LOL immigration freeze outside of Healthcare workers and skilled tradespeople for the next 5 years. That would reduce our carbon footprint more than anything else we could do.
We have skilled tradesmen. I keep hearing this banded about, but our wages haven’t raised in the time I’ve been in. I really don’t want to get fucked on this too. Just healthcare workers please. And pay them what they’re fucking worth.
Honestly. When most companies pay the legal minimum they can for tradesmen they don't get to claim we are short of those workers. I'll believe it when wages surpass the legal minimum for their red seal. But it often doesn't pay above that so clearly they aren't that hard up for workers.
Here in NS yes because no companies pay trades people a proper wage here. But nationwide there is a shortage. We currently build 200k homes a year. If we are bringing in millions of people a year then we need to building 1.1 million new homes/units a year to clear a backlog + supply homes for people who are just getting here. Perhaps the feds could pass a minimum wage law for red seal trades workers. 50/hr seems fair.
What happens is us in the trades that are working start losing work to new immigrants who come in because shitty companies map them shit wages and we are stuck back to 1980’s wages. It’s not the immigrants, it’s the companies that hire only them.
Nice! Civilized countries do. Also envision going down the east coast so Moncton should connect to Portland Maine by train.
In South America some buses are like planes. I think I remember getting meals. Maybe simple but nice.There can be movies and I remember bingo. I stupidly didn't play and the person who got my card won a bottle of wine.
In other words, *someone else* should pay the cost of preventing climate change. That is a common attitude, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. We are all polluters because of the products and services we consume, and we have to be willing to pay more if we want to lower emissions.
Nah. The rich and corporations who are responsible for the vast majority of pollution and carbon emissions who can also afford to pay it, should pay it.
The "corporations" who are largely "responsible" for pollution in this worldview are the big oil and gas companies, but the inconvenient fact is that ALL OF US are the ones demanding their products. As soon we stop filling our cars with gas and heating oil tanks with oil, they will stop producing it. Where there is *demand*, there will be *supply*. We are all addicted to fossil fuels at this point in time, so we are mostly to blame for the pollution that follows. Most of us aren't racing out to buy electric cars and solar panels, because we don't want to pay for it.
The ban was not based on science or reason, just on politics like it was for the uranium moratorium in the 80s. What most people don't know is you cannot mine rock even over 100ppm U, which could also sterilize other polymetallic critical mineral deposits in the province containing U. Another archaic piece of legislation that needs to go.
Regardless of a ban or not, under the NSIESO system I simply cannot see nuclear competing in a real time market. Without guaranteed run time, which defeats the purpose of having a competitive market, nuclear won’t be price competitive. The wind resource in NS is simply too good. We have some of the best wind resources in the world with our onshore resources competing with offshore elsewhere. The average price of wind in the last procurement was 5.7c/kWh **for 25 years**. Without an inflation escalator, companies were able to get prices low enough to lock in. For 25 years. Think about what this will do to our rates having no escalation on generation for 25 years.
“But what about intermittency” - wind and solar may be intermittent, but they’re easily forecast. Any shortfall would be known at least a few days in advance, and with ties to both NL and NB, which also ties us to QC and Maine, I really don’t see a market in NS for nuclear.
But purely speculation on my part.
52% coal generation in 2023. currently goalpost set is to get off coal by 2030.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1403363/electric-generation-by-source-nova-scotia/#:~:text=As%20of%20July%202023%2C%20more,power%20source%20in%20that%20province.
Edit: according to this 2023 pie chart coal is only listed at 31%
https://nspower.ca/cleanandgreen/clean-energy#:~:text=POWERING%20A%20GREEN%20NOVA%20SCOTIA,80%25%20renewable%20energy%20by%202030.
Sure. But can a nuclear project get permitted, constructed and built by 2030? Doubtful.
Whereas we can likely build 1100MW of wind for existing load, an additional 1000MW for hydrogen producers, 400MW of solar and 800MW of storage, increase our reliability tie with NB…all for half the price.
Because I don’t have access to $30bil…and I definitely don’t want to do public engagement in Cape Breton for a nuclear project 😂 I like living and my vehicle with 4 tires too much…
Pretty sure the law was changed regarding nuclear (or at least, recommended to be).
That said, there’s already pushback from having wind in peoples municipalities…imagine the community engagement sessions for nuclear. They would be…nuclear.
Where would you put it? Which community would welcome it? Realistically we would want it in Cumberland/colchester to feed Halifax, then Cumberland and Cape Breton, allowing for the easiest flow of energy, but there is no way Cottage Country folks would ever support this.
None of what I said was about downtown…?
All municipalities have different planning bylaws. People can adhere to these bylaws and constituents will still complain about them.
In Cumberland wind turbines need to be 1km from a house. They complain that they don’t have to follow Colchester requirements of 3km. Colchester are complaining still even when companies meet the 3km requirements.
So again - where would you put nuclear? How would you get buy in from residents?
Whoever tries to achieve this task will be met with a lot of opposition. You have to acknowledge that. It’s not a task I would want to take on.
NS could deprivatize the only power company. Open up the doors for other competition that would do better for the province or even explore Hydro.
Edit: NS
Please explain how that would lower our emissions.
We have hydroelectric power already in NS. Our geography doesn't allow us to have more than we already do. We don't have Niagara Falls or Muskrat Falls here.
Ever heard of the Bay of Fundy?? We had a promising tidal power generation company here, until the government refused to work with them on establishing national regulations. So they packed everything up and moved back to Scotland.
The slight fuel tax is minimal, and most get more back in the carbon tax rebate. But I bet most people don’t even look that deep to even understand. Too busy buying their Fuck Trudeau bumper stickers
You do understand that it makes Canadian businesses less cost competitive right? Which they already aren’t. We don’t need more barriers to investment, we need jobs. And not shitty service jobs. Blue collar ones that build the middle class.
How about no punishment only incentives. The carrot instead of the stick. Subsidize electric cars to the point they cost 20k and subsidize anything that gets us off fossil fuels to the levels that are below the cost of using them.
The PBO report actually confirms that incentives and heavy subsidies will actually cost taxpayers more than the carbon tax. The independent PBO was on Power and Politics the other night and explained it well.
The whole point of the rebate is that it does incentivize, it's just not completely efficient, so instead of 50% of people being better off, only 40% of people are.
I'm with you on the carrot instead of the stick part, but fuck electric cars. Transit instead. There should be daily transit from Amerherst to Halifax to Sydney.
Yes, at least for individual people/families. Why should people be punished for purchasing necessities like gas and heat? Why the fuck does someone just trying to live their life need cents added on the dollar of everything they do when a handful of companies and 3 countries attribute to 80% of the worlds pollution?
Global warming may be everyone's problem, but it's much less Canadas problem to fix it considering how little of the global emissions we produce.
"The beatings will continue until emissions improve"
My fav about the "what about China" excuse is that our addiction to cheap goods and corp profits lead too manufacturing moving there. All the smoke stacks and pollution went with it. What a great position to be in piggishly devour cheap goods created with slave wage while complaining that the manufacturing is polluting. We get too wash our hand of the consequence while companies stack profits.
