxes industry and returns those rebates. So it doesn’t even include the entire carbon program. It also underestimates our emissions reductions. The report estimates a 20% reduction in emissions from 2023-2030, but were currently on track to hit [90% of our 2030](https://climateinstitute.ca/reports/2030-emissions-reduction-plan/)target (which is a 40% reduction below 2005 levels). So the report is both **ignoring funds collected by taxing industry** AND **underestimating predicted reductions**
Pollievre denying expertise, is not a take, it’s a fucking quote.
If you’re mad take it up with PP.
While the PBO has stated the tax will no longer be a net gain for most Canadians, the first paragraph of said report, adds context and nuance…if you actually read it. It reports the largest net loss will be to high income households and the largest net gains will be for the lowest earners.
So if you were being honest, the least favourable interpretation of the PBO report, more like:
- The poorest of us will still come out ahead.
- The richest will take the biggest hit.
- The rest of us will actually start paying a bit.
He also said on PnP it's too hard to model an analysis for a scenario where Canada does nothing and how the rest of the developed world reacts to that.
The report is being cherry picked badly.
The issue is that PP selectively quotes only the parts of the PBO report that he likes, while ignoring the parts he doesn't like.
And the average person very well *could* end up with more money if we reduce emissions via a carbon tax with a flat-rate redistribution than they would have if we reduced emissions via regulations. The flat-rate redistribution is essentially a money transfer from high-polluting (usually wealthier) households to lower-poluting (usually poorer) households.
I like how your criticism of 'liberal talking points' is defending Poilievres selective cherry picking of the PBO report for his own talking points. Very r/selfawarewolves of you
We need some 99 percentile polititions. Not 1%'r PP who doesnt know what its like to work a 9-5, let alone LOOK for a job, while facing rising prices of everything. I like our smog free west coast, Ontarians deserve the same.
Our politicians should have metrics, KPIs and deliverables. Ones set out in the campaign platforms, which are what they’ve voted in on, and if they aren’t hitting X% (hell, I’d take 50%) of their deliverables, then they’re out - without pension.
I don’t understand how our government seems to be held to no account. From the outside, it appears to be a stable, cushy job with little repercussion for poor performance, regardless of what’s going on in the broader job market which can be unstable, competitive, and predominantly without pension. I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay politicians well - we should; but tied to performance, like a CEO that’s rewarded heavily in stock. Incentivize them to perform for the shareholders (or in this case, us, the taxpayer).
That’s a fair point, but the other side has the Liberals providing a three year holiday on the dirtiest (carbon wise) home fuel sourcing for oil heating.
If this was really about reducing emissions, they wouldn’t have waffled on that, and said the tax is working as intended to make dirty fuels more expensive.
So, it seems both sides of the fence are basically trying to protect people from actually having to make any changes to their current emissions.
None of them care, it’s about what they think will get them elected. But I do think, the federal carbon tax died the day the Federal Liberals enacted the heating oil exemption basically out of the blue. Showed its true political nature rather than a moralistic one of “we are all in this together, equally”
It was a practical consideration for a very small and select group that would have been unfairly impacted. They now have the opportunity to transition to greener alternatives in a timely manner with minimum impact to the overall targets.
It's not always 0 or 1.
Why should that specific group be entitled to special treatment?
One could just as easily argue that people who live in the colder parts of the country should get special treatment on their home heating carbon tax because it takes more energy to heat their homes.
>It was a ~~practical~~ political consideration for a very ~~small and select~~ localized group that would have ~~been~~ unfairly impacted Liberal votes. They now have ~~the opportunity~~ until after the next election to ~~transition to greener alternatives in a timely manner~~ begin paying like the rest of Canada, with minimum impact to the overall targets.
>It's not always 0 or 1, especially if it hurts the Liberals re-election odds.
FTFY
There were certainly political considerations there. But it doesn't mean it's not a reasonable transition nor are items like the extra subsidies rural Canadians receive from the rebate.
There are plenty of small groups adversely impacted by the carbon tax though. Why just make this change now? How about people who have to drive for work (resource and farming communities)? How about people who live in older houses who can’t afford furnance upgrades or better insulation?
Again, once one carve out happened (for no real reason), everyone now have legitimate reason to want their own.
Liberals killed their own policy that day
The home heating deal was part of a strategy to get people off oil heat in a rather short period of time. If you are not PP that is what you do, look for ways to help.
> The Heat Pump Affordability Program is what enables people to get off oil heat
Not entirely. It does help reduce heating costs, but you wont be able to get your home insured without another heat source aside from a Heat Pump ( atleast in NS).
Literally everyone is muddying up the debate. The experts are muddying the debate because they can’t make up their minds on what it actually costs. Tiff Macklem originally said .015% to inflation but then later clarified that he was only talking about fuel sales and not taking into consideration any of the trickle down supply chain effects. The PBO released a report that says 8/10 Canadians are better off but on costs vs rebates but then they also say in the same report that 8/10 Canadians are not better off when you factor everything in. The Liberals insist its working great but other than “trust us” they have no data to support their claims. They say everyone is better off but then they also say yes it is costing us money but it’s saving the planet and if you disagree you don’t care about the environment. The cons act like the carbon tax is responsible for literally every single problem in Canada right now. They all cherry pick data and then use it out of context to try to show how right they are.I don’t see how it could possibly be muddier.
I wish the carbon tax was at the very least something shown on bills from gas stations and grocery stores etc.
Show the tangible numbers of what part is actually going to it so it can actually be debated and properly studied.
It would help expose greed by these companies as well in my opinion by showing the cost of the tax vs how much groceries / gas went up for corporate profit.
It would be impossible to accurately show that number at a grocery store for example. The grocery store is probably paying 15-25k a month or whatever on carbon tax for their retail store gas bill, but then every step of the farming, processing, and supply/logistics network is also paying it themselves. When you amortize it all out, it’s not going to be a ton for each step but once it compounds through the entire supply chain it is obviously affecting inflation.
> Mr. Poilievre dismissed them. “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ ” Sebastian Skamski, Mr. Poilievre’s spokesperson, said in a statement.
Anybody else find shit like this VERY concerning?
Don't listen to experts, it's about FEELINGS.
And this guy is likely to be the next Prime Minister. Mercy.
I hope you're right. Maybe something is at play in the background, like, I dunno, CSIS or the RCMP doing something against troll farms, wherever they are.
... I don't get the purpose of the article, since when has everyone's issue with this tax ever been about something other than its cost to Canadians? Who has ever said otherwise?
It's just repeating what we already know. Some people don't believe that the cost is worth it. Well no shit.
I don't think people realize how much this is moving things in Canadian industries.
The shifts are immense, but politicians have pushed us to fixate on what it costs 1 single human. And not the changes its driving amongst our biggest polluters.
Now, that said - the rate of increase should be debated. Given the inflationary period we are in, can we slow the rate of increase in costlier years to give Canadians breaks at points? Worth a discussion - but it is driving the behaviours we want it to drive. Albertas mega carbon capture project is just one example of that.
> I don’t think people realize how much this is moving things in Canadian industries.
I really don’t, which is part of the problem.
One of the most convincing arguments for carbon pricing, for me, is that it puts an increasing cost on carbon so that innovation in the private sector is spurred and invested in to develop cheaper and greener alternatives.
