• grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Whereas abandoning climate targets is apparently unifying?

    Not to me, any of you all feel that way?

    Apparently “unity” means we just do what the O&G industry wants.

  • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Canadians have to get something through our thick skulls. Every time voters in Ontario BC and Quebec tell Alberta they can’t develop their oil, they are being incompetent hypocritical assholes.

    It’s easy to tell another province what they can and can’t do. It’s cheap hollow rhetoric. What’s hard is getting Ontario, BC and Quebec to be oil free. If Quebec with virtually unlimited electric power still has gas stations and extensive commercial natural gas oil refining and pipeline capacity, then how the fuck is the rest of the world supposed to?

    https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/province-territory-energy-profiles/quebec.html

    Everyone should push hard to decarbonize their own economies before telling others what to do. As a Torontonian, I care more about GO electrification, public transit expansion, EVs, nuclear expansion, closing gas plants, making the building code close to passive house levels of insulation and airtightness and heat pumps galore.

    Until everyone can fix their shit, oil and gas are neccessities. You don’t fix this by constraining supply. You kill demand, then supply follows. Alberta has the right to develop it’s resources. We have the right to not buy it.

    In the mean time, Europe, who are far ahead of us on decarbonizing, needs our energy to get off Russian O&G. Same for all our real partners.

  • Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    “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

  • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    “I shouldn’t have to make personal decisions! Corporations should be forced to change so I don’t have to.”

    “NOT LIKE THAT!”

  • Lulzagna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    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

        • TBi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Well it could be better if we could get more smart people to vote. But the smart ppl are too busy working.

        • LostWon@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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.

    • Otter@lemmy.caM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Should have called it the “polluter tax and rebate”

      Or even “carbon tax and cash back” system

      • twopi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

  • glibg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Wait til you find out how much climate change is going to cost to live through!

  • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • Mavvik@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

  • CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Yeah, can’t we save the planet on the cheap? I mean how clean do your water and air need to be??

  • wraekscadu@vargar.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.