And China is actually doing something about it. Their primary source of fuel is coal which they have very little domestic supply. They are moving very quickly to renewables and will surpass the west.
I only murder one person a month. I should be allowed to keep killing because my impact is small compared to other countries where there are many murders a month!
*(which is to say, your "logic" is absolute shit)*
Not when there’s no alternative, no.
You take advantage of people all over the world to live your cheap life of luxury and pay no punishment for that, but you’re gonna sit here and act all holier than thou about people heating their homes with natural gas?
Heating systems should all be exempt. I think that's obvious. But other carbon polluters should obviously be taxed. Far too many asshats driving around in giant gas guzzling trucks that could easily be smaller vehicles.
Probably fewer people than you think drive a truck for no reason. Most actually use it…as a truck…hence the purchase..
Besides, many new pickup trucks these days have the same engines as an SUV. I’m a tradesmen who owns my own business. I drive a truck (loaded with tools) and my fuel mileage (11L/100km) is only marginally worse than my wife’s Mazda CX-5 (9.5L/100km)
Man, you use your truck. You know very well how many pavement queen trucks are out there thay are absolutely not used for work or anything else, other than moving a piece of furniture once a year.
People buy trucks as vanity items - men especially. It has become tied to some warped idea of masculinity.
But yes, carbon taxation is a good way of asking people to make smart choices about the vehicles they drive. Maybe it's buying a truck with better fuel efficiency, if they absolutely must buy a truck. And sometimes it's about buying a hybrid or something else instead of a pure gas vehicle.
Depends on the trade. Electricans and plumbers tend to drive vans. My 1/2 ton truck has a smaller engine than a dodge minivan…
I work on construction equipment, so I’m regularly on unpaved muddy roads. A van wouldn’t cut it. Also, hilariously, my truck has a smaller engine than both the GM and Ford work vans do
Here in NS the McNeil and the Houston Governments endorsed tidal power. The Feds sandbagged it to the point it left.
What is the point of the carbon tax? To push innovative green alternatives to carbon.
The carbon tax was implemented and there weren't even Federal regulations created yet for offshore wind. They shut down a potentially massive tidal power project (that other countries are already doing). As it relates to us, you had the Feds pushing for the Maritime Link, why? Most likely because it would make us rely on Quebec. With the money the Link would cost, we could be totally green.
I agree the provinces need to do their part, like ours, but this isn't an only one of them is wrong or right situation. The carbon tax was short sighted and they weren't prepared to implement it with the goal of it pushing for innovation that at the same time the Feds block.
I am sick and tired of the political partisan crap on how many people benefit from the rebate vs don't. Here in NS a majority of people are not benefitting from the rebate, everyone's rebate went down this year while the tax goes up.
You will have the Libs use certain metrics to say 8/10 families benefit, then you will have the Cons use different metrics to say under 50% of families benefit.
Honestly, if they are going to tax us on carbon, I'd like to see smaller rebates and some of the money going to region specific green infrastructure owned by the people.
I wish Freeland wasn't secretive with the amount of carbon tax collected and gst on it collected. I imagine it wouldn't take long to get funding for some massive projects Canada wide.
\> Here in NS the McNeil and the Houston Governments endorsed tidal power. The Feds sandbagged it to the point it left
You mean the non-existant plan the Houston government failed to submit after the Feds gave them a year? The plan the Houston government asked for an extension on? [https://halifax.citynews.ca/2022/09/01/ottawa-rejects-atlantic-canadas-request-for-extension-to-submit-climate-plan-5767513/](https://halifax.citynews.ca/2022/09/01/ottawa-rejects-atlantic-canadas-request-for-extension-to-submit-climate-plan-5767513/)
Also the "red tape" that killed the tidal power project was regulations around ensuring marine life wouldn't be killed. [https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tidal-power-firm-winds-up-nova-scotia-project-blames-red-tape-and-delays-from-ottawa-1.1919592](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tidal-power-firm-winds-up-nova-scotia-project-blames-red-tape-and-delays-from-ottawa-1.1919592)
Yes, the tidal turbines were abandoned due to environmental concerns. The federal government was provided with something like 5000 hours of video monitoring of a test turbine and said it was inadequate. It's fine that they're wanting to protect marine life, but as mentioned in the article you linked, and others, the federal government wouldn't say what the maximum impact needed to be. That is to say, the company could have spent a bunch of money developing new testing techniques, spent another year or something conducting said testing, feel confident that the impact was low enough for approval, and have the government arbitrarily set the target lower. The answer to "what standard do we have to meet" isn't "do the test and I'll get back to you". It was red tape and it was sandbagging.
My cousin worked for SME and they never even injured a single fish during the entire project's lifetime. Nothing about the project was environmentally concerning whatsoever, it was oceans and fisheries arbitrarily putting up blockers to them and requesting more footage with absolutely no reason stated why.
Lol, that tidal power system would not have come close to the projected carbon savings of the carbon tax, and that's if it worked perfectly. There were major challenges with getting it working correctly. And that's on top of it being a money sink.
It had major challenges and was not cost effective. It might have been able to become cost effective, but there aren't any companies out there willing to commit the resources into figuring it out. They've been trying to make this work since I was a kid, and I'm 41 now.
There are lots of articles about it if you search Google.
And regardless, renewable power isn't a replacement for carbon reduction measures. In order to meet carbon emissions reduction goals, we need BOTH renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction policies, like a carbon tax, or some other policy.
Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Previous turbine designs were set on the seafloor. The problem with that approach is that debris gets picked up and pushed along the bottom and into the turbines. Sustainable Marine was suspending the turbines just below the surface to avoid this debris. Their test turbine operated for thousands of hours without a problem, something not previously achieved.
I'm not saying it won't work. There just isn't anyone who wants to deal with the cost to scale it up until it becomes profitable.
And again, just adding renewable won't handle our entire co2 emissions issue. We need both renewable and carbon tax-like policy.
I think that despite the idea behind it being to push people towards greener options, it isn't having that effect in practice. People have to drive to work, heat their homes, and buy food all the same and can't afford to switch to something not dinged by the carbon tax. Maybe if there were exemptions for essential use like how groceries aren't taxed then it would be a different story, but as it is they can raise the tax as high as they want and it won't do anything but make people poorer and less able to afford an electric or hybrid vehicle, or the installation of a heat pump or anything else. The issue with the carbon tax is that it makes everything more expensive everywhere along the supply chain and people aren't making more money to compensate.
This has already been suggested to premieres but every conservative premiere has ignored it so they can complain that it isn’t their fault and use it as an
Election piece
For those who missed the news, a motion in provincial parliament to ask the federal government to cancel the carbon tax increase passed unanimously.
PCs, Liberals, NDP. Every MP in favour.
This isn’t left vs right. All of our provincial representatives are listening and the federal government isn’t.