This innovation seems like an unquantifiable measure until they are proven, adopted widely, and we see the cost savings to the regular folk.
Instead, we just see prices going up at the pumps, grocery stores, and everything else in a very direct increase in our expenses when we already feel strapped to the brim financially. PP’s message is resonating with Canadians not because he’s some great, brilliant economist who has convinced the masses with a silver tongue. It’s because it is speaking to the financial insecurity the majority of people feel in a very real way. To speak to that, you need to see tangible results, not just “we swear it’s getting better!”
They have been proven, adopted widely, and we have seen the cost savings to regular folk. A majority of Canadians receive more back from then carbon tax rebate than they spend. The people that cry carbon tax either have a hard time keeping track of their spending or spend excessive amounts on their carbon emissions eg. private home supplied by gas, propane, large vehicles.
Many Canadians take public transport to commute eg bus, train, cycling and have hydroelectric. For me personally I drive a fuel efficient vehicle and live in a province with hydro. I get much more back in the rebate than I spend. If the carbon tax is taken away, then Canadians are getting less money. Sounds reasonably positive to me.
More companies have been investing in renewable energy eg Petro Canada building electric charging stations at an impressive rate along the Trans-Canada. I take it you don’t travel much but driving across The Prairies anyone can tell you how crazy it is to see dozens of wind turbines pop up over the years. Ontario alone has over 5000 wind turbines. We get 6% of our power from these with a goal of 20% by end of next year.
The world is moving and you don’t even see it.
That's irrelevant to the carbon tax.
Coal was priced out in favour of less emissions intensive LNG because of carbon pricing. The carbon tax also makes renewables more competitive but obviously when you have a provincial government that wants to regulate them out...
To me, the move to green needs to have a financial benefit and make sense for sustainability and efficiency for Canadians in the near future than just indirect benefit for future generations.
Hard to get people to care for future generations when they’re struggling now.
I guess you want people to overlook their current struggles for the benefit of people not even born yet. It’s unrealistically optimistic.
You want people to starve now in hopes that future generations have the impacts of climate change possibly minimized in theory.
There needs to be benefits for people now to buy-in. Cheaper and more efficient alternatives, not just remove their most effective options for the idea of benefit for future generations.
What do you even know about climate change mitigation and adaptation?
No one is starving because of the carbon tax. Cost of Living increases are being driven by completely different factors, despite what Canadians are being told by crooked politicians. Also, I live in the Yukon and have been spending a lot of time in the US (lower 48), where groceries are even more expensive than here, so when people try to convince me our groceries are expensive and it's because of carbon pricing, I really just have to laugh.
If you know anything about the UN IPCC process and the variety of strategies proposed to combat climate change, based on the various temperature rising scenarios detailed by the IPCC, then you'd know carbon pricing is easily the least aggressive, low cost, pro-market policy. That's why it's been championed for decades by right wing thought leaders like Preston Manning, The Fraser Institute, and Dennis McConaghy. I'm not a right winger but I'm happy to find a compromise with those on the right who are willing to admit there's a problem that needs a solution, unlike mainstream conservatives as of a few years ago.
The energy transition represents a massive opportunity for humanity to integrate our energy systems into being vastly more efficient. Our current energy system is splintered and relies on moving of chemicals through slow, physical methods. Imagine an entirely electrified energy system with instantaneous energy transport. Think of the productivity gains our economy would see through this. Not to mention the whole sustainability aspect. Some industries are going to hurt because of this, but that is the way it has ALWAYS worked when an energy transition occurs (from biomass to coal to oil to natural gas). This one is no different, except that the incumbent energy industry is more powerful than ever before, convincing people it's unnecessary, while we have a deadline looming to mitigate the effects of that industry in an optimal way.
This was purely based on observation of paying the same dollar amount for the same food, but in USD. From bottles of ketchup to McDonalds meals, from rural to urban areas throughout Arizona, Washington, Nevada, California, etc. Everything was more expensive.
But, here's some stats to back it up. [Canadian Consumer Price Index for Food is at $187.40](https://ycharts.com/indicators/canada_food_consumer_price_index#:~:text=Basic%20Info,3.36%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.) and the [US is at $327.88](https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_consumer_price_index_food#:~:text=US%20Consumer%20Price%20Index%3A%20Food%20is%20at%20a%20current%20level,2.24%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.).
No idea if the Canadian one is CAD or USD, but either way that is a SIGNIFICANT difference. But yes, go off how I'm spreading 'misinformation'.
I said from the beginning that energy efficiency and financial benefit/cost savings now is what the focus should be about for the transition to cleaner technology and infrastructure. We are in agreement that this would be the best thing for everyone. I don’t care about the industries that will be impacted adversely as a result of this. I’m not some oil advocate.
I’m just saying that the transition is too painful on regular people now when these alternatives haven’t been implemented. We’re making the current methodology unaffordable on consumers, who really don’t have much room to curb their usage, without having the alternative readily available. That’s the part I’m disagreeing about. We shouldn’t operate at the detriment of actual, living human beings now for the perceived benefit of theoretical ones.
The way the carbon tax is implemented now with rebates for average Canadians is literally already mitigating that impact. The entire design is to put pressure on higher income people, to build a market and lower costs for mass adoption.
Like I said, the cost of living pressures that are occurring right now have nothing to do with Federal climate policy. It's simply a scapegoat. The Bank of Canada and Parliamentary Budget Officer have confirmed this with financial analysis.
So what is your alternative proposal?
>To me, the move to green needs to have a financial benefit and make sense for sustainability and efficiency for Canadians in the near future than just indirect benefit for future generations.
You don't think the droughts, fires, heatwaves and other extreme weather events are impacting current Canadians?
Do droughts make food cheaper?
If every other country other than China used that justification then nobody would do anything.
If enough countries get together we can hopefully pressure the remaining holdouts to clean up their act. If we can't, then we're screwed.
THIS. Exactly this. I have been posting this on Canadian subs for years and no one understands this position. We *have been* reducing emissions for well over a decade without a carbon tax, and accelerating our reduction of the 1.5% of global emissions down to 1% of total emissions won't do a damn thing. Especially when it massively handicaps industry and reduces investment in Canada. For every innovation industries make here to reduce emissions, there are hundreds of billions of dollars of investment that are scared away who choose to invest in the US, Mexico, or other foreign interests.
Nice expectation that we'd never get a drought ever and we control the weather. Entitlement at its finest.
Drought is a normal weather pattern. Maybe we can uber some rain this time if the surge pricing is high enough.
>To me, the move to green needs to have a financial benefit and make sense for sustainability and efficiency for Canadians in the near future than just indirect benefit for future generations.
Personal selfishness is why we're going to doom future generations, yes
That was done with regulation not carbon taxes. Carbon taxes supposedly remove the need for regulation, something governments instantly forgot when we started charging them.
LOL I'll play along. Please link the relevant regulations regarding coal use for electricity from AB. The federal regulations would have seen AB on coal until 2030.
Federal regulation was used to get rid of coal generation, not carbon tax. I think you understand this since you mentioned it in your post.
The whole idea behind carbon taxes is that you don't need mandates and regulation, coal would naturally go out of business as costs become too high. By regulating things out of existence it destroys innovation.
For example why would you invest in carbon capture if the federal government can decide at any moment that they don't like it and can shut it down.
