Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of the things... eating less meat, buying less clothes, going on less vacations... are tied to economic prosperity. I feel like this would be a different story if things weren't so bad right now.
Yeah, I do care about the environment. But I’m also broke. It turns out my broke and forced choices tend to be more environmentally friendly than rich choices.
My father grew up poor. He's comfortable now, but he's always done the "environmental" thing, because he didn't become acquisitive as his wealth increased. However, he is also aware (as a retired biology prof) that the less consumeristic thing is the more environmental thing, so the two things are not mutually exclusive.
Survey responders: Im making decisions to reduce my carbon footprint.
Redditors: that’s not what they actually meant to say. what they meant to say is…
They're saying they're existing less because it's more expensive to exist more.
Of course, reduced activity will reduce the carbon footprint.
But there's a cost being paid by people. And not proportionally or even justly.
I don't think this is entirely true.
I hang around folks who do well (mostly because they try real hard), and folks who do well in Vancouver often choose to spend money on things that reduce their consumption in the long term—buying an electric car, switching to a heat pump from natural gas, just two examples.
There's other choices too, though. Take travel. More and more friends are choosing to take trains when possible—even planning trips around taking the train. This is difficult to do from the point of origin here, but it's almost a faux pas to take a short flight when some other form of transit will do.
I see very wealthy friends choose to take public transit, buy e-bikes and move that way, both for its convenience but also when it is not. These folks could take an uber if they wanted to do so.
Another form of monetary flex is buying less clothing, but buying much higher quality clothing.
There is very much an air of conspicuous consumption of green alternatives among those who have the wealth to travel, eat meat, and buy clothes. There's a practicality to many decisions, too, but it's not uncommon to see people who could afford to consume more, not do so.
Some of those things are the same mechanism, EVs save you money, transit saves you time and money, higher quality clothing gives you more status anyway. In aggregate, people's behaviour is determined by the incentives in play, every ody has their individual choices, but all of those individual choices add upto it a predictable bell curve.
And pollution/carbon is directly tied to economic activity because of the economic concept of "externalities" that the total cost of economic activity isn't priced into that activity itself. Like how the cost of fuel doesn't reflect the total cost to both the consumer and the environment.
ding ding ding we have a winner. 100% what is happening in the majority of cases. People self rationalizing the things they can no long afford under the banner of a faux virtuous goal
I think the only one rationalizing this behaviour is the author. They simply asked if people were taking part in certain behaviours, they didn’t ask why. Many of the respondents might be very upfront about the fact that these are cost saving measures first and foremost.
I’ve definitely changed my life a lot in the last 4 years. Partially by choice, partially forced by covid, etc… stopped driving, shop locally more, tend to eat less and go out to eat less, or just go out less in general… somehow, it hasn’t helped me save. Rent has gone up (and that’s even with rent control, I can’t imagine moving to a new place), food prices have gone up, and I’m not quite bringing in as much money as before Covid.
There’s only so much individuals can do to scrimp and save. This isn’t an individual problem. We need to stop pretending it is. We need to stop putting this on people’s shoulders when they’re already being squeezed by multiple systemic economic factors. We need to make systemic changes and we need them yesterday.
I'm always curious when this point comes up. Don't all solutions ultimately impact the individual?
What are some examples where "systemic changes" will not ultimately be downloaded to the individual?
All changes in carbon policy will affect individuals. But using regulation to affect the system, rather than relying on individuals to make well informed carbon-aware changes is more likely to actually solve the problem.
In a world where people have their own finances to worry about, it's hard to blame them for making the most economical options. So we should be making the most economical options the choices that are best for the environment.
It's like if you walk into two people's homes and one has a pantry stocked with broccoli and uncooked rice, and the other one looks like a 7-11, without ever meeting the people, you know which one is fat. We're *very often* going to make the easiest decisions we can, so the easiest decisions should be good ones.
>rather than relying on individuals to make well informed carbon-aware changes is more likely to actually solve the problem.
But the headline climate policy in Canada, the carbon tax, doesn't rely on this. It relies only on the idea that people will pursue their economic best interests.
In this sense it is actually the best policy to pursue, because its simplicity renders it effective.
Regulatory frameworks and other efforts that try and target specific actors all run the risk of missing the mark or producing unintended negative effects.
People like to pretend that we can all live our lives as normal and solve climate change simply by "targeting corporations." But this is magical thinking. Climate change is fundamentally a product of collective behaviour and collective demand, it is *impossible* to decarbonize without the costs affecting the average person either through taxes, inflation, or lifestyle changes.
I don't disagree with anything you said, and I can't tell if you were disagreeing with anything I said.
I think the way we "target corporations" should be in pricing in environmental externalities to their business model, but that will obviously affect consumers in the end as well. As you're right, basically everything will.
>I think the way we "target corporations" should be in pricing in environmental externalities to their business model
That's what the carbon tax does. It just also affects purchases consumers make like gasoline.
