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
post
replies:
Wait til you find out how much climate change is going to cost to live through!
Canadian governance is basically a few resource companies, banks, and a couple of telecoms bundled together in a Roots trench coat with a maple leaf on it.
replies:
"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.
replies:
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.
replies:
Yeah, can't we save the planet on the cheap? I mean how clean do your water and air need to be??
Let's check back in 50-100 years and see what's more expensive.
replies:
This guy is just garbage
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.
replies:
yes, dividing his patrons' profits.
I agree, it was divisive and costly. The Trudeau climate plan forced a pipeline expansion through a province that didn't want it, after other provinces rejected alternative pipelines, at a cost of $34 billion for that single expansion, a whopping 459% over budget. Divisive and costly.
Good thing Carny isn't trying to do that again, right? /s
replies:
"I shouldn't have to make personal decisions! Corporations should be forced to change so I don't have to."
"NOT LIKE THAT!"
He's not wrong. It also was not successful. The idea behind carbon tax (first proposed by Harper and Poilievre) is that a levy would incentivize people to burn less. Didn't work, large truck and pickup sales doubled, air travel increased. People just pay to burn.
We should have put in laws to limit vehicle size and fuel economy, not leave it up to consumer fashion. Just roll in a ban of ICE vehicles in large urban areas.
Taxing carbon doesn't work. We need to restrict activity.
replies:
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.
replies:
Can someone remind me again what we avoided by electing Carney instead of Poilievre?
replies:
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?
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.
replies:
all 98 comments