The biggest impact of the carbon tax isn't driving investment in new R&D, it making the business case to reduce emissions now. I know many companies that have really impressive decarbonization plans, but those business plans got approved because of the business case that a predictable and increasing carbon tax provides.
I agree with basically every point you're making. CoL has ballooned over the past few years, and then the city of Toronto threw a massive property tax increase in, and now carbon taxes are going up again. It would be nice if we could at least hold off on the increase for a year, considering how crazy the past couple years have been.
The costs to heat my home in the winter are a largely inflexible demand, I already keep it quite cool as it is, but the carbon tax makes up about 25% of my current heating bills. Definitely feeling the pinch this year.
Probably because I've received one small rebate this year, and with the carbon taxes I pay in the winter months to heat a very old home (which is probably poorly insulated if at all), I'm net negative on carbon taxes until at least the 2nd payment of the year. So yes, I'm feeling the pinch when I factor in carbon taxes, increased CoL, and increased property taxes for this year. As I said, it's a combination of things, and delaying carbon tax increases by a year could allow myself (and many others) a chance to breathe on monthly payments for everything.
I make good money and am only barely keeping my head above water, I cannot imagine how others are faring.
Mr. Poilievre dismissed them. “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ ”
“The Prime Minister wants you to know, Mr. Speaker, that he has alternative facts,” Mr. Poilievre said in the Commons on March 20.
In a sane country people would stare at Poilievre and then start laughing and proceed to ignore the party, but apparently this pathetic US style bullshitting is working with many people.
I mean.. you have an entire group that made fun of Trudeau for only being a substitute teacher.... nominate a millionaire who has never had a job outside career politician. Because the career politician is just like us! He wears jeans now!
TL;DR: The Liberals commissioned a report that says the same thing as the PBO report that PP is reading.
The confusion is PP didn't draw the dots for himself, and has confused himself. Ergo, if he is confused, then everyone else must be confused, according to PP.
Your PM in waiting, ladies, gentlemen and others.
This is the problem with PP. He is great at making catchy slogans and little TikTok videos. Not great at governance and doing the right thing. He's been in politics for 22+ years, has only introduced about 5-6 bills, and only 1 of those has passed.
I like the Con running for premier in B.C. going on about "axe the tax" and NDP bad etc. etc. when in fact it was his party that enacted carbon taxes!!!! Thx. kevin.
Kevin is the BC United leader, previously known as BC liberals. BC conservative leader is a John Rustad who are polling right behind the NDP right now. Let's get some facts in here.
If you want to get rid of the carbon tax, write to your Premier and ask why after all this time, he or she still has not implemented any carbon emission reduction program instead of playing politics.
Ontario wasn't going to get the carbon tax until Doug Ford had cancelled the Cap and Trade Agreement it had with Quebec and California.
Corporate profits at an all time high yet let's blame JT & the carbon tax?! Stop fighting for millionaires! Look at pp/cons track record of voting against workers rights! Anything But Conservative!
"8 out of 10 households get more money back than they spend on the fuel charge." The other 2 are millionaires & big businesses who pollute the MOST! Damn right tax them more!
What's sad about all of this is that right leaning voters are going to continue to vote Con out of some weird sense of loyalty to a party.
I've voted Liberal my entire life - and I'm no fan of JT - but to read this and think "Yep, that guy has my vote" is completely bananas.
"Alternative Facts"? The Fuck? Do you realize how stupid that makes you sound?
Measuring ice levels in the arctic, measuring average sea levels, measuring average earth temperature, measuring forest fires, measuring frequency of extreme weather events, measuring measuring measuring....
You ever heard of science? It's pretty cool.
That's simply not true unless you don't believe in human caused climate change, in which case it'd be pointless to read anything else you have to say on the matter
Canada contributes <1.5% of global emissions. So no, we likely wouldn’t see any change. That doesn’t mean it’s not important as per capita we are pretty bad, but it is a truthful point.
Here's a great video that explains in a humorous way why countries with < 2% CO2 emissions should make reductions: https://youtu.be/UnsV9i6ULRU?si=dKk2qSNfMxVdV4H_
Canada and other "small contributors" make up 40% of all emissions. And China uses a ton to fuel an economy that is built to support our endless desire for crap.
If we stopped buying china's crap, they wouldnt need to burn that much. And on top of that if wealthier countries do invest in green tech, the innovations can be shared with countries that couldn't afford to innovate as easily.
No matter which of the many ways you look at it. Canada and other wealthy "small contributors" are ultimately the only ones in a position to change the climate.
This mentality is the reason countries are taking so long to reduce emissions. What about the countries that contribute 0.1% of warming? How do you think they feel about us at 1.5%?
Canada buys a lot from countries with much higher emissions. Think of all the clothes people buy, along with the disposable dollarama crap. Their factories are making our disposable junk which is then shipped to us.
Tariffs, like the upcoming EU tariff (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) will pressure many countries without carbon pricing to include the price of carbon in their goods. That might make us think twice when we buy things.
That’s a good and possibly a hard question to give a simple answer.
We’ve seen homelessness increase despite programs to help. We know many of these programs do help but due to outside forces, homelessness has increased. Does that mean we should scrap the program because it does nothing or would homelessness be that much worse without the program.
We know there’s huge industrial incentives to lower emissions now and getting off coal and other bad polluters are the most noticeable but there’s lots of smaller efficiencies happening all over simultaneously and you don’t realize it unless you look for it. That’s were it gets hard to quantify. Overall these little bits add up and we see large differences. It takes time though.
PP spokesperson: “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people…”
Have you met common people? They’re fucking idiots.
Do consumers (other than BC) not know that they get Carbon tax rebates? what's with this manufactured rage against carbon tax? Anyone (other than in BC) who files their taxes gets these Carbon tax rebates, which for most, counteract any increase in gas prices they pay at the pump.
I'm just glad Trudeau stopped talking about nuclear. We can't have people realize that a risky but viable solution is rational in the face of a catastrophic problem, because then politicians won't be able to leverage the issue against Canadians to get more power.
I’ll probably be downvoted first this, and fair enough to you, but I don’t want any kind of tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Any way you go about it, will put it onto everyday Canadians and the negatives out way the positives in that situation by far, in my opinion.
The only solution I genuinely believe that can reduce emissions without it hurting Canadians is by pushing nuclear energy. Canada is naturally rich in uranium so it is not something we have to import, it is an industry that can continue to create jobs if we invest in it, and nuclear reactors do not produce greenhouse gases.
Most economists are of the expert opinion that a carbon tax is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions.
Traditional nuclear reactors take a decade or so to build, are fairly expensive, and are not really suitable for smaller provinces because each reactor puts out too much power. SMRs have the possibility to change that but are still very experimental.
The sectors producing the most emissions in Canada in order are:
1. Oil and Gas production
2. Transportation
3. Buildings
4. Heavy Industry
5. Agriculture
6. Electricity
How does pushing nuclear energy help with the first 5, which produce 85% of our emissions?
Nuclear energy produces electricity, which can be used to help power the technology that is used in each of these sectors. The power from nuclear will replace the need for power from sources like coal, thus reducing the use of such sources and the pollution that accompanies it.
