Let’s check back in 50-100 years and see what’s more expensive.
“Divisive” as in morons and corporate shills don’t care while the rest of normal people are saying its obviously urgent to do something? lol
A climate plan can be divisive if it saves the climate.
The climate will be fine. We won’t.
“I shouldn’t have to make personal decisions! Corporations should be forced to change so I don’t have to.”
“NOT LIKE THAT!”
It’s only divisive for stupid people - carbon tax is the simplest solution to curbing carbon output. Also, it’s not expensive when the money goes right back to the tax payers
These stupid people vote though. So…
Yeah thats a big problem tbh Nothing worthwhile is ever gonna change while stupid people can still vote…
Well it could be better if we could get more smart people to vote. But the smart ppl are too busy working.
For someone with your username, that sounds incredibly eugenicist (choosing who can vote), and more typical of someone who believes in liberalism to say (the elitism in blaming people who fall for the propaganda instead of the propagandists themselves). Surely this kind of language plays a part in disenfranchising people who are simply misinformed. Kind of counterproductive.
Should have called it the “polluter tax and rebate”
Or even “carbon tax and cash back” system
They should have physically mailed the cheques to people. And have all financial institutions have a separate account just for the rebate so people could see the amount in their banking app or statements but could only access it if they cached the cheques.
DoFo mailed out cheques before the last election.
The alternate universe where it was set up and marketed differently would be interesting to see.
People seem to be misunderstanding Carney’s point here, which is that the plan gave someone like Polievre ammo and a damned good chance of burning down Canada.
It really is worth watching the video, or reading the transcript (I couldn’t find one as of yet.) But he talks about the original plan which was entirely appropriate for the comparatively rosy pre trump era in which it was devised. These are different and bad times.
The Right, the radically anti climate right, is ascendent kind of across the globe. Had trump not been such a spectacular asshole, there’s a good chance Poilievre would be running things. Canada in contrast is one where you could see the Liberals walk this tightrope between the Left and Right. So while the Trudeau era plan is the one I’d prefer personally, I see a Carney plan as actually happening, in the long term (which is what matters) rather than being undone shortly by Poilievre or whomever.
Funny how the government can do tlvery unpopular things it didn’t campaign on like the surveillance bill C22, but when it comes to caring about the climate (which it did campaign on), it just isn’t “viable”. Just more neolib bullshit.
Wait til you find out how much climate change is going to cost to live through!
Yeah, can’t we save the planet on the cheap? I mean how clean do your water and air need to be??
In a market system, a carbon tax is the best way to punish carbon emission. Buuuut it was politically unpopular :(
I think we have a decent industrial carbon tax, right? Which kinda has a similar-ish effect as the consumer carbon tax, though slightly less efficient.
yes, dividing his patrons’ profits.