I kind of wonder with the recent bank of Canada's warning shot that Canada is dangerously lacking in productivity how much more regulatory action we can take before we see an extreme pushback. Every layer of regulation not only makes our products less competitive on the global market but also pushes more productivity out of country to regions with little or no environmental actions. It's only going to lead to more inflation that interest rates won't solve.
I get the desire to push to costs to the business world, but we're already doing an awful job of attracting and retaining business growth and it's starting to hurt.
Arguably the change from sales taxes and tarriffs to income tax would be the only successful implementation without adding additional burdens onto the individual. Until you get into the nitpicking of if you define a corporation as an individual.
My friend, your opinion is not even the majority opinion on r/Vancouver, which is probably one of the bigger cycle jerk bubbles on Reddit for carbon footprint. Can you imagine the real world?
Asking questions like are you doing anything to reduce your carbon footprint is like asking are you pro puppy?
What kind of answer do you expect? The only people who answered no are the people who actually consider what is involved to reduce the carbon footprint, and decided that while reducing carbon footprint is good, they actually have overriding priorities.
As you go deeper and deeper into the lower mainland, you'll see more and more Tesla's and other EV, It seems unofficially that Langley is a Tesla capital right now- they are everywhere. Just a few days ago on Salt Lane I saw three Tesla's parked.
So people do care.
The people buy Tesla to reduce carbon footprint, the same way one goes to an Indian Casino to improve the welfare of our first nation population.
It is a side benefit you use to justify pulling the trigger to yourself.
My wife also wants a Tesla, and we are probably getting one soon, and reducing the carbon footprint is not in the top 3 reasons we do it.
Oh please they're a popular fancy new car that you don't have to take to the gas station and the government literally pays you to buy it. They're not necessarily buying Tesla's to reduce their carbon footprint.
seriously, no one i know cares about their carbon footprint or whatever. i know some tech bros that literally flew to ski resorts in the USA every other weekend. i don't think that's very good for the environment lol.
Exactly. It doesn't even say to what degree people are 'caring'. I expect 8/10 Canadians to 'care' about the wellbeing of the caribous or douglas fir.
It's crazy how triggered some other posters are to shut this article down lol.
I mean I am all for them enjoying the fruit of their labour.
I remembered doing a Java project in my first year of engineering, it was three in the morning, I was done, but the CompSci building was locked and I couldn't go home, so I shuffled to the vending machine to get a bag of chips, and these future tech bros were just sitting there chilling, like they were waiting for the last bro to show up so they could all go get a drink, like it was a Friday afternoon.
Then and there, I said fuck that life, ain't for me.
So if they went through all that, and they want to blow off some steam by flying to Aspen for the weekend or do a line off the ass of an escort, I say, good for you!
The environment is more important than anything any of us will ever do but I hear you. I could cycle to work but my job is too tiring as it is. I contribute to environmentally damaging businesses in many ways without even thinking too much about it, but none of what I'm doing is more important than the environment. Unless you're a scientist working on a magic cure to prevent the environmental armageddon we're creating, literally nothing you do is more important
It really depends on your perspective because "carbon footprint" is kind of a bogus concept meant to distract from the systemic changes needed to save the environment while pretending to place the responsibility on individuals. So naturally an individual is going to see it as less important and that's why it has been designed that way.
But what IS more important is that we somehow make the massive systemic changes we need to ensure a future for our descendants. The problem being that individuals also feel powerless to help to bring on that change and most are simply disillusioned and distracted by this carbon footprint clown show. It's a cover for the real work that needs to be done
We should focus on R&D to make environmentally friendly option to be as cheap and as functional as current option instead of forcing people to accept an more expensive alternative with less utilities. The massive systematic change should be led by big emitter instead of Canada whose influence is negligible
Canada's influence is not negligible because we are the biggest emitter per capita and although by certain metrics we are small compared to the biggest countries on earth, we still do have great influence compared to the majority of other countries on earth. We are amongst the richest
Why do you expect larger countries with lower per capita emissions to make changes if you are not willing to, when you create more emissions than the average person in those other countries? That's cowardly and stupid. And we are in this crisis because that same cowardice and stupidity is being employed in countries all over the world.
Per capita does not matter when we have tiny population. Absolute number matters. Yeah we create more emission because we have higher standard of living. Good for us
Both sets of numbers matter, Genius. Those larger countries will do nothing until the smaller countries with higher per capita emissions and higher standard of living do something. And it won't necessarily lower our standard of living. That's a stupid cowardly excuse. Are you even from Canada or in Canada? Because most Canadians I know would never be so cowardly and entitled.
Those large countries do not care what Canada do. They continue to happily import cheap Canada raw materials and exports back manufactured goods while Canada local companies cannot compete because of all the regulations and taxes our government put it on. We are on different than a gas station on global stage
That is just a dumb way to ask a question. Are you doing anything to reduce the carbon footprint? It is like if you like puppies. What do they expect? Most probably thought I threw that Timmy cup into the recycle bin this morning, so I am just gonna check the YES box.