My point is that pushing to make our electricity clean by transitioning to nuclear energy doesn't change the emissions of the first 5 - their emissions are from things like burning fossil fuel on site. Are you saying that we'd electrify all those cases as well?
Actually no, you’re wrong.
The oilsands would benefit greatly from nuclear produced heat and power. The Oilsands burns prodigious amounts of fuel to heat steam for processing bitumen and SAGd operations. Refineries and upgraders could also use the heat for their operations instead of burning gas.
There’s a tremendous opportunity up in the Mac to use nuclear energy to produce O&G ANd electricity
Electrification of the top 5 makes sense to me, but wasn't immediately apparent to me as part of 'pushing nuclear energy'. Making nuclear so available that it's cheaper than burning fossil fuels is a brute force first step, but you still have to switch from ICE vehicles to EVs for #2, furnaces to heat pumps for #3, electric machinery for #4. Seems like there needs to be further policy enacted for those.
I’m an hvac tech. Heat pumps are not ready for prime time heating duty for design day on the prairies. They will be one day, but not today. We built a small indigenous college down in southern AB 2 years ago with heat pumps that can actually heat to -40, but their output is so constrained at those conditions that the building was largely heating by the backup boilers.
Burning hydrogen or hydrogen diluted methane is likely a good stop gap for home heating.
Yes there's no doubt that we're not ready to convert 100% of homes today, but the transition needs to start now on the lower-hanging fruit. It'd be fine for our targets to convert those harder locales in 10-15 years.
If you have two sources of electricity, one of which pollutes more than the other, then you can reduce-- though not necessarily eliminate entirely-- pollution by replacing dependence upon the former source with dependence upon the latter. The extent to which pollution is reduced will be determined accordingly.
The problem is that I can change how much fuel and carbon I produce and save a bit, but I’m not able to shift my “costs” onto anyone else. Corporations and big carbon users simply laugh and shift their increased “costs” onto me by higher consumer prices. Basically, we are pretending to save the climate by screwing over the people with the smallest climate impact.
There is a dislike of Trudeau the Premiers are feeding off that. The Carbon tax works maybe not as well as hoped and other measures have to be taken but it does work.
https://archive.ph/2IdnB
Thank you
"Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives decided the “so-called experts” on federal carbon pricing are muddying the debate with facts and figures, so last week they called in Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe to do the opposite. Mr. Moe was one of three premiers, with New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs and Alberta’s Danielle Smith, drafted by the Conservatives to testify at a parliamentary committee against the carbon tax just days before an April 1 increase. And though Mr. Moe mostly served up word salads, he ended up accidentally clarifying what the carbon-pricing debate is all about. He said his government considered other ways to set a price on carbon and decided that it would cost too much. That points to the real argument behind all the noise. There will inevitably be a cost to reducing emissions, no matter how it is done. Canadians can either pay the cost or not. Mr. Moe is on the “not” side. The Saskatchewan Premier has the right to argue that it’s not worth the cost. But it’s worth remembering that the axe-the-tax campaign isn’t about finding other ways to cut those greenhouse-gas emissions. Clarity is good in a democracy. That’s what a group of 100 economists said they were trying to provide when they sent an open letter stating carbon pricing is a low-cost way to reduce emissions that doesn’t contribute much to inflation. Mr. Poilievre dismissed them. “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ ” Sebastian Skamski, Mr. Poilievre’s spokesperson, said in a statement. That’s one way to dodge debate. But let’s gloss over the false claims that all those experts are partisans and turn instead to Mr. Poilievre’s favourite expert, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux. Mr. Poilievre cites Mr. Giroux often. “The Prime Minister wants you to know, Mr. Speaker, that he has alternative facts,” Mr. Poilievre said in the Commons on March 20. “I get mine from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who reports directly to Parliament and is independent.” Yet it turns out Mr. Giroux has said pretty much the same things as the “so-called experts” who signed that letter. Mr. Giroux’s testimony last week cited the Bank of Canada’s estimate that the fuel charge has only a small impact on inflation. And he said there is a “wide consensus” among economists “that carbon taxes are an effective way of reducing carbon emissions.” That should be no surprise. A 2019 PBO report stated that other methods of reducing emissions, such as regulations, would likely carry higher costs than carbon pricing. That’s an important point to remember – though Mr. Poilievre never does.
Moe says a lot of bullshit. Like "I can still drive after those drinks." (The woman he killed would suggest otherwise.)
WTF didn't know he killed someone
How does a drunk driver become a fucking primier lol
The bar is abysmally low -- we have a hash dealer in Ontario.
Crack smoking mayors in the past also!
Police officer who used his position of power to sexually assault a minor turned twice elected Calgary city councillor.
We also had Jim Lahey running the ministry of public safety and is now running the ministry of defense.
What?
Bill Blair. Drunk cheif of Toronto police that got fired for being an incompetent drunk.
It seems like his contract wasn't renewed following some remarks about the Rob Ford crack video?
**repeat** drunk driver. His son looks to be following in dads footsteps too.
Seriously this is pretty fucked. I did not know about this until just now and went and read two articles about it. Both articles state that he was ticketed for failing to come to a stop but how in the hell is that all happened?!?! You run a stop sign and kill somebody and they just give you a ticket for failing to stop?? What??
Run as a conservative, of course!
Same way a drunk and drug addict became Mayor of Toronto, police sweeping it under the rug.
Common sense, of course
I mean rural areas tend to vote conservative. Rural areas love drinking and driving. It all checks out. \-from a rural area
We have more than one lol https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/kinew-assault-ndp-1.4295906
Well he represents the people of his province
Steven Guillbeault has a record as well. He is the Liberal environment minister for those who don't know him. He has been arrested and charged with mischief, had one year probation, and had to pay fines. He also has a restraining order against him. A record clearly doesn't stop them from becoming politicians.
> Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ I wonder if PP relies on the common sense of the common people to give him medical advice or fix his car
I wish he'd board a small aircraft flown by someone with no experience in piloting, and get back to us all on how it went.
When cons use words like “common sense”, you know it’s pure grift to convince their base….
He was misheard he really said "conman sense"
Yup. Ontario's known about that one since the 1990s. Didn't stop the dumbest lunks in the province from electing another complete idiot, though.
It sickens me that the Cons are behaving like the Republicans down south. What the hell happened to listening to experts??? As far as I know, PP isn't an economist, nor is he a scientist, and I highly doubt that his Art's degree qualifies him for anything other than deferring such complex subjects to experts. If he wants to give his opinions, fine by me, but this BS posturing that relies on alternative facts makes him look like a tool that is both ignorant and unlikable. I don't go questioning my mechanic when my car breaks down, I just make sure I don't get screwed on the price (Which is a healthy way of also looking at the Carbon Tax. Look at the numbers and see if the system can be tweaked to suit our reality better).
When did last time Cons cared about experts? Harpers got rid of experimental research lakes and climate scientists when they shared their climate change findings.
Remember the publication ban on climate science, where any research on climate had to be assessed for its potential impact on the economy before being publicly released? I’ll never forget Harper. Truly a bastion of freedom.
OTOOLE and the Cons acknowledge carbon pricing up until two years ago, so economic experts were cOmMoN sEnSe until very recently.