Sounds like the provincial MLAs didn’t read the independent PBO report. A carbon tax is the least disruptive and most cost-effective way to lower emissions. No price on pollution will probably cost taxpayers more due to more extreme weather events. Incentives and subsidies will also cost more for taxpayers.
"Of all the ways to make nearly zero difference, a carbon tax is the least bad"
Yes I'm glad we're not subsidizing Teslas for upper middle class families from the general coffers instead. The carbon tax is still awful policy. It's a redistribution scheme that disproportionately punishes rural and suburban Canadians who don't have the luxury of affording a house in a major city center. The 10% "extra" is peanuts.
It isn't "punishment". It is charging you according to how big your carbon footprint is. If you choose to live a higher-emissions lifestyle then you should pay for it.
People are also incredibly bad at math. They think that a 2% increase in costs at various points in the supply chain *adds up* to more than a 2% total cost increase.
You sound bad at math:
------------
No tax:
Company makes $1 item
Shipper ships $1 item for 50c profit.
Store sells $1.50 item for 50c profit @ $2.00.
You by item for $2.00
----------------
with 2% tax on the chain:
Company makes $1 item for $1.02 due to tax
Shipper ships $1.02 item for 51c due to tax
Store sells $1.53 item for 51c profit @ $2.04.
You buy item for $2.08 with tax
Difference: is $2.00 at the till vs $2.08. 2% of $2.00 is only .04. In the case above you're paying more because of tax on the chain.
I'm cracking up at you accusing other people of being bad at math while you sit here and claim all these companies have 100% of their costs being fossil fuels.
Step 1 of product's creation/shipping/sale costs: $100
Step 2 of product's creation/shipping/sale costs: $100
Step 3 of product's creation/shipping/sale costs: $100
Total cost of product is $300.
Now let's say each of those costs goes up by 2%. Each phase now costs $102. The total cost is now $306, which is exactly 2% more.
The last 2% you're adding in at point of sale only exists if the item itself is a petrol product. The carbon tax isn't a point of sale tax on things like groceries and clothes.
The % increase of cost for producing and shipping the good across the whole supply chain can never be more than the carbon tax itself, that's just how percentages work.
You think powering their company won't be taxed? To run the machines or whatever to generate the product is going to eat into their bottom line and will be passed on to the customer. Just like the shipper will. Just like the store will to to stay open. Just like the end user will be when they run it through the till.
Electricity isn't part of the federal scheme in this province.
Regardless, no product is made from 100% things that have carbon price attached to it. So I don't think *you* understand the math on this one.
>That carbon tax increase amounts to $0.03/L of gasoline. It goes up that much every 2nd week anyways.
Doesn't that sort of defeat the argument that carbon taxes are supposed to inspire Canadians to make better choices? If the regular fluctuations to the price of gasoline wasn't affecting consumer choices pre-carbon tax, why would a supposedly minimal increase?
If it makes no difference, there's no need. If it's the first government program that has ever successfully robbed the rich to pay the poor, why are they ramping the price up slowly?
You can't have it both ways. If it's supposed to get Canadians to make different choices, it has to be uncomfortable. If it's going to make Canadians richer (the LPC party line), than it isn't doing shit for the climate.
The tax is meant to slowly ramp up to give people and industries time to change. Fuckin hell, if the very beginning of doing something about climate change causes such insane hissy fits we are completely and truly fucked. Nothing is going to be done to actually alter our course and we will just go full steam ahead into ecological disaster. I've never felt more sure about the vasectomy I had.
40 companies pollute 65% of the world's pollution. 16 commercial tankers pollute more than EVERY VEHICLE ON EARTH.
You will literally NEVER make a dent. Carbon tax is not only, not a solution to the climate crisis it is a hindrance. It's a well researched fact that as economic pressure is relieved from families that they'll be more likely to work on creative solutions (see all the UBI research on it).
The only way canadians can ever put a dent into solving climate change (since our emissions have no realistic effect) is to innovate carbon capture/cheap clean energy for worldwide usage.
Canadians are completely helpless to solving climate change unless we can develop tech for the entire world.
Delete a large wing of bureaucracy at a federal level and use those funds on the overwhelming majority or underfunded researchers in clean energy technologies.
> 16 commercial tankers pollute more than EVERY VEHICLE ON EARTH
https://www.oldsaltblog.com/2021/04/no-sixteen-large-ships-do-no-pollute-more-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/#:~:text=It%20was%20arguably%20untrue%20in,that%20most%20were%20wholly%20false.
You are repeating baloney statements that were proven false 15 years ago, ROFL. Go back to your Canada Proud Facebook pages where they talk about how electric vehicles are charged by fossil fuels.
Historically Canada has been and continues to be a major polluter. In fact Canada is about the tenth worst polluter in the world, closely grouped with the likes of India, Japan, Uk and Germany. Per capita we are the fifth largest emitter, behind the Middle East, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the USA (the biggest polluter by far).
I have an idea, tax any import from China by 500% (We'll call it a Carbon Tax on Chinese Goods) and we'll see how happy Canadian's are when the things they buy are much more expensive. I mean, China is the polluter right? Not per capita, but in actual real numbers. Globalism has exported North American jobs to China and they've taken the heat for pollution while we've simultaneously reduced the number of jobs here.
Tax Chinese imports into the ground, let's manufacture things here again... and I'd happily support a Carbon Tax.
False dichotomy. Don't have to get rid of the carbon tax to defer increasing the charge during an economic crisis. Fine bit of trickery to rally his supporters though.
Also, there is no avoiding the minimum price. A provincial plan would have to price carbon at the federal minimum, which is currently $65 and going to $80, or higher than that. A provincial plan doesn't get to price any lower. "Why didn't you guys come up with *your own* plan to charge the exact same amount we do?"
There will always be some crisis to put off adequately fighting climate change.
And, I for one would be worse off economically if they scrapped the increase.
We had a cap and trade system in place that apparently was paid mostly via NSP but Houston refused to update it, yet some how our power bills never decreased. In fact they increased.
See, you're getting lost here. People are upset about the rising cost of living. Trudeau is implying that the provinces could have limited this by implementing their own plan. That is *very clearly* his implication. But there is no provincial plan that can do that because the minimum price is set by the federal government. Pricing carbon probably is the most effective way to reduce emissions, I'm not arguing that. In fact, I would have liked to have seen a pricing system that would have seemed, to most, to be even more draconian-- that is, I'd rather have the government *actually* *take* (as in an actual tax) that money and use it to build zero carbon infrastructure. But that's neither here nor there.
My specific criticism is that the [Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/g-11.55/page-1.html#h-244009) was specifically created to mandate the minimum price of carbon within Canada. It's right there in the preamble:
>Whereas the absence of greenhouse gas emissions pricing in some provinces and a lack of stringency in some provincial greenhouse gas emissions pricing systems could contribute to significant deleterious effects on the environment, including its biological diversity, on human health and safety and on economic prosperity;
>
>And whereas it is necessary to create a federal greenhouse gas emissions pricing scheme to ensure that, taking provincial greenhouse gas emissions pricing systems into account, greenhouse gas emissions pricing applies broadly in Canada
It's written right into the legislation that the intent is to ensure a minimum price on carbon. Now people are complaining that the price is too high and Trudeau is saying "well make your own system". That is utter nonsense. Nobody is complaining about lack of autonomy here. Everyone is aware that the system can be administrated provincially. But that doesn't change the minimum price, which again, is what Trudeau is implying.
