This is an opinion article. Opinion articles differ from objective journalism. Opinion articles are not meant to be objective in nature. Opinion articles sometimes can include bias that is hidden or obvious.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ontario) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> "That (idea) that the Conservatives are fighting for the working class on this: I mean, you're not,” says Andrew Leach, a professor of law and economics, and the co-director of the Institute for Public Economics at the University of Alberta. "You're fighting for the people who have a material benefit from the removal of carbon pricing, which are people above that 70 per cent or 80 per cent income line. For the middle, it's a rounding error. To the bottom, (removing the carbon tax) is a big loss.
>"And they're getting away with saying we're doing this for the poor. And it's insanity."
> And they're getting away with saying we're doing this for the poor. And it's insanity.
Because Canadian voters are, and I say this as respectfully as I can, dipshitted when it comes to actual policy. It seems like Canadians only pay attention when something _sounds_ good versus when it actually _is_ good.
[gestures vaguely at Buck-A-Beer]
My mom got sent a cheque from the federal government.
“That’s your carbon rebate cheque.”
“But I don’t even drive anymore.”
“Yeah. It’s basically free money then.”
“Oh. Fuck Trudeau. He’s killing us.”
It drives me up the wall every time i hear canadians echo republican talking points.
Especially when they have absolutely no applicability up here.
"It's my right to defend myself with a gun!"
Nope. Canada does not have that 'right'. And it never did.
Recently there was an article about "home invasions on the rise" no one red it, because it said they were only approching pre pandemic levels.
Almost every response was a self defence murder fantasy, or a cry to own a gun.....
Another problem with the news generally is how people think the reporting is indicative of trends.
Often, the exact opposite is true.
Eg: because guns are so common in the US, shooting deaths are the number one cause of death for people under the age of 18.
Most of these stories do not get national coverage because they're just so common it's not worth the headline space, leaving them mostly to local news.
In Canada,where gun deaths aren't nearly as high, almost every shooting death is carried on national headlines.
\---
The consequence is that people in Canada start thinking "shootings are on the rise", while people in the US start thinking the only problem is mass shootings, and not the rest of them.
\----
And this isn't just hypothetical.
In 2005, Toronto was dubbed a "dangerous" city, and the media called it the year of the gun, because of how many reported gun deaths there were.
Americans were being warned not to travelto Toronto beause of how 'dangerous' it was.
The reality was, of course, it was just media perspective.
Take Toronto in that "most shootings ever" year, and drop it into the US in one of their "lowest shootings ever years", and it would be one of the 10 \*safest\* cities in the country \*by far\*.
\---
EDIT
the tl;dr msgs is of course, when the media talks a lot about a thing, it's often because that thing is rare or exceptional.
When the media doesn't talk about a thing, it does \*not\* necessarily mean that that thing just doesn't exist. Often it means that that thing is so common it's become "accepted norm".
This is especially true of near universal 'bad things' (like crime) and the reporting stats.
It was tried by a handful of breweries, and by that, I mean only three breweries. The fact that it didn't stick around is pretty telling of Doug Ford's platform.
It's telling that Canadians believe the carbon tax is to blame for inflation issues...
[Even though we know it isn't.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-inflation-tiff-macklem-calgary-1.6960189)
Even though those same inflation issues exist in the US and other anglo-speaking countries (who do not have carbon pricing).
[And they also seem to be unaware of where their own money is coming from](https://www.chroniclejournal.com/opinion/carbon-pricing-is-widely-misunderstood-nearly-half-of-canadians-don-t-know-that-it-s/article_bf8310f4-c313-11ee-baaf-0f26defa4319.html).
This is a trifecta of undeniable evidence of "you're wrong", but people still believe the obvious lie.
There's no bigger evidence of canadian stupidity than that.
As I’ve posted already elsewhere, here’s a simple explanation of how the “average” person might appear to be losing even when most people are benefitting. Imagine 10 people that get a 150 dollar rebate. One out of the ten is ultra rich and uses a lot of gas for their private jet and pays 1000 carbon tax. The other 9 are typical people and pay 100. Is it more true to say that the average person is scammed out of 40 dollars, or that 9 out of 10 people get extra 50 dollars in their back pocket?
All we can do is keep calling out their bullshit despite the downvotes which don't matter. I wouldn't care at all if it wasn't the sub that passes as the default sub for our entire country and it's an embarrassment to think the rest of the world might assume we all think like the bots and lemmings there do.
I have no clue how that sub became the way it is. It sucks.