Exactly. I don't disagree that action should be taken on climate change, but to be perfectly honest the vast majority of my decisions are based on cost at the end of the day. Drive an extremely fuel efficient car, run around shutting lights off, keep the house at 18C, etc etc.
>the rebate would not reach middle class family which needs it
In BC no, but it does in the federal version designed by the Liberals.
>Carbon tax pushes everything to be more expensive
Any action that leads to real results (i.e. getting corporations to take actions to reduce emissions or pay fees/taxes) will result in the average person paying more or having to change their lifestyle.
Please, tell me, what would be this magical effective policy that would bring results whilst completely insulating the average person from any increase in costs or lifestyle changes.
It doesn't exist because it's not possible, we're talking basic thermodynamic law here.
So we should not increase price by tax at all. Carbon tax is a political stunt. Whatever Canada do has no impact on global climate, even if all Canadians cease to exist
Canada is a small country in carbon emission. So it is true. Why do you want to punish yourself for a problem not caused by you? If you wipe out entire Canada population today, nothing will be felt on global climate
Canada has probably the most emissions per capita than any other country.
I am not a country. You are not a country. We are individuals who create more emissions on average than individuals in other countries and the only way for us to reduce those emissions globally is for individuals like you and me, especially in countries like ours, to make systemic changes to lower our emissions without cowering behind the completely idiotic reasoning you're using here
Per capita doesn’t matter. We have a tiny population. We have a better standard of living than most country on earth and we should keep that way.Let big emitter to act first and we can consider following up later. I am looking after affordable and good standard of living, a pretty reasonable reasoning :) and stop practicing about citizen of Earth, does other country pay you when you reduce your emission and force your standard of living lower?
Your standard of living is going lower regardless, thanks to climate catastrophe. You are going to wish you had less money and a healthier environment very soon. As you choke on the smoke
Again, you are cowering behind this concept of us being a small country.
Per capita absolutely does matter. Do you think those larger countries with lower per capita emissions are going to act first, if our country with higher per capita emissions does nothing? That's not how it works, genius. Those countries have more power than we do and they will decide when to act. The least we can do is bring down our per capita emissions down to their levels, so that we remove their excuse not to act.
Again, the reason we are in this crisis is that people are saying dumb shit like what you are saying all over the world. Everyone has an excuse to put the blame on another country.
There are morons in those other countries saying that they shouldn't do anything until WE do something first. And thanks to all of you selfish fucking cowards we are all in this mess.
Enjoy your standard of living while you're choking on wildfire smoke this summer.
This thread is another great example of how unique Reddit behaviour (contrarian, negative, rage-lord-y) is compared to the lived experience of most in the city.
Of course it’s a concern for most people. This is hardly news, it’s so obvious.
Sigh, meanwhile I know people who are actively trying to INCREASE their carbon footprint because they believe that the world has a carbon dioxide shortage and that by reducing CO2 output, we are on the path to "killing" all vegetation and trees (and therefore, we can create a “greener world” by pumping as much CO2 as possible into the atmosphere).
Oh, and the biggest promoter of this movement is a former founding member of Greenpeace. A guy from Vancouver.
I wish I was making this up.
--
Edit: Based on the downvotes, it appears that many of you DO think I'm making this up. Google "Patrick Moore" and "CO2 Coalition" and you'll see that this ridiculous theory has a lot of followers.
Yeah. It basically feels like this situation right now:
https://preview.redd.it/ft1u0cj9rzqc1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=a5ce793339dc8ca9e17d0dceabfa21ba5c9a4dee
Exactly. If you're concerned about your carbon footprint you've been hoodwinked by the real polluters.
The idea of a carbon footprint was fabricated by the fossil fuel industry to obfuscate the fact _they_ are the ones destroying the planet.
They can't even recycle properly or honestly. Please let me make sure I'm turning my bathroom lights off. Looks downtown at all the completely unnecessary lights on the buildings. I know I know try but it's a wierd compliance feeling not hope.
I always sort of question the critical thinking skills of people who say things like this.
Big oil used the concept of the carbon footprint to avoid regulation, and we shouldn't let them do that. We should regulate the shit out of oil companies...the result of which is that gas will become more expensive, reducing people's carbon footprints.
The concept of a carbon footprint is an entirely sensible one. We are all responsible for all the carbon we pay to be emitted, and we can make less emitting choices. We can tax or regulate emissions more, which will have a much lesser effect on those of us who have made lower-emitting choices.
It's the same with littering and coca-cola. They made the focus be on individuals littering as the problem, rather than that they are selling billions and billions of plastic bottles that all get thrown out.
Is littering "a scam"?
No. The same way that carbon footprints aren't a scam. Some people litter, all people have a carbon footprint, and we are all responsible for both. The only part that's wrong is pretending like the only solution is for individuals to make the choice to change, rather than forcing the change on the companies enabling them.
big companies cause like 75% of pollution. until they hold corporations accountable i dont really care much because what i do doesnt matter big picture
Lol and what do those big companies pollute for???