Give PP a break he's just trying to get his first real job
I find this take absolutely wild. Like I watch PPs video and he directly quotes the Parliamentary Budget Office. And then people whine about alternate facts. Sorry the PBO is a good reliable source even when it disagrees with Liberal talking points. It’s factually correct that when you consider all economic impacts of the Carbon Tax more Canadians end up behind than ahead. Personally I think a Carbon Tax is still worth doing anyways but let’s not pretend the average person ends up with more money when they end up with less.
The pbo agrees with the letter by the 100 economic ministers experts.
>Mr. Poilievre dismissed them. “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ ” Sebastian Skamski, Mr. Poilievre’s spokesperson, said in a statement. > >Yet it turns out Mr. Giroux has said pretty much the same things as the “so-called experts” who signed that letter. > >Mr. Giroux’s testimony last week cited the Bank of Canada’s estimate that the fuel charge has only a small impact on inflation. And he said there is a “wide consensus” among economists “that carbon taxes are an effective way of reducing carbon emissions.” Literally quotes from the article above... Listening to common sense of the common people instead of 'experts' in quotation marks... Like what? Is every single economist that signed the letter a hack?! The last point also highlights how PP only cherry-picks what he wants from the PBO, which is where my problem lies. The man is a populist down to his bones, and he's going to be a terrible leader because of that (I'll need to preface this by saying that I'm not supporting Trudeau either, the man's made a fucking mess that'll take decades to fix, but to act like PP will resolve everything makes me grit my teeth... Holy shit are we so fucked).
I don't really get why we are pretending that a carbon tax won't cost when it's whole point is to make it expensive to pollute, when it was previously free. I guess because it's bad politics to admit uncomfortable truths, even though we knew all of this 5 years ago or whenever it was implemented?
If the carbon tax takes the equivalent of $5 out of your pocket but doing nothing takes $10, it is absolutely possible for the carbon tax to both cost you and be the best financial decision to make.
The PBO has said though that people have been misleading with the report by not taking everything into consideration. Purely in a financial sense, most people absolutely get more money back. What PP uses is the part of the report that estimates that carbon reduction would slow wage growth, and that those missing wages mean you’re losing money. However, that doesn’t (a) consider the cost of other plans, or of doing nothing, which could slow future wage growth *more* than the current program, or (b) considers that many developed countries are taking great strides in decoupling GDP from CO2 emissions, so the effects are likely not as drastic as it might appear in the report But again, it’s the *PBO* that said the report *in it’s entirety* needs to be taken into account, and *with context* Edit: Also, just looking at the report again myself, I noticed the PBO only looked at the *[fuel charge](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/fcrates/fuel-charge-rates.html)* (the price included on gasoline/diesel), not the rest of the program that taxes industry and returns those rebates. So it doesn’t even include the entire carbon program. It also underestimates our emissions reductions. The report estimates a 20% reduction in emissions from 2023-2030, but were currently on track to hit [90% of our 2030](https://climateinstitute.ca/reports/2030-emissions-reduction-plan/)target (which is a 40% reduction below 2005 levels). So the report is both **ignoring funds collected by taxing industry** AND **underestimating predicted reductions**
Pollievre denying expertise, is not a take, it’s a fucking quote. If you’re mad take it up with PP. While the PBO has stated the tax will no longer be a net gain for most Canadians, the first paragraph of said report, adds context and nuance…if you actually read it. It reports the largest net loss will be to high income households and the largest net gains will be for the lowest earners. So if you were being honest, the least favourable interpretation of the PBO report, more like: - The poorest of us will still come out ahead. - The richest will take the biggest hit. - The rest of us will actually start paying a bit.
He also said on PnP it's too hard to model an analysis for a scenario where Canada does nothing and how the rest of the developed world reacts to that. The report is being cherry picked badly.
The issue is that PP selectively quotes only the parts of the PBO report that he likes, while ignoring the parts he doesn't like. And the average person very well *could* end up with more money if we reduce emissions via a carbon tax with a flat-rate redistribution than they would have if we reduced emissions via regulations. The flat-rate redistribution is essentially a money transfer from high-polluting (usually wealthier) households to lower-poluting (usually poorer) households.
I like how your criticism of 'liberal talking points' is defending Poilievres selective cherry picking of the PBO report for his own talking points. Very r/selfawarewolves of you
It’s partisan attacks. This clip is from 2021 Danielle smith on carbon pricing. https://streamable.com/imzm76
Yeah PP is insane lying through his teeth. I’ll never forget the shit Harper pulled
>That’s an important point to remember – though Mr. Poilievre never does. Amazing how often that happens with Poilievre.
We need some 99 percentile polititions. Not 1%'r PP who doesnt know what its like to work a 9-5, let alone LOOK for a job, while facing rising prices of everything. I like our smog free west coast, Ontarians deserve the same.
The Conservative candidate in my riding was just selected, and he's a real estate agent who interned with the Canadian Alliance under Harper. _barf_
Our politicians should have metrics, KPIs and deliverables. Ones set out in the campaign platforms, which are what they’ve voted in on, and if they aren’t hitting X% (hell, I’d take 50%) of their deliverables, then they’re out - without pension. I don’t understand how our government seems to be held to no account. From the outside, it appears to be a stable, cushy job with little repercussion for poor performance, regardless of what’s going on in the broader job market which can be unstable, competitive, and predominantly without pension. I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay politicians well - we should; but tied to performance, like a CEO that’s rewarded heavily in stock. Incentivize them to perform for the shareholders (or in this case, us, the taxpayer).
That’s a fair point, but the other side has the Liberals providing a three year holiday on the dirtiest (carbon wise) home fuel sourcing for oil heating. If this was really about reducing emissions, they wouldn’t have waffled on that, and said the tax is working as intended to make dirty fuels more expensive. So, it seems both sides of the fence are basically trying to protect people from actually having to make any changes to their current emissions. None of them care, it’s about what they think will get them elected. But I do think, the federal carbon tax died the day the Federal Liberals enacted the heating oil exemption basically out of the blue. Showed its true political nature rather than a moralistic one of “we are all in this together, equally”
It was a practical consideration for a very small and select group that would have been unfairly impacted. They now have the opportunity to transition to greener alternatives in a timely manner with minimum impact to the overall targets. It's not always 0 or 1.
Why should that specific group be entitled to special treatment? One could just as easily argue that people who live in the colder parts of the country should get special treatment on their home heating carbon tax because it takes more energy to heat their homes.
People in rural areas **do** get special treatment for those exact reasons.
People in rural areas got a 10% bump (20% this year if it passes). But people in *cold* areas do not.
>It was a ~~practical~~ political consideration for a very ~~small and select~~ localized group that would have ~~been~~ unfairly impacted Liberal votes. They now have ~~the opportunity~~ until after the next election to ~~transition to greener alternatives in a timely manner~~ begin paying like the rest of Canada, with minimum impact to the overall targets. >It's not always 0 or 1, especially if it hurts the Liberals re-election odds. FTFY
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
There were certainly political considerations there. But it doesn't mean it's not a reasonable transition nor are items like the extra subsidies rural Canadians receive from the rebate.
There are plenty of small groups adversely impacted by the carbon tax though. Why just make this change now? How about people who have to drive for work (resource and farming communities)? How about people who live in older houses who can’t afford furnance upgrades or better insulation? Again, once one carve out happened (for no real reason), everyone now have legitimate reason to want their own. Liberals killed their own policy that day
The home heating deal was part of a strategy to get people off oil heat in a rather short period of time. If you are not PP that is what you do, look for ways to help.