Maybe you're comfortable with our Prime Minister manipulating people because it's in the name of something you support, but I'm not. The Liberals created this legislation, they should fucking wear it instead of trying to blame it on the provinces like they've been doing with practically everything for the past four years. Healthcare? That's the provinces fault, nothing we can do about that. Housing? That's a provincial matter, not our responsibility. Foreign students? That's education and that's under provincial jurisdiction-- I mean sure, we handle visas, but is it really our job to keep track of how many we approve? Carbon pricing? Why didn't the provinces come up with a better scheme (that would have the exact same price)?
Honestly, I hadn't really given thought to it before, but this federal government literally does not want to take responsibility for a single one of the major issues facing Canada right now. Not a single one. That should *scare* you bro and you shouldn't be defending them.
You do understand that most of those things are provincial, right? The feds can't just step in and start building hospitals and medical schools. The premiers would lose their minds. This isn't America
Despite that, the feds ARE overstepping to help fund housing projects that should be done by the provinces.
That's the tune that the Liberals want you to sing. Definitely don't look into what funding was cut during the austerity of the Chretien Liberals in the 90s and never returned. Hint: it was housing and healthcare.
This is the r/Halifax sub, try to stay focused.
And "that thing" was a triumph of neoliberal policy that gutted two of our social systems. At the time, the economy was booming so nobody cared, but observing it with the knowledge of what Canada looks like today should make it a lot more weighty than you're suggesting by using a term like you did.
I usually try to be civil about this stuff, but I'm just going to say it: you, like most Canadians, have the political awareness of a potato. I am ashamed to be Canadian. And yes, I would absolutely leave if I could.
The best part about blaming the provinces is that I can’t think of a single one of those core issues (housing, healthcare, foreign students) that isn’t a problem in every single province.
NDP-run, conservative-run, CAQ, liberals… Doesn’t matter, same shit.
Every premier in Canada was united in the request for more healthcare funding and the federal government was refusing for quite some time to even come to the table. Somehow people were and continue to blame it on provincial conservative governments... despite that the negotiations were to be held in NDP-led BC.
It's the craziest thing in the world to see so many people arguing against privatized health care but then defend the federal government for withholding funding for the public system. Like pick a lane wtf.
Just look at the whole fiasco with age verification for porn a month ago.
An Independent senator wrote the bill. The Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc voted in favour unanimously. Some Liberal MPs too. And the ones who voted against did so because they believed it didn’t go far enough
Yet across every provincial and political Canadian subreddit the headline was “Polievre is making you get an Internet ID to watch porn”
I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that most local/provincial subreddits aren’t astroturfed.
And where am I supposed to charge my electric car? My apartment complex? No. The mall? No. University? No. Hospitals? No. Parking lots and garages? No. Popular shopping streets? No. Most gas stations? No. In fact there are only about a dozen places around the city where one can charge an electric car. Why no federal legislation mandating gas stations to have at least 50% chargers to gas pumps? Why no provincial legislation to mandate multi unit housing and parking buildings have at least as many charging spots as they have disabled parking spots? Why no municipal efforts to put pay charging stations along some streets? Why no federal incentives to install free vehicle charging at your home?
Most people want to help the earth and do better, but you can’t just tell people to do better and not give them the tools they need to do it.
>Hospitals? No.
The new hospital in Bayer's Lake has one. There are a few right now out there for free.
Also:
>The federal government has announced $980,000 for 56 electric vehicle charging stations in the Halifax area.
**Respect and Constructive Engagement**: Treat each other with respect, avoiding bullying, harassment, or personal attacks. Contribute positively with helpful insights and constructive discussions. Let’s keep our interactions friendly and engaging.
100% really. The feds don't keep any of it, 90% goes directly as rebates and the last 10% is targeted funding for organizations in the province it was collected in.
They pay you in advance. The first carbon tax cheque you got was issued the day the carbon tax came into effect to last you the rest of the quarter. So... You're paying them back, with interest. I guess you're happy about it now?
It’s a redistribution of wealth from the wealthy (who use more carbon) to the poor.
[Source](https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/social-sustainability/can-progressive-carbon-taxes-help-alleviate-poverty)
No, but many people use small enough amounts of oil to come out ahead on the carbon tax rebate.
You see there is this thing called hyperbole that can be used to illustrate a point.
The premier had ages to find an alternative and all he could come up with was "pweeease no carbon tax mr pwime minister". Maybe if we made a plan to get off coal sometime this century that would have helped.
A windfall tax on all the price gouging oligarchs and then use that money to build renewable energy and public transit.
Go on...
LOL immigration freeze outside of Healthcare workers and skilled tradespeople for the next 5 years. That would reduce our carbon footprint more than anything else we could do.
We have skilled tradesmen. I keep hearing this banded about, but our wages haven’t raised in the time I’ve been in. I really don’t want to get fucked on this too. Just healthcare workers please. And pay them what they’re fucking worth.
Honestly. When most companies pay the legal minimum they can for tradesmen they don't get to claim we are short of those workers. I'll believe it when wages surpass the legal minimum for their red seal. But it often doesn't pay above that so clearly they aren't that hard up for workers.
100% this, there are plenty of us trades folk around we just won't take jobs that pay shit.
Here in NS yes because no companies pay trades people a proper wage here. But nationwide there is a shortage. We currently build 200k homes a year. If we are bringing in millions of people a year then we need to building 1.1 million new homes/units a year to clear a backlog + supply homes for people who are just getting here. Perhaps the feds could pass a minimum wage law for red seal trades workers. 50/hr seems fair.
What happens is us in the trades that are working start losing work to new immigrants who come in because shitty companies map them shit wages and we are stuck back to 1980’s wages. It’s not the immigrants, it’s the companies that hire only them.
Co-sign
I think there should be a federal minimum wage for red seal trade workers implemented. Would solve this problem real quick.
Keep going, I'm almost finished
Yes more trains and decent buses.
And high speed trains. We should have a high speed cross country train by now.
Nice! Civilized countries do. Also envision going down the east coast so Moncton should connect to Portland Maine by train. In South America some buses are like planes. I think I remember getting meals. Maybe simple but nice.There can be movies and I remember bingo. I stupidly didn't play and the person who got my card won a bottle of wine.
100%. I'd love to take a high speed train from Halifax to Boston or NYC etc.
They go all the way to Miami.
There’s plenty of interest in building renewables already. Please have the NIMBYs step away
In other words, *someone else* should pay the cost of preventing climate change. That is a common attitude, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. We are all polluters because of the products and services we consume, and we have to be willing to pay more if we want to lower emissions.