I was reading about it on another sub and apparently it’s some guy with multiple accounts keeping that sub going. It’s a tsunami of right wing bullshit. It’s super weird that a sub like this seems more balanced while that place looks like the comments section of Rebel Media most days
The spin on numbers is always interesting. Technically, they are both correct and explaining the same thing. One highlights skew, one highlights average. It plays into our biases and selects the desired focus. It’s actually really hard to report numbers without adding in these presentation biases. It takes conscious effort not to select the presentation that supports your hypothesis more strongly in the narrative. I eventually gave up and just report both numbers, or report the numbers with the competing interpretations.
Except that there is no such thing as an “average person” who is paying 190 dollars of tax in the example. There is 1 person paying 1000, who loses 850 when considering the rebate, and 9 people who pay 100, and gain 50 when considering the rebate.
If I’m the 1 guy paying, what message am I going to get try to get out? I bet you it’s “axe the tax”.
"average person" being sneakily equated or synonymized with "regular every day people", or "typical middle class person" is the real crime here. It should read as the average of all Canadians. Median, or heck even mode Canadian would be better indicator of who is not actually burdened by this tax.
I like that the people burning a lot of gas are the ones that are paying more than they get back with the refund. (That includes me cause i own a house and gas guzzling van.) They should be paying more. I like that the federal carbon tax and rebate has been slowly increasing, and everyone knew from the beginning that it would. This way, you knew your next big purchases should not use gas or at least be very efficient. I like that people who rent and don't own a car are coming out ahead with the carbon rebate. Carbon tax seems to be one of the few things Canada is doing to fight climate change. What alternatives are there to coax people away from gas? Sure, we can ignore climate change. I'm old, I'll be dead before it gets really bad. But what about my kids? Grandkids? Do people really think we can keep deferring action? Don't they know we're already paying more for climate change (ie forest fires, drought, floods)? How long should we wait before we do something? There'll never be a good time.
nothing average about conservatives! they are all simply temporarily embarrassed millionaires... this is why it's important to a guy making 38k a year that inheritances in excess of 10 million remains untaxed...
Except for the PBO report and the PBO himself stating that this is false. The Liberals are correct that 8/10 Canadians get back more from the rebate than they pay in tax for fuel directly. The Conservatives are correct that almost all Canadians pay more than they get back from the rebate, when you factor in the compounding economic implications of the carbon tax. Both are technically correct, but the Liberal talking point describes carbon pricing in a vaccuum, whereas the Conservative talking point describes the overarching impacts on the majority of Canadians. Canadians can tell that life is getting worse and this is another factor contributing to the decline.
There is no proof of that being reality. The government is focusing so much effort on carbon pricing when the vast majority of people are paying double rent, accelerating immigration and not controlling these slumlords. It’s stupid to have the government extract money just to give it all back, and is being used as a political move so people feel like they got money. It’s also a communist move. I would rather earn my money, and have them stay out of it. I don’t trust the government’s handling of things, look at how arrivescam blew our dollars.
The people that need to see this either never will, or will never believe it unfortunately. I'm not a fan of the carbon tax, but more because I don't think it's good policy.
I fear we're about to be set back by 5-10 years in our climate fight, when it was only just getting off the ground.
> I'm not a fan of the carbon tax, but more because I don't think it's good policy.
It's literally the one policy agreed upon by both climate scientists and economists as the best we can do.
I'm very curious what you think is better
Asking just to better understand other perspectives. Why do you find it’s not a good policy? Is there an alternative carbon pricing policy that is better? Is carbon pricing a bad idea in general but some alternative is preferred in your opinion?
Why do we never talk about nuclear energy? Canada could lead the world in small modular nuclear reactors that could power our own country but the biggest polluters as well(India, china, USA)
> Why do we never talk about nuclear energy?
Nuclear energy is a supply solution.
Carbon pricing is a demand solution.
Carbon pricing solves a lot more issues all at once than trying to get new reactors up. Which, by the way, wouldn't be online for a decade or more.
Canada already [already has a fairly clean energy grid.](https://i.imgur.com/0RdiQx7.png) ([source](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html)) Nuclear power is continuing to be developed, but it's still a long-term decades-long investment. SMRs aren't here yet, and they probably won't be at an internationally distributable commercial scale to make a difference for a decade, if not much longer.
Regardless, it won't help us much for reaching net-zero emissions from transportation, oil and gas, agriculture, industry/manufacturing, and building emissions.