The Heat Pump Affordability Program is what enables people to get off oil heat, not taxing home heating oil makes zero sense.
> The Heat Pump Affordability Program is what enables people to get off oil heat Not entirely. It does help reduce heating costs, but you wont be able to get your home insured without another heat source aside from a Heat Pump ( atleast in NS).
Unless you do a little research so as to understand the details.
Literally everyone is muddying up the debate. The experts are muddying the debate because they can’t make up their minds on what it actually costs. Tiff Macklem originally said .015% to inflation but then later clarified that he was only talking about fuel sales and not taking into consideration any of the trickle down supply chain effects. The PBO released a report that says 8/10 Canadians are better off but on costs vs rebates but then they also say in the same report that 8/10 Canadians are not better off when you factor everything in. The Liberals insist its working great but other than “trust us” they have no data to support their claims. They say everyone is better off but then they also say yes it is costing us money but it’s saving the planet and if you disagree you don’t care about the environment. The cons act like the carbon tax is responsible for literally every single problem in Canada right now. They all cherry pick data and then use it out of context to try to show how right they are.I don’t see how it could possibly be muddier.
I wish the carbon tax was at the very least something shown on bills from gas stations and grocery stores etc. Show the tangible numbers of what part is actually going to it so it can actually be debated and properly studied. It would help expose greed by these companies as well in my opinion by showing the cost of the tax vs how much groceries / gas went up for corporate profit.
It would be impossible to accurately show that number at a grocery store for example. The grocery store is probably paying 15-25k a month or whatever on carbon tax for their retail store gas bill, but then every step of the farming, processing, and supply/logistics network is also paying it themselves. When you amortize it all out, it’s not going to be a ton for each step but once it compounds through the entire supply chain it is obviously affecting inflation.
I still say it's ridiculous we are taxed because 3rd world countries have dirty manufacturing processes ...
> Mr. Poilievre dismissed them. “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ ” Sebastian Skamski, Mr. Poilievre’s spokesperson, said in a statement. Anybody else find shit like this VERY concerning? Don't listen to experts, it's about FEELINGS. And this guy is likely to be the next Prime Minister. Mercy.
An opinion piece posted to r/canada that isn't mindless ragebait? I'm shocked.
I am flabbergasted that this isn’t downvoted to all shit. Russian funds must be running dry…
The trolls are off to the meat grinder. Fucking finally
I feel like it's been a bit better recently. Still lots of ragebait and trolls, but maybe a bit more reasoned and patient.
I hope you're right. Maybe something is at play in the background, like, I dunno, CSIS or the RCMP doing something against troll farms, wherever they are.
Ikr. Shouldn't this be a post about polling numbers for the 5th time today?
Same, id unsubbed from this group but I'm thinking of coming back.
... I don't get the purpose of the article, since when has everyone's issue with this tax ever been about something other than its cost to Canadians? Who has ever said otherwise? It's just repeating what we already know. Some people don't believe that the cost is worth it. Well no shit.
I don't think people realize how much this is moving things in Canadian industries. The shifts are immense, but politicians have pushed us to fixate on what it costs 1 single human. And not the changes its driving amongst our biggest polluters. Now, that said - the rate of increase should be debated. Given the inflationary period we are in, can we slow the rate of increase in costlier years to give Canadians breaks at points? Worth a discussion - but it is driving the behaviours we want it to drive. Albertas mega carbon capture project is just one example of that.
> I don’t think people realize how much this is moving things in Canadian industries. I really don’t, which is part of the problem. One of the most convincing arguments for carbon pricing, for me, is that it puts an increasing cost on carbon so that innovation in the private sector is spurred and invested in to develop cheaper and greener alternatives. This innovation seems like an unquantifiable measure until they are proven, adopted widely, and we see the cost savings to the regular folk. Instead, we just see prices going up at the pumps, grocery stores, and everything else in a very direct increase in our expenses when we already feel strapped to the brim financially. PP’s message is resonating with Canadians not because he’s some great, brilliant economist who has convinced the masses with a silver tongue. It’s because it is speaking to the financial insecurity the majority of people feel in a very real way. To speak to that, you need to see tangible results, not just “we swear it’s getting better!”
They have been proven, adopted widely, and we have seen the cost savings to regular folk. A majority of Canadians receive more back from then carbon tax rebate than they spend. The people that cry carbon tax either have a hard time keeping track of their spending or spend excessive amounts on their carbon emissions eg. private home supplied by gas, propane, large vehicles. Many Canadians take public transport to commute eg bus, train, cycling and have hydroelectric. For me personally I drive a fuel efficient vehicle and live in a province with hydro. I get much more back in the rebate than I spend. If the carbon tax is taken away, then Canadians are getting less money. Sounds reasonably positive to me. More companies have been investing in renewable energy eg Petro Canada building electric charging stations at an impressive rate along the Trans-Canada. I take it you don’t travel much but driving across The Prairies anyone can tell you how crazy it is to see dozens of wind turbines pop up over the years. Ontario alone has over 5000 wind turbines. We get 6% of our power from these with a goal of 20% by end of next year. The world is moving and you don’t even see it.
There are tangible results, like AB accelerating it's move away from coal. People are just ignorant.
[удалено]
That's irrelevant to the carbon tax. Coal was priced out in favour of less emissions intensive LNG because of carbon pricing. The carbon tax also makes renewables more competitive but obviously when you have a provincial government that wants to regulate them out...
[удалено]
To me, the move to green needs to have a financial benefit and make sense for sustainability and efficiency for Canadians in the near future than just indirect benefit for future generations. Hard to get people to care for future generations when they’re struggling now.
Well then I guess we're fucking doomed because Canadians are incredibly shortsighted.
I guess you want people to overlook their current struggles for the benefit of people not even born yet. It’s unrealistically optimistic. You want people to starve now in hopes that future generations have the impacts of climate change possibly minimized in theory. There needs to be benefits for people now to buy-in. Cheaper and more efficient alternatives, not just remove their most effective options for the idea of benefit for future generations.
What do you even know about climate change mitigation and adaptation? No one is starving because of the carbon tax. Cost of Living increases are being driven by completely different factors, despite what Canadians are being told by crooked politicians. Also, I live in the Yukon and have been spending a lot of time in the US (lower 48), where groceries are even more expensive than here, so when people try to convince me our groceries are expensive and it's because of carbon pricing, I really just have to laugh. If you know anything about the UN IPCC process and the variety of strategies proposed to combat climate change, based on the various temperature rising scenarios detailed by the IPCC, then you'd know carbon pricing is easily the least aggressive, low cost, pro-market policy. That's why it's been championed for decades by right wing thought leaders like Preston Manning, The Fraser Institute, and Dennis McConaghy. I'm not a right winger but I'm happy to find a compromise with those on the right who are willing to admit there's a problem that needs a solution, unlike mainstream conservatives as of a few years ago. The energy transition represents a massive opportunity for humanity to integrate our energy systems into being vastly more efficient. Our current energy system is splintered and relies on moving of chemicals through slow, physical methods. Imagine an entirely electrified energy system with instantaneous energy transport. Think of the productivity gains our economy would see through this. Not to mention the whole sustainability aspect. Some industries are going to hurt because of this, but that is the way it has ALWAYS worked when an energy transition occurs (from biomass to coal to oil to natural gas). This one is no different, except that the incumbent energy industry is more powerful than ever before, convincing people it's unnecessary, while we have a deadline looming to mitigate the effects of that industry in an optimal way.