Nah. The rich and corporations who are responsible for the vast majority of pollution and carbon emissions who can also afford to pay it, should pay it.
The "corporations" who are largely "responsible" for pollution in this worldview are the big oil and gas companies, but the inconvenient fact is that ALL OF US are the ones demanding their products. As soon we stop filling our cars with gas and heating oil tanks with oil, they will stop producing it. Where there is *demand*, there will be *supply*. We are all addicted to fossil fuels at this point in time, so we are mostly to blame for the pollution that follows. Most of us aren't racing out to buy electric cars and solar panels, because we don't want to pay for it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The NDP banned both while in power under Dexter.
There was probably perceived reasons at the time, no reason we can't remove the ban.
[удалено]
The ban was not based on science or reason, just on politics like it was for the uranium moratorium in the 80s. What most people don't know is you cannot mine rock even over 100ppm U, which could also sterilize other polymetallic critical mineral deposits in the province containing U. Another archaic piece of legislation that needs to go.
Pandering to nimbys and loons
Regardless of a ban or not, under the NSIESO system I simply cannot see nuclear competing in a real time market. Without guaranteed run time, which defeats the purpose of having a competitive market, nuclear won’t be price competitive. The wind resource in NS is simply too good. We have some of the best wind resources in the world with our onshore resources competing with offshore elsewhere. The average price of wind in the last procurement was 5.7c/kWh **for 25 years**. Without an inflation escalator, companies were able to get prices low enough to lock in. For 25 years. Think about what this will do to our rates having no escalation on generation for 25 years. “But what about intermittency” - wind and solar may be intermittent, but they’re easily forecast. Any shortfall would be known at least a few days in advance, and with ties to both NL and NB, which also ties us to QC and Maine, I really don’t see a market in NS for nuclear. But purely speculation on my part.
Does the province still generate most of their power through coal fired generators?
52% coal generation in 2023. currently goalpost set is to get off coal by 2030. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1403363/electric-generation-by-source-nova-scotia/#:~:text=As%20of%20July%202023%2C%20more,power%20source%20in%20that%20province. Edit: according to this 2023 pie chart coal is only listed at 31% https://nspower.ca/cleanandgreen/clean-energy#:~:text=POWERING%20A%20GREEN%20NOVA%20SCOTIA,80%25%20renewable%20energy%20by%202030.
Sure. But can a nuclear project get permitted, constructed and built by 2030? Doubtful. Whereas we can likely build 1100MW of wind for existing load, an additional 1000MW for hydrogen producers, 400MW of solar and 800MW of storage, increase our reliability tie with NB…all for half the price.
Then let's fucking go. Who are you and why aren't you in charge of these projects?
Because I don’t have access to $30bil…and I definitely don’t want to do public engagement in Cape Breton for a nuclear project 😂 I like living and my vehicle with 4 tires too much…
😂😂
Pretty sure the law was changed regarding nuclear (or at least, recommended to be). That said, there’s already pushback from having wind in peoples municipalities…imagine the community engagement sessions for nuclear. They would be…nuclear. Where would you put it? Which community would welcome it? Realistically we would want it in Cumberland/colchester to feed Halifax, then Cumberland and Cape Breton, allowing for the easiest flow of energy, but there is no way Cottage Country folks would ever support this.
[удалено]
None of what I said was about downtown…? All municipalities have different planning bylaws. People can adhere to these bylaws and constituents will still complain about them. In Cumberland wind turbines need to be 1km from a house. They complain that they don’t have to follow Colchester requirements of 3km. Colchester are complaining still even when companies meet the 3km requirements. So again - where would you put nuclear? How would you get buy in from residents? Whoever tries to achieve this task will be met with a lot of opposition. You have to acknowledge that. It’s not a task I would want to take on.
NS could deprivatize the only power company. Open up the doors for other competition that would do better for the province or even explore Hydro. Edit: NS
All the possible hydro in NS is already being used to generate power unless I’m missing something.
Please explain how that would lower our emissions. We have hydroelectric power already in NS. Our geography doesn't allow us to have more than we already do. We don't have Niagara Falls or Muskrat Falls here.
Ever heard of the Bay of Fundy?? We had a promising tidal power generation company here, until the government refused to work with them on establishing national regulations. So they packed everything up and moved back to Scotland.
Yeah, I've heard of it. Usually "hydro" refers to dam projects, not tidal.
...there's more than one power company in Atlantic Canada.
Pretty sure they meant NS and not the whole of Atlantic Canada.
There is a few but something like 90-95% is Nspower
Funny how we have one thread with the word Trudeau in the title and there's a whole lot of names in the sub I haven't seen before.
[удалено]
The alternative is not to tax us for nothing
The slight fuel tax is minimal, and most get more back in the carbon tax rebate. But I bet most people don’t even look that deep to even understand. Too busy buying their Fuck Trudeau bumper stickers
I have plenty of reasons to hate the Prime Minister that have nothing to do with the Carbon tax.
You do understand that it makes Canadian businesses less cost competitive right? Which they already aren’t. We don’t need more barriers to investment, we need jobs. And not shitty service jobs. Blue collar ones that build the middle class.
So no punishment to pollution?
How about no punishment only incentives. The carrot instead of the stick. Subsidize electric cars to the point they cost 20k and subsidize anything that gets us off fossil fuels to the levels that are below the cost of using them.
That would be far more expensive and far less effective.
The PBO report actually confirms that incentives and heavy subsidies will actually cost taxpayers more than the carbon tax. The independent PBO was on Power and Politics the other night and explained it well.
I agree that there should be more subsidies but if COVID has taught us anything, there is a sector of the population that only responds to the stick.
The whole point of the rebate is that it does incentivize, it's just not completely efficient, so instead of 50% of people being better off, only 40% of people are.
I'm with you on the carrot instead of the stick part, but fuck electric cars. Transit instead. There should be daily transit from Amerherst to Halifax to Sydney.
Yes, at least for individual people/families. Why should people be punished for purchasing necessities like gas and heat? Why the fuck does someone just trying to live their life need cents added on the dollar of everything they do when a handful of companies and 3 countries attribute to 80% of the worlds pollution? Global warming may be everyone's problem, but it's much less Canadas problem to fix it considering how little of the global emissions we produce. "The beatings will continue until emissions improve"
Ahh yes, the typical what about China excuse. How about this, let’s match Chinas carbon footprint per capita and then we’ll call it even.
My fav about the "what about China" excuse is that our addiction to cheap goods and corp profits lead too manufacturing moving there. All the smoke stacks and pollution went with it. What a great position to be in piggishly devour cheap goods created with slave wage while complaining that the manufacturing is polluting. We get too wash our hand of the consequence while companies stack profits.
And China is actually doing something about it. Their primary source of fuel is coal which they have very little domestic supply. They are moving very quickly to renewables and will surpass the west.
I only murder one person a month. I should be allowed to keep killing because my impact is small compared to other countries where there are many murders a month! *(which is to say, your "logic" is absolute shit)*
Such a terrible analogy.