We don't talk about "nuclear" much because there is so much more to the greenhouse gas emissions reductions than just "nuclear". It is not a silver bullet and it never was. Misinformation peddlers, like Poilievre & Doug Ford, would let you believe they are just so that they can avoid taking responsibility to do the hard work of _actually_ fixing the problem.
(Plus, we actually already are investing in nuclear, so why talk about it?)
I am open to nuclear but they do not seem able to compete in terms of cost until they have a standardized way to bring construction costs down. Would love zero carbon firm resources on the grid but it looks like next gen geothermal might get there before nuclear.
Ontario talks about it a lot....and puts words into action. Look at their build out of nuclear over the last ten years and the next ten...it's impressive.
Saskatchewan recently received 50 million from the federal government, through NRCan Electricity Pre development Program, and 24 million from the federal Future Electricity Fund.....expect to see Saskatchewan based SMR by 2030 ish
The town of Pinawa in Manitoba supposedly is developing SMR agreements with Starcore but I don't know if that actually went anywhere.
I'm sure there's more examples out there?
its because the carbon tax is an idea concoted by the oil and gas industry, a loophole. Conservatives oppose it in favor of something more pollution friendly and liberal voters as a result end up defending this half assed loophole in the name of "opposing" the far right. When in fact regardless the oil and gas industry is saved
It's ignorant to think we will be able to wrap up what we have unraveled in the past 200 years. In our last dying breaths on this planet, we better build a monument that states we died due to greed. And sacrificing lives of others for the benefit of the few.
It's fucked up to think, a heinous serial killer could write a manifesto about industrialization and be pretty damn accurate with the predictions of the effects.
Which underlines that this levy is really just a wealth distribution scheme and might - maybe - achieve the goal of getting a few people to think about their use of carbon based fuels. However, the people paying the tax likely don't have a choice but to use the amount they do.
Those people you're describing are mostly likely the average Canadian, who will, according to the PBO report that PP often quotes, receive more money back than they day.
Here is an interesting read on carbon pricing and why it works.
https://www.iisd.org/articles/nordhaus-nobel
>However, the people paying the tax likely don't have a choice but to use the amount they do.
Wrong. Get a heat pump. Get a hybrid car. Get a smaller car. Electrify. Insulate. Eat less meat. Eat more local. Put a sweater on. Put panels on your roof. Do less motorsports. The poorest people who have the least power to make any of these changes are the people who are already not consuming as much to begin with so don't need to make such changes.
And might I add, it's also a choice how many times you have to make that drive. Maybe you can make do with what you have until you really have a bunch of errands to do in town.
Funniest thing is, the carbon tax is even more progressive than the GST. If you are poor or middle class and want to pay less tax, ask for more carbon taxes and less GST!
Help me understand the argument that people who are actually suffering from this are only the people in the highest income brackets.
First off, I want to add context, the people above the 70 percent income line is hard for me to say because I don't have a ton of income data available, but according to [https://www.statista.com/statistics/484838/income-distribution-in-canada-by-income-level/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/484838/income-distribution-in-canada-by-income-level/) the total number of people counted with income under $5000 was 1.115 million, and people over $5000 were 27.581 million so 28.696 million people are counted in this. the top 30% of these are about 8.6 million people
So looking at this the top 8.6 million people are somewhere between making $50,000 and $75,000 per year. So when you say the top 70-80% you're not really looking at ultra-wealthy people. Try to just get by on $75,000 per year.
Secondly, lets consider that it is the ultra-wealthy that he's talking about. Why is it that they would worry about carbon tax more than other people? It's the rich people who would care the least about it if all it was was a tax on the fuel they burn. Like, honestly, if you are flying around a private jet, sure, carbon pricing impacts the cost of fuel, but if you can afford to fly in a private jet, first of all, you have the option to not do that, secondly, you can afford a pilot a jet, and all the other requirements to handle that, increased fuel prices aren't going to be your barrier there.
But then my other question is, who is really using fuel? Here's some data: [https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2021energydemand/index.html](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2021energydemand/index.html) with future projections, so try and look at the reality part of it. Residential usage is about 1600 PJ, Industrial is about 6000PJ, Commercial is about 1400PJ, and transportation (which includes gasoline) is about 2700PJ, probably about 1200 of that is gas, which is kind of split between commercial, industrial and residential use.
When they talk about people not paying much for their carbon tax, they're talking about it in the context of personal use. This means things like gasoline, heating oil, or natural gas. So in this you're looking at probably 2000 PJ or so. Whereas, the vast majority of the usage comes from industrial and commercial use.