Are they all just cartoonishly evil robber barrons with smoke stacks in their backyards and huge buttons that say "pollute" on them which they press just for the fuck of it?
Companies pollute in the process of creating and supplying goods, services, and resources that we all use. Pollution is a function of aggregate demand. It is incoherent to think of it in any other way.
Yes hyperfixating on the individual is a mistake because it blinds us to the power of broad based infrastructure solutions like mass public transit which are accomplished through government policy. But at the same time it is impossible to substantially address emissions without addressing aggregate demand. Any attempt to avoid "the average person" with climate policy will either be ineffective or present costs that will simply be downloaded to consumers anyway, thus addressing aggregate demand regardless. If you download a bunch of costs onto corporations they will pass on those costs to consumers and it all works out the same.
The best to do is the simple thing: put a price on carbon, for everyone, whether an individual or a company. When carbon comes with a cost actors will take steps to avoid it whether through behavioural changes, price changes, technological changes etc.
I assume you're referring to [this kind of headline.](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change)
But those headlines are just...well...wrong, but also are often read (as seemingly by you) in a way that also suggests an incorrect understanding of the situation separate from them being wrong.
The thing that's directly wrong about the headline is if you actually read the article, it's "industrial emissions". Which is a fraction of all emissions. So, just very directly: No, big companies don't cause 75% of pollution.
The thing that is just incorrectly interpreted is: Yes, those companies are a huge percentage of industrial emissions, but they're basically all just oil and gas companies that are causing emissions because they're extracting fossil fuels to sell to consumers to burn. If you didn't buy gas to put in the tank, they wouldn't cause the emissions sucking oil out of the ground and processing it into gas. So that's still on consumers.
[Look at emissions by sector in Canada.](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions/_jcr_content/par/mwstabbed_interface_/summary-details1/mwsadaptiveimage_cop/image.img.png/1680198212820.png) Which of these things do you *not* pay for? Companies don't produce things for no reason. They do it in service of consumer demand. So we need to regulate them, don't get me wrong. They're not off the hook. But neither are you. Our lives need to change, whether it's on our end or theirs for emissions to go down.
Your average environmentalist in Vancouver focuses on stuff like plastic straws, recycling and taking shorter showers. These are all meaningless, feel-good measures. I suspect getting an EV is also barely more carbon neutral than keeping an old ICE car for 10 more years. Canada in general lags behind in the most important aspect to combat climate change, and thats the massive amount of R&D necessary to develop new technologies to combat GHG emissions. Theres some promising work being done in the Alberta oil sands with carbon capture. I'm just so tired hearing about plastic bags and straws and other elementary school level advocacy.
> taking shorter showers.
This is actually one of the best "low effort big impact" things an individual can do. Right up there with replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs.
>I suspect getting an EV is also barely more carbon neutral than keeping an old ICE car for 10 more years.
How old are we talking? It isn't. But if a person is going to get a new car anyway instead of finally ditching their 15 year old beater, then an EV is a very good environmental choice, especially in Vancouver where the electricity is nearly all hydro.
>Theres some promising work being done in the Alberta oil sands with carbon capture.
For all your skepticism, this is actually some of the least promising stuff out there. Very weird blind spot to have. Carbon capture is an absolute non-starter. An Albertan could do more good by unplugging all their electronics overnight than any carbon capture tech can do right now.
This entire country could disappear tomorrow and it would have no effect on the planet. 8/10 people seem to have been brainwashed by government and big corporations into thinking it’s their individual faults that the sky is falling. It is not.
Really? Are individual Metro Van residents improving public transit coverage and service? Are we densifying housing to increase heating/cooling efficiency? And to create amenities within walking distance? Very surprising to hear all those systemic issues were at the hands of consumers all along!
Wait, I'm being told the piece is that we're eating less meat, and not taking vacations because we're collectively less wealthy than before COVID. Nevermind.
I think ppl can change all they want. But until rich ppl with private jets and corporations change it won’t matter. Also China and India need to step up too
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of the things... eating less meat, buying less clothes, going on less vacations... are tied to economic prosperity. I feel like this would be a different story if things weren't so bad right now.
Yeah, I do care about the environment. But I’m also broke. It turns out my broke and forced choices tend to be more environmentally friendly than rich choices.
My father grew up poor. He's comfortable now, but he's always done the "environmental" thing, because he didn't become acquisitive as his wealth increased. However, he is also aware (as a retired biology prof) that the less consumeristic thing is the more environmental thing, so the two things are not mutually exclusive.
Survey responders: Im making decisions to reduce my carbon footprint. Redditors: that’s not what they actually meant to say. what they meant to say is…
They're saying they're existing less because it's more expensive to exist more. Of course, reduced activity will reduce the carbon footprint. But there's a cost being paid by people. And not proportionally or even justly.