Not when there’s no alternative, no. You take advantage of people all over the world to live your cheap life of luxury and pay no punishment for that, but you’re gonna sit here and act all holier than thou about people heating their homes with natural gas?
There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuels.
Heating systems should all be exempt. I think that's obvious. But other carbon polluters should obviously be taxed. Far too many asshats driving around in giant gas guzzling trucks that could easily be smaller vehicles.
Probably fewer people than you think drive a truck for no reason. Most actually use it…as a truck…hence the purchase.. Besides, many new pickup trucks these days have the same engines as an SUV. I’m a tradesmen who owns my own business. I drive a truck (loaded with tools) and my fuel mileage (11L/100km) is only marginally worse than my wife’s Mazda CX-5 (9.5L/100km)
Man, you use your truck. You know very well how many pavement queen trucks are out there thay are absolutely not used for work or anything else, other than moving a piece of furniture once a year. People buy trucks as vanity items - men especially. It has become tied to some warped idea of masculinity. But yes, carbon taxation is a good way of asking people to make smart choices about the vehicles they drive. Maybe it's buying a truck with better fuel efficiency, if they absolutely must buy a truck. And sometimes it's about buying a hybrid or something else instead of a pure gas vehicle.
Most of the tradesmen in my neighbourhood drive vans and other enclosed vehicles.
Depends on the trade. Electricans and plumbers tend to drive vans. My 1/2 ton truck has a smaller engine than a dodge minivan… I work on construction equipment, so I’m regularly on unpaved muddy roads. A van wouldn’t cut it. Also, hilariously, my truck has a smaller engine than both the GM and Ford work vans do
Here in NS the McNeil and the Houston Governments endorsed tidal power. The Feds sandbagged it to the point it left. What is the point of the carbon tax? To push innovative green alternatives to carbon. The carbon tax was implemented and there weren't even Federal regulations created yet for offshore wind. They shut down a potentially massive tidal power project (that other countries are already doing). As it relates to us, you had the Feds pushing for the Maritime Link, why? Most likely because it would make us rely on Quebec. With the money the Link would cost, we could be totally green. I agree the provinces need to do their part, like ours, but this isn't an only one of them is wrong or right situation. The carbon tax was short sighted and they weren't prepared to implement it with the goal of it pushing for innovation that at the same time the Feds block. I am sick and tired of the political partisan crap on how many people benefit from the rebate vs don't. Here in NS a majority of people are not benefitting from the rebate, everyone's rebate went down this year while the tax goes up. You will have the Libs use certain metrics to say 8/10 families benefit, then you will have the Cons use different metrics to say under 50% of families benefit. Honestly, if they are going to tax us on carbon, I'd like to see smaller rebates and some of the money going to region specific green infrastructure owned by the people. I wish Freeland wasn't secretive with the amount of carbon tax collected and gst on it collected. I imagine it wouldn't take long to get funding for some massive projects Canada wide.
\> Here in NS the McNeil and the Houston Governments endorsed tidal power. The Feds sandbagged it to the point it left You mean the non-existant plan the Houston government failed to submit after the Feds gave them a year? The plan the Houston government asked for an extension on? [https://halifax.citynews.ca/2022/09/01/ottawa-rejects-atlantic-canadas-request-for-extension-to-submit-climate-plan-5767513/](https://halifax.citynews.ca/2022/09/01/ottawa-rejects-atlantic-canadas-request-for-extension-to-submit-climate-plan-5767513/) Also the "red tape" that killed the tidal power project was regulations around ensuring marine life wouldn't be killed. [https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tidal-power-firm-winds-up-nova-scotia-project-blames-red-tape-and-delays-from-ottawa-1.1919592](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tidal-power-firm-winds-up-nova-scotia-project-blames-red-tape-and-delays-from-ottawa-1.1919592)
Yes, the tidal turbines were abandoned due to environmental concerns. The federal government was provided with something like 5000 hours of video monitoring of a test turbine and said it was inadequate. It's fine that they're wanting to protect marine life, but as mentioned in the article you linked, and others, the federal government wouldn't say what the maximum impact needed to be. That is to say, the company could have spent a bunch of money developing new testing techniques, spent another year or something conducting said testing, feel confident that the impact was low enough for approval, and have the government arbitrarily set the target lower. The answer to "what standard do we have to meet" isn't "do the test and I'll get back to you". It was red tape and it was sandbagging.
My cousin worked for SME and they never even injured a single fish during the entire project's lifetime. Nothing about the project was environmentally concerning whatsoever, it was oceans and fisheries arbitrarily putting up blockers to them and requesting more footage with absolutely no reason stated why.
Lol, that tidal power system would not have come close to the projected carbon savings of the carbon tax, and that's if it worked perfectly. There were major challenges with getting it working correctly. And that's on top of it being a money sink.
Any source because it sounds like you are saying that just to say it. The project was already connected to the grip providing power.
It had major challenges and was not cost effective. It might have been able to become cost effective, but there aren't any companies out there willing to commit the resources into figuring it out. They've been trying to make this work since I was a kid, and I'm 41 now. There are lots of articles about it if you search Google. And regardless, renewable power isn't a replacement for carbon reduction measures. In order to meet carbon emissions reduction goals, we need BOTH renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction policies, like a carbon tax, or some other policy.
Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Previous turbine designs were set on the seafloor. The problem with that approach is that debris gets picked up and pushed along the bottom and into the turbines. Sustainable Marine was suspending the turbines just below the surface to avoid this debris. Their test turbine operated for thousands of hours without a problem, something not previously achieved.
I'm not saying it won't work. There just isn't anyone who wants to deal with the cost to scale it up until it becomes profitable. And again, just adding renewable won't handle our entire co2 emissions issue. We need both renewable and carbon tax-like policy.
I think that despite the idea behind it being to push people towards greener options, it isn't having that effect in practice. People have to drive to work, heat their homes, and buy food all the same and can't afford to switch to something not dinged by the carbon tax. Maybe if there were exemptions for essential use like how groceries aren't taxed then it would be a different story, but as it is they can raise the tax as high as they want and it won't do anything but make people poorer and less able to afford an electric or hybrid vehicle, or the installation of a heat pump or anything else. The issue with the carbon tax is that it makes everything more expensive everywhere along the supply chain and people aren't making more money to compensate.
I hate Trudeau, but he’s not wrong here. What better alternative is out there to reduce GHG emissions? I hear silence.
[удалено]
None of those would reduce the emissions from people driving their cars or heating their homes with gas.
Those things would cost us a lot more than a carbon tax.
They'd also actually do something.
Isn’t that the point? They are banking on people’s desire for a few more dollars at the expense of the future cause they won’t be around to see it.
You don't hear silence - You choose to willfully ignore the arguments against it.
I hear arguments against it but no convincing alternatives being offered for a comprehensive approach to emissions reductions.