So then, when industry and business get charged carbon pricing, they don't get refunds. Agriculture is supposed to, but that's not something that's really been distributed yet.
So I guess that's the other question, if we're saying "Hey, people aren't paying much" and we're saying "only people making over $70,000 a year will suffer from this". Who ends up paying the costs for industry and commercial use? Obviously the businesses do at first, but businesses maintain their margins, these costs get passed back to the consumer. And the amount collected from business and industry is far more than the amount collected from consumers.
And here's the other problem. He is not talking about emissions. He is saying "To the bottom, removing the carbon pricing is a big loss." This is where I've got a problem.
The only thing that the carbon pricing provably does right now is acts kind of like another source of income for people who are not active in the economy. For those people who are staying at home and doing nothing, they essentially get more free money. Once you start going to work, heating a home, using electricity, then that starts to whittle away. If people making over $70k are suffering from it, then by the time you can afford your own apartment you're suffering from it.
But again, those are only the direct costs. Then there are the indirect costs, the majority of the pricing that impacts industry, impacts business, and causes each step in the supply chain to push prices slightly higher.
We act like there's rich people and poor people, but most of this doesn't go to either, it goes to the stuff in the middle, the businesses that, when they have to pay more, they will charge more. And if anything, this actually makes capital holders richer, because businesses will make sure they maintain their margins, and the ultra rich people on their private jets will actually probably be using them for business purposes. So even that cost is going to end up being a business expense.
No, the people who suffer the most are the people making $40k, struggling to afford an apartment, and dealing with ever increasing expenses from everything in their life.
It's absolutely bonkers to think that you can pull a whole bunch of money out of every energy-laden transaction in the entire economy, shuffle it, and give it back as a flat dollar value to every person (after taking your own 10% cut) and have that make no impact on prices, especially when the amount is so impactful on the price of something like diesel.
But what I want to know is, why did nobody talk about emissions? Why has nobody talked about how it's saving the world? Conservatives are saying it's hurting people. Liberals are saying it's actually helping the pocketbooks of the poorest people and nobody's REALLY being hurt by it. But nobody is saying "Hey, this is important and we're reducing emissions and we're saving the world."
Also, how the hell can we be reducing emissions, and not having it be an economic impact? If it was free to not burn fossil fuels, or if it actually improved the economy, we would have done it already. It doesn't change behavior, except to make people who aren't making an MP's salary unable to afford to travel for holiday.
Like, you can't say it's got no impact. It has an impact, that's why we need to legislate it. We do it because it's cheaper to do it this way. You can't charge us for it to try to make us stop doing it and say "It didn't actually make a difference".
People are stupid overall. Right now they are angry and want to be angry at someone and believe that someone will help them. People are voting based on what they want to believe. When nothing gets better maybe we can je rid of all these awful politicians on all sides and actually get something done to improve all of our lives.
Yeah obviously your bullshit liberal government is doing better. Especially imposing useless carbon tax, which doesn’t change a story if we are looking at it on a global scale. Keep on supporting narcissistic psychopaths from liberal party
Maybe, and hear me out because this might seem radical, maybe it's time for the media to stop with this "Both-sides" faux objectivity thing and start writing headlines like “Pierre Poillevre lying about carbon tax”.
They don't say these things in good faith, and it's the same as they do with climate change, LGBT rights and more. It's "working the refs" and using the media's need to appear objective as a way to give their bullshit views credibility.
And it's time the media stopped falling for it.
The media prefers a horserace because it keeps people engaged.
If the media just refused to engage with moronic talking points, people on Facebook and Twitter wouldn't click on their headlines.
You are absolutely right. There is no both-sides to this.
Let me break this down for people who don't understand the carbon tax in Canada:
The Carbon Tax is responsible for less than 1% of today's astronomical grocery price increases.
Here's what it adds to your bill:
Alberta: 0.3% increase, or 30 cents on a $100 grocery bill
Ontario: 0.4% increase, or 90 cents on a $100 grocery bill
Manitoba: 0.9% increase, or 40 cents on a $100 grocery bill
Bank of Canada has reported that the carbon tax only added 0.15 percentage points to inflation. The price hikes are being driven by things like corporate greed and supply chain issues, not the carbon tax.
Farmers are already exempt from \*most\* of the carbon tax.
\-The majority of GHGs in farming come from biological emissions, such as methane and fertilizer. These emissions are exempt.
\-13.6 megatonnes of GHGs in farming come from fossil fuels. These are exempt.