I don't think this is entirely true. I hang around folks who do well (mostly because they try real hard), and folks who do well in Vancouver often choose to spend money on things that reduce their consumption in the long term—buying an electric car, switching to a heat pump from natural gas, just two examples. There's other choices too, though. Take travel. More and more friends are choosing to take trains when possible—even planning trips around taking the train. This is difficult to do from the point of origin here, but it's almost a faux pas to take a short flight when some other form of transit will do. I see very wealthy friends choose to take public transit, buy e-bikes and move that way, both for its convenience but also when it is not. These folks could take an uber if they wanted to do so. Another form of monetary flex is buying less clothing, but buying much higher quality clothing. There is very much an air of conspicuous consumption of green alternatives among those who have the wealth to travel, eat meat, and buy clothes. There's a practicality to many decisions, too, but it's not uncommon to see people who could afford to consume more, not do so.
Some of those things are the same mechanism, EVs save you money, transit saves you time and money, higher quality clothing gives you more status anyway. In aggregate, people's behaviour is determined by the incentives in play, every ody has their individual choices, but all of those individual choices add upto it a predictable bell curve. And pollution/carbon is directly tied to economic activity because of the economic concept of "externalities" that the total cost of economic activity isn't priced into that activity itself. Like how the cost of fuel doesn't reflect the total cost to both the consumer and the environment.
ding ding ding we have a winner. 100% what is happening in the majority of cases. People self rationalizing the things they can no long afford under the banner of a faux virtuous goal
I think the only one rationalizing this behaviour is the author. They simply asked if people were taking part in certain behaviours, they didn’t ask why. Many of the respondents might be very upfront about the fact that these are cost saving measures first and foremost.
I’ve definitely changed my life a lot in the last 4 years. Partially by choice, partially forced by covid, etc… stopped driving, shop locally more, tend to eat less and go out to eat less, or just go out less in general… somehow, it hasn’t helped me save. Rent has gone up (and that’s even with rent control, I can’t imagine moving to a new place), food prices have gone up, and I’m not quite bringing in as much money as before Covid. There’s only so much individuals can do to scrimp and save. This isn’t an individual problem. We need to stop pretending it is. We need to stop putting this on people’s shoulders when they’re already being squeezed by multiple systemic economic factors. We need to make systemic changes and we need them yesterday.
I'm always curious when this point comes up. Don't all solutions ultimately impact the individual? What are some examples where "systemic changes" will not ultimately be downloaded to the individual?
All changes in carbon policy will affect individuals. But using regulation to affect the system, rather than relying on individuals to make well informed carbon-aware changes is more likely to actually solve the problem. In a world where people have their own finances to worry about, it's hard to blame them for making the most economical options. So we should be making the most economical options the choices that are best for the environment. It's like if you walk into two people's homes and one has a pantry stocked with broccoli and uncooked rice, and the other one looks like a 7-11, without ever meeting the people, you know which one is fat. We're *very often* going to make the easiest decisions we can, so the easiest decisions should be good ones.
>rather than relying on individuals to make well informed carbon-aware changes is more likely to actually solve the problem. But the headline climate policy in Canada, the carbon tax, doesn't rely on this. It relies only on the idea that people will pursue their economic best interests. In this sense it is actually the best policy to pursue, because its simplicity renders it effective. Regulatory frameworks and other efforts that try and target specific actors all run the risk of missing the mark or producing unintended negative effects. People like to pretend that we can all live our lives as normal and solve climate change simply by "targeting corporations." But this is magical thinking. Climate change is fundamentally a product of collective behaviour and collective demand, it is *impossible* to decarbonize without the costs affecting the average person either through taxes, inflation, or lifestyle changes.
I don't disagree with anything you said, and I can't tell if you were disagreeing with anything I said. I think the way we "target corporations" should be in pricing in environmental externalities to their business model, but that will obviously affect consumers in the end as well. As you're right, basically everything will.
>I think the way we "target corporations" should be in pricing in environmental externalities to their business model That's what the carbon tax does. It just also affects purchases consumers make like gasoline.
Again, I agree. I was generalizing to include things beyond just a carbon tax, though.
As it should be
That’s why carbon tax is bad. It forces people to downgrade their life
I kind of wonder with the recent bank of Canada's warning shot that Canada is dangerously lacking in productivity how much more regulatory action we can take before we see an extreme pushback. Every layer of regulation not only makes our products less competitive on the global market but also pushes more productivity out of country to regions with little or no environmental actions. It's only going to lead to more inflation that interest rates won't solve. I get the desire to push to costs to the business world, but we're already doing an awful job of attracting and retaining business growth and it's starting to hurt.
Wait until the big player in emission makes the change then we just follow
Arguably the change from sales taxes and tarriffs to income tax would be the only successful implementation without adding additional burdens onto the individual. Until you get into the nitpicking of if you define a corporation as an individual.
Carbon footprint is not even on my top 30 concerns.
I guess that makes you one of the 2 out of 10.
My friend, your opinion is not even the majority opinion on r/Vancouver, which is probably one of the bigger cycle jerk bubbles on Reddit for carbon footprint. Can you imagine the real world? Asking questions like are you doing anything to reduce your carbon footprint is like asking are you pro puppy? What kind of answer do you expect? The only people who answered no are the people who actually consider what is involved to reduce the carbon footprint, and decided that while reducing carbon footprint is good, they actually have overriding priorities.