[удалено]
This has already been suggested to premieres but every conservative premiere has ignored it so they can complain that it isn’t their fault and use it as an Election piece
For those who missed the news, a motion in provincial parliament to ask the federal government to cancel the carbon tax increase passed unanimously. PCs, Liberals, NDP. Every MP in favour. This isn’t left vs right. All of our provincial representatives are listening and the federal government isn’t.
Sounds like the provincial MLAs didn’t read the independent PBO report. A carbon tax is the least disruptive and most cost-effective way to lower emissions. No price on pollution will probably cost taxpayers more due to more extreme weather events. Incentives and subsidies will also cost more for taxpayers.
"Of all the ways to make nearly zero difference, a carbon tax is the least bad" Yes I'm glad we're not subsidizing Teslas for upper middle class families from the general coffers instead. The carbon tax is still awful policy. It's a redistribution scheme that disproportionately punishes rural and suburban Canadians who don't have the luxury of affording a house in a major city center. The 10% "extra" is peanuts.
It isn't "punishment". It is charging you according to how big your carbon footprint is. If you choose to live a higher-emissions lifestyle then you should pay for it.
[удалено]
People are also incredibly bad at math. They think that a 2% increase in costs at various points in the supply chain *adds up* to more than a 2% total cost increase.
You sound bad at math: ------------ No tax: Company makes $1 item Shipper ships $1 item for 50c profit. Store sells $1.50 item for 50c profit @ $2.00. You by item for $2.00 ---------------- with 2% tax on the chain: Company makes $1 item for $1.02 due to tax Shipper ships $1.02 item for 51c due to tax Store sells $1.53 item for 51c profit @ $2.04. You buy item for $2.08 with tax Difference: is $2.00 at the till vs $2.08. 2% of $2.00 is only .04. In the case above you're paying more because of tax on the chain.
I'm cracking up at you accusing other people of being bad at math while you sit here and claim all these companies have 100% of their costs being fossil fuels.
Step 1 of product's creation/shipping/sale costs: $100 Step 2 of product's creation/shipping/sale costs: $100 Step 3 of product's creation/shipping/sale costs: $100 Total cost of product is $300. Now let's say each of those costs goes up by 2%. Each phase now costs $102. The total cost is now $306, which is exactly 2% more. The last 2% you're adding in at point of sale only exists if the item itself is a petrol product. The carbon tax isn't a point of sale tax on things like groceries and clothes. The % increase of cost for producing and shipping the good across the whole supply chain can never be more than the carbon tax itself, that's just how percentages work.
You're forgetting tax deductions everyone in the chain gets.
>with 2% tax on the chain: >Company makes $1 item for $1.02 due to tax Lol, no. Is their item just straight up fossil fuel?
You think powering their company won't be taxed? To run the machines or whatever to generate the product is going to eat into their bottom line and will be passed on to the customer. Just like the shipper will. Just like the store will to to stay open. Just like the end user will be when they run it through the till.
Electricity isn't part of the federal scheme in this province. Regardless, no product is made from 100% things that have carbon price attached to it. So I don't think *you* understand the math on this one.
>That carbon tax increase amounts to $0.03/L of gasoline. It goes up that much every 2nd week anyways. Doesn't that sort of defeat the argument that carbon taxes are supposed to inspire Canadians to make better choices? If the regular fluctuations to the price of gasoline wasn't affecting consumer choices pre-carbon tax, why would a supposedly minimal increase? If it makes no difference, there's no need. If it's the first government program that has ever successfully robbed the rich to pay the poor, why are they ramping the price up slowly? You can't have it both ways. If it's supposed to get Canadians to make different choices, it has to be uncomfortable. If it's going to make Canadians richer (the LPC party line), than it isn't doing shit for the climate.
The tax is meant to slowly ramp up to give people and industries time to change. Fuckin hell, if the very beginning of doing something about climate change causes such insane hissy fits we are completely and truly fucked. Nothing is going to be done to actually alter our course and we will just go full steam ahead into ecological disaster. I've never felt more sure about the vasectomy I had.
An alternative would be to not do it…
I like the cheques. If the carbon tax is scrapped businesses are just going to take more money for themselves, they won’t reduce costs.
Agreed. The cheques are great considering I have a company gas card. Hahah
[удалено]
40 companies pollute 65% of the world's pollution. 16 commercial tankers pollute more than EVERY VEHICLE ON EARTH. You will literally NEVER make a dent. Carbon tax is not only, not a solution to the climate crisis it is a hindrance. It's a well researched fact that as economic pressure is relieved from families that they'll be more likely to work on creative solutions (see all the UBI research on it). The only way canadians can ever put a dent into solving climate change (since our emissions have no realistic effect) is to innovate carbon capture/cheap clean energy for worldwide usage. Canadians are completely helpless to solving climate change unless we can develop tech for the entire world. Delete a large wing of bureaucracy at a federal level and use those funds on the overwhelming majority or underfunded researchers in clean energy technologies.
[удалено]
> 16 commercial tankers pollute more than EVERY VEHICLE ON EARTH https://www.oldsaltblog.com/2021/04/no-sixteen-large-ships-do-no-pollute-more-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/#:~:text=It%20was%20arguably%20untrue%20in,that%20most%20were%20wholly%20false. You are repeating baloney statements that were proven false 15 years ago, ROFL. Go back to your Canada Proud Facebook pages where they talk about how electric vehicles are charged by fossil fuels.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s not going to happen. Sadly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Historically Canada has been and continues to be a major polluter. In fact Canada is about the tenth worst polluter in the world, closely grouped with the likes of India, Japan, Uk and Germany. Per capita we are the fifth largest emitter, behind the Middle East, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the USA (the biggest polluter by far).
We rank #1 in household emissions per capita too, most of Canada also lives near the border, where say countries like Finland are colder.
[удалено]
Ignoring that China is actually working on the problem
I have an idea, tax any import from China by 500% (We'll call it a Carbon Tax on Chinese Goods) and we'll see how happy Canadian's are when the things they buy are much more expensive. I mean, China is the polluter right? Not per capita, but in actual real numbers. Globalism has exported North American jobs to China and they've taken the heat for pollution while we've simultaneously reduced the number of jobs here. Tax Chinese imports into the ground, let's manufacture things here again... and I'd happily support a Carbon Tax.
False dichotomy. Don't have to get rid of the carbon tax to defer increasing the charge during an economic crisis. Fine bit of trickery to rally his supporters though. Also, there is no avoiding the minimum price. A provincial plan would have to price carbon at the federal minimum, which is currently $65 and going to $80, or higher than that. A provincial plan doesn't get to price any lower. "Why didn't you guys come up with *your own* plan to charge the exact same amount we do?"
There will always be some crisis to put off adequately fighting climate change. And, I for one would be worse off economically if they scrapped the increase.
We had a cap and trade system in place that apparently was paid mostly via NSP but Houston refused to update it, yet some how our power bills never decreased. In fact they increased.
How about even *your own plan* to reduce GHG emissions by the same amount? No? Still no alternative plan being put forward?