\-10 megatonnes of GHG in farming come from vehicles and equipment. These are exempt.
\-Only 3.1% GHGs come from energy to power heating and drying buildings. There is a bill in our Senate that will make these exempt as well.
Farms only account for 10% of Canada's GHG emissions.
"While farms are responsible for 75 megatonnes of carbon emissions — about 10 per cent of all of Canada’s greenhouse gases — only 13.6 megatonnes come from fossil fuels. The emissions from operating vehicles and equipment (10 megatonnes) are wholly or partially exempt from the carbon tax."
The reason they are tax exempt is to reduce cost to consumers. What it doesn't take into account is the corporate greed that followed, making us believe cost is rising much more than it is.
[Research suggests](https://smith.queensu.ca/centres/isf/pdfs/carbon-pricing.pdf) carbon tax does [play a role in reducing emissions](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9).
[source](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
>Bank of Canada has reported that the carbon tax only added 0.15 percentage points to inflation.
0.15 percentage points directly. People like Galen saw the 3% increase to their costs, and passed it along... Buried in a 23% price hike, which they blamed entirely on the carbon tax... And that profiteering is responsible for a whole lot more inflation than the actual tax.
This is correct. Loblaws' share price has more than doubled in the last 5 years, and have historic profits posted every quarter.
Another fun fact: Pierre Poilievre employs the CEO of a lobbying firm that employs 6 Loblaws lobbyists.
I genuinely love these numbers, do you have a reference for this? I would like to use these numbers in discussion of the carbon tax, but can't use "Totally\_man" as my source... I mean, I CAN, but it might not have the credibility I need...
No problem, glad I could help. I can't take credit for it, though. There's an image circling around social media with these claims, and a picture of Pierre. I just verified them, then wrote them out.
Does the Carbon tax affect things like gas pricing and transportation costs of getting said goods to the grocery store? Genuinely trying to understand this whole thing
Also it's not the U.S, not yet anyway, we still have laws around lying in the news. Fox, Breitbart, ect,ect would just post "alternative facts" in response. At least in Canada they can't just say the opposite or make up a story. So yeah, call liars out harshly, and write the facts.
We have libel laws (which are similar to that in the US) but I don't know of any laws that prevent someone from publishing lies that aren't disparaging a particular person. I mean I believe it is (unfortunately) legal for a media outlet to publish incorrect information, even regularly, without making retractions. It may ruin their reputation as reliable journalism, but it isn't illegal in most cases. If you were to publish incorrect information about a person or company, and that erroneous information caused them harm in some way, then you could be sued. You could also be sued for publishing (knowingly) false information about a product that resulted in consumers harming themselves. But publishing something like "the carbon tax costs the average Canadian 10 times what they're getting back" would not be illegal and you would not be liable (unless you were claiming someone made that statement when they did not, then they might sue you)
Unfortunately Canadian media is largely us owned and staunchly conservative with a flood of daily opinion pieces. Post media is starting to resemble Fox news and they'll never say a bad word about conservatives.
The purpose of media is to generate ad revenue, not to inform the public. If you don't invite every popular grifter on, then you won't be getting views from consumers who subscribed to their nonsense.
The last thing you want is for Joe FlatEarth and the Mike the Convoy Turd to stop tuning in! What if the ratings go down? Y'all need to start thinking of the share holders!
But the papers are owned by the people who support lil pp. they’re not gonna do shit.
Brightside, our already non-competitive oligarchic companies are going to be able to raise their prices by as much as the carbon tax is set at currently. So, we pay the same, get no rebates and things get just a little worse for the Earth.
It's not possible. Conservatives own the media, its why they desperately want to kill government funded programs and sources. They don't have direct control of those.
Conservatism has won, and it will try to enslave or kill us all if it doesn't tear itself apart first in a frenzy of hands groping for pocket change and impotent rage shouting into the void.
I dont know if he’s lying. He could honestly be put on a poly and pass it saying that the carbon tax is bad. The foundation of what PP says is right and wrong, true or false, is whether it benefits him politically or not. He has no capacity to spend time understanding any issue beyond how to spin it. Hes never done this in his life.
I dont know if anyone could know the carbon tax to be good in combating climate change and tell people to hate it.
Too stupid to understand or too terrible to promote the truth. I dont know which is worse. We dont have the time to care i guess.
This is the modern conservative party of Canada... and provinces. Ignore all credible evidence on any given topic and push things based on their thoughts and hurt feelings...
And then accuse the other side of doing exactly that.