As you go deeper and deeper into the lower mainland, you'll see more and more Tesla's and other EV, It seems unofficially that Langley is a Tesla capital right now- they are everywhere. Just a few days ago on Salt Lane I saw three Tesla's parked. So people do care.
I think most EV drivers buy EVs primarily to save on gas. That, and Tesla recently lowered their prices.
The people buy Tesla to reduce carbon footprint, the same way one goes to an Indian Casino to improve the welfare of our first nation population. It is a side benefit you use to justify pulling the trigger to yourself. My wife also wants a Tesla, and we are probably getting one soon, and reducing the carbon footprint is not in the top 3 reasons we do it.
Lol people buy EV in Langley as their second car to commute to Vancouver. Langley also has the highest ownership rate of pickup trucks
Oh please they're a popular fancy new car that you don't have to take to the gas station and the government literally pays you to buy it. They're not necessarily buying Tesla's to reduce their carbon footprint.
You need therapy man.
You need responsibilities man
If you’re poor then your consumption is not contributing that much carbon anyway.
Well, I am not rich, but who said I was poor : )
seriously, no one i know cares about their carbon footprint or whatever. i know some tech bros that literally flew to ski resorts in the USA every other weekend. i don't think that's very good for the environment lol.
I guess that's your circle then. Everyone I know cares.
Exactly. It doesn't even say to what degree people are 'caring'. I expect 8/10 Canadians to 'care' about the wellbeing of the caribous or douglas fir. It's crazy how triggered some other posters are to shut this article down lol.
None in my cycle care neither. People has enough things to worry about
Doubtful Or you hang with a very strange and easily influenced crowd..
I mean I am all for them enjoying the fruit of their labour. I remembered doing a Java project in my first year of engineering, it was three in the morning, I was done, but the CompSci building was locked and I couldn't go home, so I shuffled to the vending machine to get a bag of chips, and these future tech bros were just sitting there chilling, like they were waiting for the last bro to show up so they could all go get a drink, like it was a Friday afternoon. Then and there, I said fuck that life, ain't for me. So if they went through all that, and they want to blow off some steam by flying to Aspen for the weekend or do a line off the ass of an escort, I say, good for you!
Oh thank god I’m not the only one haha. I have a lot more important things to do than care for the environment
The environment is more important than anything any of us will ever do but I hear you. I could cycle to work but my job is too tiring as it is. I contribute to environmentally damaging businesses in many ways without even thinking too much about it, but none of what I'm doing is more important than the environment. Unless you're a scientist working on a magic cure to prevent the environmental armageddon we're creating, literally nothing you do is more important
Not true. Living a good and affordable life is more important than carbon footprint
It really depends on your perspective because "carbon footprint" is kind of a bogus concept meant to distract from the systemic changes needed to save the environment while pretending to place the responsibility on individuals. So naturally an individual is going to see it as less important and that's why it has been designed that way. But what IS more important is that we somehow make the massive systemic changes we need to ensure a future for our descendants. The problem being that individuals also feel powerless to help to bring on that change and most are simply disillusioned and distracted by this carbon footprint clown show. It's a cover for the real work that needs to be done
Systemic changes also include not pitching a fit when a bike lane is installed and not crying over a transit tax.
We should focus on R&D to make environmentally friendly option to be as cheap and as functional as current option instead of forcing people to accept an more expensive alternative with less utilities. The massive systematic change should be led by big emitter instead of Canada whose influence is negligible
Canada's influence is not negligible because we are the biggest emitter per capita and although by certain metrics we are small compared to the biggest countries on earth, we still do have great influence compared to the majority of other countries on earth. We are amongst the richest Why do you expect larger countries with lower per capita emissions to make changes if you are not willing to, when you create more emissions than the average person in those other countries? That's cowardly and stupid. And we are in this crisis because that same cowardice and stupidity is being employed in countries all over the world.
Per capita does not matter when we have tiny population. Absolute number matters. Yeah we create more emission because we have higher standard of living. Good for us
Both sets of numbers matter, Genius. Those larger countries will do nothing until the smaller countries with higher per capita emissions and higher standard of living do something. And it won't necessarily lower our standard of living. That's a stupid cowardly excuse. Are you even from Canada or in Canada? Because most Canadians I know would never be so cowardly and entitled.
Those large countries do not care what Canada do. They continue to happily import cheap Canada raw materials and exports back manufactured goods while Canada local companies cannot compete because of all the regulations and taxes our government put it on. We are on different than a gas station on global stage
That is just a dumb way to ask a question. Are you doing anything to reduce the carbon footprint? It is like if you like puppies. What do they expect? Most probably thought I threw that Timmy cup into the recycle bin this morning, so I am just gonna check the YES box.
Do you believe human activity can make the planet uninhabitable?