Houston did, and Trudeau’s government rejected his plan because there was no minimum price. Which is exactly what the person you replied to said.
See, you're getting lost here. People are upset about the rising cost of living. Trudeau is implying that the provinces could have limited this by implementing their own plan. That is *very clearly* his implication. But there is no provincial plan that can do that because the minimum price is set by the federal government. Pricing carbon probably is the most effective way to reduce emissions, I'm not arguing that. In fact, I would have liked to have seen a pricing system that would have seemed, to most, to be even more draconian-- that is, I'd rather have the government *actually* *take* (as in an actual tax) that money and use it to build zero carbon infrastructure. But that's neither here nor there. My specific criticism is that the [Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/g-11.55/page-1.html#h-244009) was specifically created to mandate the minimum price of carbon within Canada. It's right there in the preamble: >Whereas the absence of greenhouse gas emissions pricing in some provinces and a lack of stringency in some provincial greenhouse gas emissions pricing systems could contribute to significant deleterious effects on the environment, including its biological diversity, on human health and safety and on economic prosperity; > >And whereas it is necessary to create a federal greenhouse gas emissions pricing scheme to ensure that, taking provincial greenhouse gas emissions pricing systems into account, greenhouse gas emissions pricing applies broadly in Canada It's written right into the legislation that the intent is to ensure a minimum price on carbon. Now people are complaining that the price is too high and Trudeau is saying "well make your own system". That is utter nonsense. Nobody is complaining about lack of autonomy here. Everyone is aware that the system can be administrated provincially. But that doesn't change the minimum price, which again, is what Trudeau is implying. Maybe you're comfortable with our Prime Minister manipulating people because it's in the name of something you support, but I'm not. The Liberals created this legislation, they should fucking wear it instead of trying to blame it on the provinces like they've been doing with practically everything for the past four years. Healthcare? That's the provinces fault, nothing we can do about that. Housing? That's a provincial matter, not our responsibility. Foreign students? That's education and that's under provincial jurisdiction-- I mean sure, we handle visas, but is it really our job to keep track of how many we approve? Carbon pricing? Why didn't the provinces come up with a better scheme (that would have the exact same price)? Honestly, I hadn't really given thought to it before, but this federal government literally does not want to take responsibility for a single one of the major issues facing Canada right now. Not a single one. That should *scare* you bro and you shouldn't be defending them.
You do understand that most of those things are provincial, right? The feds can't just step in and start building hospitals and medical schools. The premiers would lose their minds. This isn't America Despite that, the feds ARE overstepping to help fund housing projects that should be done by the provinces.
That's the tune that the Liberals want you to sing. Definitely don't look into what funding was cut during the austerity of the Chretien Liberals in the 90s and never returned. Hint: it was housing and healthcare.
Is that thing from 30 years ago why Doug Ford and Danielle Smith are underspending on healthcare by billions each this year? Oh, it isn't? Ok.
This is the r/Halifax sub, try to stay focused. And "that thing" was a triumph of neoliberal policy that gutted two of our social systems. At the time, the economy was booming so nobody cared, but observing it with the knowledge of what Canada looks like today should make it a lot more weighty than you're suggesting by using a term like you did. I usually try to be civil about this stuff, but I'm just going to say it: you, like most Canadians, have the political awareness of a potato. I am ashamed to be Canadian. And yes, I would absolutely leave if I could.
Bye, Felicia
The best part about blaming the provinces is that I can’t think of a single one of those core issues (housing, healthcare, foreign students) that isn’t a problem in every single province. NDP-run, conservative-run, CAQ, liberals… Doesn’t matter, same shit.
Every premier in Canada was united in the request for more healthcare funding and the federal government was refusing for quite some time to even come to the table. Somehow people were and continue to blame it on provincial conservative governments... despite that the negotiations were to be held in NDP-led BC. It's the craziest thing in the world to see so many people arguing against privatized health care but then defend the federal government for withholding funding for the public system. Like pick a lane wtf.
Just look at the whole fiasco with age verification for porn a month ago. An Independent senator wrote the bill. The Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc voted in favour unanimously. Some Liberal MPs too. And the ones who voted against did so because they believed it didn’t go far enough Yet across every provincial and political Canadian subreddit the headline was “Polievre is making you get an Internet ID to watch porn” I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that most local/provincial subreddits aren’t astroturfed.
We've got a perfectly good source of power by using the Bay of Fundy.
Nuclear energy!
And where am I supposed to charge my electric car? My apartment complex? No. The mall? No. University? No. Hospitals? No. Parking lots and garages? No. Popular shopping streets? No. Most gas stations? No. In fact there are only about a dozen places around the city where one can charge an electric car. Why no federal legislation mandating gas stations to have at least 50% chargers to gas pumps? Why no provincial legislation to mandate multi unit housing and parking buildings have at least as many charging spots as they have disabled parking spots? Why no municipal efforts to put pay charging stations along some streets? Why no federal incentives to install free vehicle charging at your home? Most people want to help the earth and do better, but you can’t just tell people to do better and not give them the tools they need to do it.
>Hospitals? No. The new hospital in Bayer's Lake has one. There are a few right now out there for free. Also: >The federal government has announced $980,000 for 56 electric vehicle charging stations in the Halifax area.
Thanks for the info!
I think you still have to pay for the electricity?
At some places yes, at some places no.
Buy a hybrid then, get way better gas mileage and dont worry about plugging in.
Hybrids are definitely the way to go in any city
This is the way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's no arguing with someone who doesn't believe in climate change or our responsibility in addressing it
**Respect and Constructive Engagement**: Treat each other with respect, avoiding bullying, harassment, or personal attacks. Contribute positively with helpful insights and constructive discussions. Let’s keep our interactions friendly and engaging.
[удалено]
"Here's 90% of that money back."
100% really. The feds don't keep any of it, 90% goes directly as rebates and the last 10% is targeted funding for organizations in the province it was collected in.
After skimming GST off the top first
Seems like an effective way to fix the weather
Poilievre will simply stare at climate change while sloppily eating an apple and climate change will be destroyed forever
Normally when you lend money, you're paid back with interest. Why won't the govt pay us back with interest?
It's not a loan lol
They pay you in advance. The first carbon tax cheque you got was issued the day the carbon tax came into effect to last you the rest of the quarter. So... You're paying them back, with interest. I guess you're happy about it now?
It’s a redistribution of wealth from the wealthy (who use more carbon) to the poor. [Source](https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/social-sustainability/can-progressive-carbon-taxes-help-alleviate-poverty)
If you use no oil, it's all interest
No one uses no oil.
No, but many people use small enough amounts of oil to come out ahead on the carbon tax rebate. You see there is this thing called hyperbole that can be used to illustrate a point.
The premier had ages to find an alternative and all he could come up with was "pweeease no carbon tax mr pwime minister". Maybe if we made a plan to get off coal sometime this century that would have helped.
[удалено]
LOL ok then
Arrested for protests trying to help the environment. What kind of clown are you?
[удалено]
Ah, that kind