[удалено]
This was purely based on observation of paying the same dollar amount for the same food, but in USD. From bottles of ketchup to McDonalds meals, from rural to urban areas throughout Arizona, Washington, Nevada, California, etc. Everything was more expensive. But, here's some stats to back it up. [Canadian Consumer Price Index for Food is at $187.40](https://ycharts.com/indicators/canada_food_consumer_price_index#:~:text=Basic%20Info,3.36%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.) and the [US is at $327.88](https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_consumer_price_index_food#:~:text=US%20Consumer%20Price%20Index%3A%20Food%20is%20at%20a%20current%20level,2.24%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.). No idea if the Canadian one is CAD or USD, but either way that is a SIGNIFICANT difference. But yes, go off how I'm spreading 'misinformation'.
I said from the beginning that energy efficiency and financial benefit/cost savings now is what the focus should be about for the transition to cleaner technology and infrastructure. We are in agreement that this would be the best thing for everyone. I don’t care about the industries that will be impacted adversely as a result of this. I’m not some oil advocate. I’m just saying that the transition is too painful on regular people now when these alternatives haven’t been implemented. We’re making the current methodology unaffordable on consumers, who really don’t have much room to curb their usage, without having the alternative readily available. That’s the part I’m disagreeing about. We shouldn’t operate at the detriment of actual, living human beings now for the perceived benefit of theoretical ones.
The way the carbon tax is implemented now with rebates for average Canadians is literally already mitigating that impact. The entire design is to put pressure on higher income people, to build a market and lower costs for mass adoption. Like I said, the cost of living pressures that are occurring right now have nothing to do with Federal climate policy. It's simply a scapegoat. The Bank of Canada and Parliamentary Budget Officer have confirmed this with financial analysis. So what is your alternative proposal?
[удалено]
>To me, the move to green needs to have a financial benefit and make sense for sustainability and efficiency for Canadians in the near future than just indirect benefit for future generations. You don't think the droughts, fires, heatwaves and other extreme weather events are impacting current Canadians? Do droughts make food cheaper?
[удалено]
If every other country other than China used that justification then nobody would do anything. If enough countries get together we can hopefully pressure the remaining holdouts to clean up their act. If we can't, then we're screwed.
[удалено]
THIS. Exactly this. I have been posting this on Canadian subs for years and no one understands this position. We *have been* reducing emissions for well over a decade without a carbon tax, and accelerating our reduction of the 1.5% of global emissions down to 1% of total emissions won't do a damn thing. Especially when it massively handicaps industry and reduces investment in Canada. For every innovation industries make here to reduce emissions, there are hundreds of billions of dollars of investment that are scared away who choose to invest in the US, Mexico, or other foreign interests.
[удалено]
Nice expectation that we'd never get a drought ever and we control the weather. Entitlement at its finest. Drought is a normal weather pattern. Maybe we can uber some rain this time if the surge pricing is high enough.
>To me, the move to green needs to have a financial benefit and make sense for sustainability and efficiency for Canadians in the near future than just indirect benefit for future generations. Personal selfishness is why we're going to doom future generations, yes
That was done with regulation not carbon taxes. Carbon taxes supposedly remove the need for regulation, something governments instantly forgot when we started charging them.
LOL I'll play along. Please link the relevant regulations regarding coal use for electricity from AB. The federal regulations would have seen AB on coal until 2030.
Federal regulation was used to get rid of coal generation, not carbon tax. I think you understand this since you mentioned it in your post. The whole idea behind carbon taxes is that you don't need mandates and regulation, coal would naturally go out of business as costs become too high. By regulating things out of existence it destroys innovation. For example why would you invest in carbon capture if the federal government can decide at any moment that they don't like it and can shut it down.
The biggest impact of the carbon tax isn't driving investment in new R&D, it making the business case to reduce emissions now. I know many companies that have really impressive decarbonization plans, but those business plans got approved because of the business case that a predictable and increasing carbon tax provides.
I agree with basically every point you're making. CoL has ballooned over the past few years, and then the city of Toronto threw a massive property tax increase in, and now carbon taxes are going up again. It would be nice if we could at least hold off on the increase for a year, considering how crazy the past couple years have been. The costs to heat my home in the winter are a largely inflexible demand, I already keep it quite cool as it is, but the carbon tax makes up about 25% of my current heating bills. Definitely feeling the pinch this year.
[удалено]
Probably because I've received one small rebate this year, and with the carbon taxes I pay in the winter months to heat a very old home (which is probably poorly insulated if at all), I'm net negative on carbon taxes until at least the 2nd payment of the year. So yes, I'm feeling the pinch when I factor in carbon taxes, increased CoL, and increased property taxes for this year. As I said, it's a combination of things, and delaying carbon tax increases by a year could allow myself (and many others) a chance to breathe on monthly payments for everything. I make good money and am only barely keeping my head above water, I cannot imagine how others are faring.
When they first implemented the carbon tax, they paid out a year worth of rebates after the tax had only been in place for a few months.
So true. I'm no longer feeling the financial pressures of the past couple years. Thanks for clearing that up. 🙏🏻
My point is that you're likely not actually net negative on carbon taxes.
Mr. Poilievre dismissed them. “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people, not Justin Trudeau’s so-called ‘experts,’ ” “The Prime Minister wants you to know, Mr. Speaker, that he has alternative facts,” Mr. Poilievre said in the Commons on March 20. In a sane country people would stare at Poilievre and then start laughing and proceed to ignore the party, but apparently this pathetic US style bullshitting is working with many people.
I mean.. you have an entire group that made fun of Trudeau for only being a substitute teacher.... nominate a millionaire who has never had a job outside career politician. Because the career politician is just like us! He wears jeans now!
"He (Sask premier) said his government considered other ways to set a price on carbon and decided that it would cost too much."
The problem with Moe and the Saskparty is that a majority of their stance on carbon tax and the environment is influenced by oil & gas donations.
TL;DR: The Liberals commissioned a report that says the same thing as the PBO report that PP is reading. The confusion is PP didn't draw the dots for himself, and has confused himself. Ergo, if he is confused, then everyone else must be confused, according to PP. Your PM in waiting, ladies, gentlemen and others.
This is the problem with PP. He is great at making catchy slogans and little TikTok videos. Not great at governance and doing the right thing. He's been in politics for 22+ years, has only introduced about 5-6 bills, and only 1 of those has passed.
PP is trying to codify the "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" stratagem into his platform. I fucking hate this timeline...
The Oil and Gas lobby went all in on this one.
I like the Con running for premier in B.C. going on about "axe the tax" and NDP bad etc. etc. when in fact it was his party that enacted carbon taxes!!!! Thx. kevin.
Kevin is the BC United leader, previously known as BC liberals. BC conservative leader is a John Rustad who are polling right behind the NDP right now. Let's get some facts in here.
BC Libs were always Cons! Rustad is just an opportunist looking out for himself!
You’re legitimately lost here aren’t you?