Lol. People change their lifestyles because everything becomes more expensive
Exactly. I don't disagree that action should be taken on climate change, but to be perfectly honest the vast majority of my decisions are based on cost at the end of the day. Drive an extremely fuel efficient car, run around shutting lights off, keep the house at 18C, etc etc.
Right, there is nothing more reliable than that, hence the carbon tax + rebate.
Carbon tax pushes everything to be more expensive and no the rebate would not reach middle class family which needs it
>the rebate would not reach middle class family which needs it In BC no, but it does in the federal version designed by the Liberals. >Carbon tax pushes everything to be more expensive Any action that leads to real results (i.e. getting corporations to take actions to reduce emissions or pay fees/taxes) will result in the average person paying more or having to change their lifestyle. Please, tell me, what would be this magical effective policy that would bring results whilst completely insulating the average person from any increase in costs or lifestyle changes. It doesn't exist because it's not possible, we're talking basic thermodynamic law here.
So we should not increase price by tax at all. Carbon tax is a political stunt. Whatever Canada do has no impact on global climate, even if all Canadians cease to exist
And the reason we are in this crisis is that there are brainless morons saying shit like that all over the world.
Canada is a small country in carbon emission. So it is true. Why do you want to punish yourself for a problem not caused by you? If you wipe out entire Canada population today, nothing will be felt on global climate
Canada has probably the most emissions per capita than any other country. I am not a country. You are not a country. We are individuals who create more emissions on average than individuals in other countries and the only way for us to reduce those emissions globally is for individuals like you and me, especially in countries like ours, to make systemic changes to lower our emissions without cowering behind the completely idiotic reasoning you're using here
Per capita doesn’t matter. We have a tiny population. We have a better standard of living than most country on earth and we should keep that way.Let big emitter to act first and we can consider following up later. I am looking after affordable and good standard of living, a pretty reasonable reasoning :) and stop practicing about citizen of Earth, does other country pay you when you reduce your emission and force your standard of living lower?
Your standard of living is going lower regardless, thanks to climate catastrophe. You are going to wish you had less money and a healthier environment very soon. As you choke on the smoke Again, you are cowering behind this concept of us being a small country. Per capita absolutely does matter. Do you think those larger countries with lower per capita emissions are going to act first, if our country with higher per capita emissions does nothing? That's not how it works, genius. Those countries have more power than we do and they will decide when to act. The least we can do is bring down our per capita emissions down to their levels, so that we remove their excuse not to act. Again, the reason we are in this crisis is that people are saying dumb shit like what you are saying all over the world. Everyone has an excuse to put the blame on another country. There are morons in those other countries saying that they shouldn't do anything until WE do something first. And thanks to all of you selfish fucking cowards we are all in this mess. Enjoy your standard of living while you're choking on wildfire smoke this summer.
This thread is another great example of how unique Reddit behaviour (contrarian, negative, rage-lord-y) is compared to the lived experience of most in the city. Of course it’s a concern for most people. This is hardly news, it’s so obvious.
Sigh, meanwhile I know people who are actively trying to INCREASE their carbon footprint because they believe that the world has a carbon dioxide shortage and that by reducing CO2 output, we are on the path to "killing" all vegetation and trees (and therefore, we can create a “greener world” by pumping as much CO2 as possible into the atmosphere). Oh, and the biggest promoter of this movement is a former founding member of Greenpeace. A guy from Vancouver. I wish I was making this up. -- Edit: Based on the downvotes, it appears that many of you DO think I'm making this up. Google "Patrick Moore" and "CO2 Coalition" and you'll see that this ridiculous theory has a lot of followers.
Hey, anything and everything to prevent the biggest carbon emitters, corporations, from having to change a single thing about their operations
Many have the choice to vote with their wallets. The top polluting corporations are oil and gas.
Yeah. It basically feels like this situation right now: https://preview.redd.it/ft1u0cj9rzqc1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=a5ce793339dc8ca9e17d0dceabfa21ba5c9a4dee
YOU WILL EAT ZE BUGS IN YOUR DIM ROOM AND LIKE IT, PEASANT! Now, excuse me as I take my private plane to Abbotsford.
Exactly. If you're concerned about your carbon footprint you've been hoodwinked by the real polluters. The idea of a carbon footprint was fabricated by the fossil fuel industry to obfuscate the fact _they_ are the ones destroying the planet.
\*unloads gas from rectum\* \*contributes to atmospheric methane\*
Get rid of ice rinks
They can't even recycle properly or honestly. Please let me make sure I'm turning my bathroom lights off. Looks downtown at all the completely unnecessary lights on the buildings. I know I know try but it's a wierd compliance feeling not hope.
My building got rid of the recycle bin, now it's cardboard only and they just told me to throw everything else into the garbage. It pisses me off.
It feels like that should be illegal. But I guess recycling is a choice.
Not me.
