this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
157 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

7200 readers
365 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The year 2023 was by far the warmest in human history. Climate extremes now routinely shock in their intensity, with a direct monetary cost that borders on the unfathomable. Over $3 trillion (US) in damages to infrastructure, property, agriculture, and human health have already slammed the world economy this century, owing to extreme weather. That number will likely pale in comparison to what is coming. The World Economic Forum, hardly a hotbed of environmental activists, now reports that global damage from climate change will probably cost some $1.7 trillion to $3.1 trillion (US) per year by 2050, with the lion’s share of the damage borne by the poorest countries in the world.

And yet we fiddle.

In today’s Canada, there is deception, national in scope, coming directly from the right‑wing opposition benches in Ottawa. In 2023, the populist Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre adopted “Axe the tax” as his new mantra and has shaped his federal election campaign around that hackneyed rhyme.

top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 81 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I truly hate what Conservatives have done to politics in this country.

Why is working towards a cleaner and better environment such a controversial issue? They've turned the political landscape into an outrage theatre on what pisses people off the most.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Cons prefer theatre over facts.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Cons prefer money over facts.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Conservatives in many countries have realized that since their political program serves the few at the expense of the many, it is inherently revolting to most people, so they can only win support by deceit and distraction.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 68 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

This is super frustrating to me.

It’s a great solution to a real problem, it works with our market economy, it works for canadians, and now we’re seeing it’s reducing emissions. You can’t leave the free market to manage externalities, if you could they wouldn’t be externalities.

I’m doubly frustrated the NDP are now taking this line and saying it puts the onus on the little guy. We could improve dispersement schedules so the little guy is less impacted, but as the article states, the little guy is coming out a head on the backs of the big polluters.

ETA: I enjoyed this article, it felt like good quality journalism to me. The Walrus doesn’t write the style I prefer to read, but I do appreciate their reporting.

[–] AnotherDirtyAnglo@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The hypocrisy is what gets me... Yeah, axe the tax... But let the forests keep burning, the rain keep flooding, the heat keep broiling people and droughts starving us...

It's not rocket surgery... Make the thing that is bad for us more expensive, and use that money to make things that are good for us LESS expensive. I still don't know why there isn't a tax on gasoline and diesel and natural gas that doesn't DIRECTLY fund public transit...

[–] bob_omb_battlefield@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In Vancouver 18.5 cents per litre goes to transit.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

I wish that happened in Winnipeg. Problem is our NDP gov't is currently trying to clean up the deficit hell-hole the Cons left us with.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago

the environmental effects stop being externalities eventually.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

Votes, the average person is an idiot

[–] Meron35@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

But think about the new shipping routes available once all the ice melts!

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wait, when did you guys get a carbon tax? And how?

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The first federal carbon tax was enacted in 2018, but a few provinces had started (and sometimes ended) their own versions as early as 2007.

The wikipedia page is pretty thorough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

On December 11, 2008, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said that a carbon tax is preferable to a cap-and-trade program which "inevitably introduces unnecessary cost and complexity". A carbon tax is "a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach". Tillerson added that he hoped that the revenues from a carbon tax would be used to lower other taxes so as to be revenue neutral.[13]

Wtf, how is this possible? If your carbon tax doesn't convince your biggest polluters to divest from fossil fuels, you're doing it wrong.

The whole point is that it is not revenue neutral

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The biggest polluters just pass the cost onto their customers by raising prices.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

That's fine. It encourages everyone to stop carbon

The point of the carbon tax is to stop carbon.

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But it doesnt work. Grocery stores raise their prices to cover the carbon tax on deliveries, and the consumers pay more. Its not like we can choose to buy only bananas that were delivered by an electric truck.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If it costs you $30 to buy a banana delivered by fossil fuels and $1 to buy a banana that was delivered by sail boat, which would you buy?

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I have neither option option. All bananas are delivered to my landlocked town via the same truck.

Bananas are probably a bad example because they are so perishable. They have to be transported in a very controlled environment. Theres no way youre getting bananas from Guatamala to Canada via sailboat and still having them be saleable.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How do you think you got bananas before oil?

[–] 4z01235@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I did a bit of googling. Turns out there were refrigerated sailing vessels in the late 1800s.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean, you can also dehydrate them. There's loads of ways to preserve bananas.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Uhh I dunno if there's any salvaging that hypothetical, lol... But if bananas start costing $1 each, we're in trouble.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago

Things that arent local and are produced with unfair labor must go up in price when those systemic issues are resolved.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's why you get a big fat rebate in your chequing account every 3 months. It's meant to offset the rising costs of goods such that end consumers who don't pollute a ton themselves are in fact not carrying the burden.

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fat? Not enough to offset the increased cost of ... everything. As I said, the biggest polluters just increase their prices and the rest of us pay. There's no incentive for the big dogs to improve, and the rest of us dont have alternatives.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Sure, that happens in the short term. But it also incentivizes the biggest polluters to reduce polluting as there is now a cost associated with polluting. Maybe a competitor is able to come in with a greener process and thereby undercut the competition. This is like, capitalism 101. It boggles my mind that people can argue that a carbon tax doesn't work.

Also... News flash: the world is fucked and the cost of everything is going to rise no matter what. It's time to get uncomfortable

[–] Mushroomm@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No...it let's the large companies continue to pollute while passing the penalty off to those who can't afford to move the needle even slightly. This needed protections against this before the tax was levied but good fuckin luck getting legislation against Canada's ogliarchs that actually effect their bottom line

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And their customers (e.g. manufacturers, transportation providers) factor in both those price hikes and the carbon taxes that they themselves need to pay, and pass those costs on to their customers, and so forth until finally end consumers are paying for several rounds of carbon tax that's priced into more expensive goods and services.

In many cases, there's nowhere for market forces to displace the inefficiency, so things just get more expensive without changing supply chains much.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

If there's one thing you can count on, it's the greed of corporations. That means they will try to cut costs every means possible in order to maximise profit. If going green saves them a dime, they will do it. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

Will they reduce prices rather than pocket the change? Probably not.. But y'all are acting like the carbon tax is meant to reduce prices??? It's meant to save the fucking planet.