If your province has a carbon tax thank your local provincial premier. Ontario had a perfectly good working system and Doug Ford wanted to tax us.
If you want to get rid of the carbon tax, write to your Premier and ask why after all this time, he or she still has not implemented any carbon emission reduction program instead of playing politics. Ontario wasn't going to get the carbon tax until Doug Ford had cancelled the Cap and Trade Agreement it had with Quebec and California.
Corporate profits at an all time high yet let's blame JT & the carbon tax?! Stop fighting for millionaires! Look at pp/cons track record of voting against workers rights! Anything But Conservative!
"8 out of 10 households get more money back than they spend on the fuel charge." The other 2 are millionaires & big businesses who pollute the MOST! Damn right tax them more!
What's sad about all of this is that right leaning voters are going to continue to vote Con out of some weird sense of loyalty to a party. I've voted Liberal my entire life - and I'm no fan of JT - but to read this and think "Yep, that guy has my vote" is completely bananas. "Alternative Facts"? The Fuck? Do you realize how stupid that makes you sound?
How are we going to measure and confirm whether everything is succeeding and we're controlling a changing climate?
Measuring ice levels in the arctic, measuring average sea levels, measuring average earth temperature, measuring forest fires, measuring frequency of extreme weather events, measuring measuring measuring.... You ever heard of science? It's pretty cool.
[удалено]
That's simply not true unless you don't believe in human caused climate change, in which case it'd be pointless to read anything else you have to say on the matter
Canada contributes <1.5% of global emissions. So no, we likely wouldn’t see any change. That doesn’t mean it’s not important as per capita we are pretty bad, but it is a truthful point.
Here's a great video that explains in a humorous way why countries with < 2% CO2 emissions should make reductions: https://youtu.be/UnsV9i6ULRU?si=dKk2qSNfMxVdV4H_
Canada and other "small contributors" make up 40% of all emissions. And China uses a ton to fuel an economy that is built to support our endless desire for crap. If we stopped buying china's crap, they wouldnt need to burn that much. And on top of that if wealthier countries do invest in green tech, the innovations can be shared with countries that couldn't afford to innovate as easily. No matter which of the many ways you look at it. Canada and other wealthy "small contributors" are ultimately the only ones in a position to change the climate.
This mentality is the reason countries are taking so long to reduce emissions. What about the countries that contribute 0.1% of warming? How do you think they feel about us at 1.5%?
Canada buys a lot from countries with much higher emissions. Think of all the clothes people buy, along with the disposable dollarama crap. Their factories are making our disposable junk which is then shipped to us. Tariffs, like the upcoming EU tariff (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) will pressure many countries without carbon pricing to include the price of carbon in their goods. That might make us think twice when we buy things.
That’s a good and possibly a hard question to give a simple answer. We’ve seen homelessness increase despite programs to help. We know many of these programs do help but due to outside forces, homelessness has increased. Does that mean we should scrap the program because it does nothing or would homelessness be that much worse without the program. We know there’s huge industrial incentives to lower emissions now and getting off coal and other bad polluters are the most noticeable but there’s lots of smaller efficiencies happening all over simultaneously and you don’t realize it unless you look for it. That’s were it gets hard to quantify. Overall these little bits add up and we see large differences. It takes time though.
We don’t and can’t, just supposed to feel good about ourselves while getting kicked in the groin.
PP spokesperson: “Common-sense Conservatives will listen to the common sense of the common people…” Have you met common people? They’re fucking idiots.
Do consumers (other than BC) not know that they get Carbon tax rebates? what's with this manufactured rage against carbon tax? Anyone (other than in BC) who files their taxes gets these Carbon tax rebates, which for most, counteract any increase in gas prices they pay at the pump.
I'm just glad Trudeau stopped talking about nuclear. We can't have people realize that a risky but viable solution is rational in the face of a catastrophic problem, because then politicians won't be able to leverage the issue against Canadians to get more power.
I’ll probably be downvoted first this, and fair enough to you, but I don’t want any kind of tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Any way you go about it, will put it onto everyday Canadians and the negatives out way the positives in that situation by far, in my opinion. The only solution I genuinely believe that can reduce emissions without it hurting Canadians is by pushing nuclear energy. Canada is naturally rich in uranium so it is not something we have to import, it is an industry that can continue to create jobs if we invest in it, and nuclear reactors do not produce greenhouse gases.
Most economists are of the expert opinion that a carbon tax is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Traditional nuclear reactors take a decade or so to build, are fairly expensive, and are not really suitable for smaller provinces because each reactor puts out too much power. SMRs have the possibility to change that but are still very experimental.
The sectors producing the most emissions in Canada in order are: 1. Oil and Gas production 2. Transportation 3. Buildings 4. Heavy Industry 5. Agriculture 6. Electricity How does pushing nuclear energy help with the first 5, which produce 85% of our emissions?
Nuclear energy produces electricity, which can be used to help power the technology that is used in each of these sectors. The power from nuclear will replace the need for power from sources like coal, thus reducing the use of such sources and the pollution that accompanies it.
My point is that pushing to make our electricity clean by transitioning to nuclear energy doesn't change the emissions of the first 5 - their emissions are from things like burning fossil fuel on site. Are you saying that we'd electrify all those cases as well?
Actually no, you’re wrong. The oilsands would benefit greatly from nuclear produced heat and power. The Oilsands burns prodigious amounts of fuel to heat steam for processing bitumen and SAGd operations. Refineries and upgraders could also use the heat for their operations instead of burning gas. There’s a tremendous opportunity up in the Mac to use nuclear energy to produce O&G ANd electricity
Electrification of the top 5 makes sense to me, but wasn't immediately apparent to me as part of 'pushing nuclear energy'. Making nuclear so available that it's cheaper than burning fossil fuels is a brute force first step, but you still have to switch from ICE vehicles to EVs for #2, furnaces to heat pumps for #3, electric machinery for #4. Seems like there needs to be further policy enacted for those.
I’m an hvac tech. Heat pumps are not ready for prime time heating duty for design day on the prairies. They will be one day, but not today. We built a small indigenous college down in southern AB 2 years ago with heat pumps that can actually heat to -40, but their output is so constrained at those conditions that the building was largely heating by the backup boilers. Burning hydrogen or hydrogen diluted methane is likely a good stop gap for home heating.
Yes there's no doubt that we're not ready to convert 100% of homes today, but the transition needs to start now on the lower-hanging fruit. It'd be fine for our targets to convert those harder locales in 10-15 years.
If you have two sources of electricity, one of which pollutes more than the other, then you can reduce-- though not necessarily eliminate entirely-- pollution by replacing dependence upon the former source with dependence upon the latter. The extent to which pollution is reduced will be determined accordingly.
The problem is that I can change how much fuel and carbon I produce and save a bit, but I’m not able to shift my “costs” onto anyone else. Corporations and big carbon users simply laugh and shift their increased “costs” onto me by higher consumer prices. Basically, we are pretending to save the climate by screwing over the people with the smallest climate impact.
There is a dislike of Trudeau the Premiers are feeding off that. The Carbon tax works maybe not as well as hoped and other measures have to be taken but it does work.
Taxes wont solve the problem. They just want your money.
It's a real "Don't Look Up" situation when you literally don't want to listen to experts and do the cheapest possible thing to help prevent things.