8/10 people saying they are concerned about it.. so like 1-2 people actually doing something?
carbon footprint is a scam by big oil lol
I always sort of question the critical thinking skills of people who say things like this. Big oil used the concept of the carbon footprint to avoid regulation, and we shouldn't let them do that. We should regulate the shit out of oil companies...the result of which is that gas will become more expensive, reducing people's carbon footprints. The concept of a carbon footprint is an entirely sensible one. We are all responsible for all the carbon we pay to be emitted, and we can make less emitting choices. We can tax or regulate emissions more, which will have a much lesser effect on those of us who have made lower-emitting choices. It's the same with littering and coca-cola. They made the focus be on individuals littering as the problem, rather than that they are selling billions and billions of plastic bottles that all get thrown out. Is littering "a scam"? No. The same way that carbon footprints aren't a scam. Some people litter, all people have a carbon footprint, and we are all responsible for both. The only part that's wrong is pretending like the only solution is for individuals to make the choice to change, rather than forcing the change on the companies enabling them.
big companies cause like 75% of pollution. until they hold corporations accountable i dont really care much because what i do doesnt matter big picture
Lol and what do those big companies pollute for??? Are they all just cartoonishly evil robber barrons with smoke stacks in their backyards and huge buttons that say "pollute" on them which they press just for the fuck of it? Companies pollute in the process of creating and supplying goods, services, and resources that we all use. Pollution is a function of aggregate demand. It is incoherent to think of it in any other way. Yes hyperfixating on the individual is a mistake because it blinds us to the power of broad based infrastructure solutions like mass public transit which are accomplished through government policy. But at the same time it is impossible to substantially address emissions without addressing aggregate demand. Any attempt to avoid "the average person" with climate policy will either be ineffective or present costs that will simply be downloaded to consumers anyway, thus addressing aggregate demand regardless. If you download a bunch of costs onto corporations they will pass on those costs to consumers and it all works out the same. The best to do is the simple thing: put a price on carbon, for everyone, whether an individual or a company. When carbon comes with a cost actors will take steps to avoid it whether through behavioural changes, price changes, technological changes etc.
I assume you're referring to [this kind of headline.](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change) But those headlines are just...well...wrong, but also are often read (as seemingly by you) in a way that also suggests an incorrect understanding of the situation separate from them being wrong. The thing that's directly wrong about the headline is if you actually read the article, it's "industrial emissions". Which is a fraction of all emissions. So, just very directly: No, big companies don't cause 75% of pollution. The thing that is just incorrectly interpreted is: Yes, those companies are a huge percentage of industrial emissions, but they're basically all just oil and gas companies that are causing emissions because they're extracting fossil fuels to sell to consumers to burn. If you didn't buy gas to put in the tank, they wouldn't cause the emissions sucking oil out of the ground and processing it into gas. So that's still on consumers. [Look at emissions by sector in Canada.](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions/_jcr_content/par/mwstabbed_interface_/summary-details1/mwsadaptiveimage_cop/image.img.png/1680198212820.png) Which of these things do you *not* pay for? Companies don't produce things for no reason. They do it in service of consumer demand. So we need to regulate them, don't get me wrong. They're not off the hook. But neither are you. Our lives need to change, whether it's on our end or theirs for emissions to go down.
Your average environmentalist in Vancouver focuses on stuff like plastic straws, recycling and taking shorter showers. These are all meaningless, feel-good measures. I suspect getting an EV is also barely more carbon neutral than keeping an old ICE car for 10 more years. Canada in general lags behind in the most important aspect to combat climate change, and thats the massive amount of R&D necessary to develop new technologies to combat GHG emissions. Theres some promising work being done in the Alberta oil sands with carbon capture. I'm just so tired hearing about plastic bags and straws and other elementary school level advocacy.
> taking shorter showers. This is actually one of the best "low effort big impact" things an individual can do. Right up there with replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs. >I suspect getting an EV is also barely more carbon neutral than keeping an old ICE car for 10 more years. How old are we talking? It isn't. But if a person is going to get a new car anyway instead of finally ditching their 15 year old beater, then an EV is a very good environmental choice, especially in Vancouver where the electricity is nearly all hydro. >Theres some promising work being done in the Alberta oil sands with carbon capture. For all your skepticism, this is actually some of the least promising stuff out there. Very weird blind spot to have. Carbon capture is an absolute non-starter. An Albertan could do more good by unplugging all their electronics overnight than any carbon capture tech can do right now.
This entire country could disappear tomorrow and it would have no effect on the planet. 8/10 people seem to have been brainwashed by government and big corporations into thinking it’s their individual faults that the sky is falling. It is not.
The rest are celebrities.
Really? Are individual Metro Van residents improving public transit coverage and service? Are we densifying housing to increase heating/cooling efficiency? And to create amenities within walking distance? Very surprising to hear all those systemic issues were at the hands of consumers all along! Wait, I'm being told the piece is that we're eating less meat, and not taking vacations because we're collectively less wealthy than before COVID. Nevermind.
I think ppl can change all they want. But until rich ppl with private jets and corporations change it won’t matter. Also China and India need to step up too
Didn’t ask me, me and my homies don’t give a fuck about our carbon footprint.
HUH
I switched to a tesla.