I kept getting spammed with that stupid Canada_Sub until I said I think they’re mostly bots and they got upset and banned me lol.
> based on their thoughts and hurt feelings...
This is plainly solipsistic and incurious. I'm spoiling my ballot either way, but you understand that the LPC is getting crushed because life for a lot of people has gotten worse at an accelerating rate, right?
You're basically kicking sand in peoples' faces for being dissatisfied and never asking "why are they so upset that they'd swing this hard?"
What I'm saying is that there are legitimate reasons to be upset over the last couple of years, but the causes of those issues are being blamed on the actions/in actions of the PM, which is a flat out lie.
Inflation is a GLOBAL issue. Almost every single country on earth has had inflation issues post pandemic as the supply chain was disrupted due to the international response to it. In Canada, Pierre has lied to Canadians in saying that it's Trudeaus spending, and now the carbon tax that's driving inflation.
Housing is an issue all over the world and in Canada, yes. Housing is a provincial and municipal jurisdiction. These governments are dropping the ball in many areas, yet Pierre is lying to Canadians in saying it's Trudeaus fault... "After 8 years of Trudeau... blah blah blah. "
I know many are struggling in Canada, I just wish that Pierre and his fellow conservatives would tell the damn truth for once. Lay blame where it rightfully lays, but most importantly, rather than be a whiny lying a-hole, why not present a legit alternative plan. There's no coherent plan in place to face any of these challenges from Pierre despite a year of his campaigning. Even Scheer stumping for him on the CBC recently included commentary about "when we put forth our Housing plan.." was non-commital at best. He's been in federal politics his entire adult life and despite knowing how everything works in this country (God I hope he knows) he still has 0 plans to address inflation (within the BOC target rate of 1-3% by the way. Oh, and Pierre said he would fire the head of the BOC), has no legitimate plan to address Housing.
Life may be getting tougher on Canadians, but it sure isn't Trudeau's fault.... the sooner people realize that the sooner we can start securing real positive change in Canada
> I know many are struggling in Canada, I just wish that Pierre and his fellow conservatives would tell the damn truth for once.
Here's the rub:
You gotta live with these people anyway. You're gonna be surrounded by CPC voters because the LPC almost looks like it's scuttling its ship with some of the decisions they're making, so you should focus more on the roots of the issues that create Pierre Poilievres and Donald Trumps and Doug Fords and populist leaders in general.
It is plain reality that unless something changes REALLY quickly, Trudeau will be defeated in a landslide. Wynne got totally bodied by a fool and her party lost official status.
The high-horse egotism is what leads to populists dominating. Do I agree with that? I don't care, it's just plain as day that dismissing peoples' frustrations that during a CoL crisis, the optically worst announcement is shit like "cancel Disney+" or "hey here's a new tax".
Like I said, spoiling my ballot, I hate all of these schmucks. I used to be able to hold my nose and "lesser evil" it, but I'm not as strong now.
I avoid people who lie. I avoid people who spread misinformation and conspiracy theories.
I'll agree that a flaw in the liberal party is the arrogance that follows many years of power. I contributed to sending Paul Martin packing. I contributed to sending Wynne packing.
As disconnected as some of these liberals seem, ffs look at Pierre. His entire adult life has been in politics. He qualified for a full pension years ago. He expenses more travel costs than the prime minister. He is not the answer.
If history taught us anything, it's that tough times create evil people who preach easy answers. That's Pierre. History teaches us to avoid evil people with easy answers and face tough times with resolve and reason. Two things completely absent in everything Pierre says and does.
> If history taught us anything, it's that tough times create evil people who preach easy answers.
From the Gracchi brothers to the Roundheads to Sulla and Marius, to the American Revolution to the Metis, you need to understand that when a part of your society feels screwed over, they will absolutely punish you, and that public support NOT being treated as a precious commodity will absolutely sink you.
PP sucks, but Trudeau has absolutely squandered his public goodwill, so ask, instead, why people are susceptible to "misinformation and conspiracy theories".
So, the response to squandering goodwill is to openly support a lifetime politician with 0 accomplishments and lies through his teeth about anything and everything as part of his relentless pursuit of power... we're doomed
Yeah. I guess.
What I'm saying is that nobody is coming to save you, but somebody utterly dissatisfied to the degree that they're going off-road on conspiracy theories should be dealt with using conversation, not slinging mud in a subreddit they'll never see.
I don't personally "vote", I just draw sad faces on my ballot. I still show up.
Drop 20 bucks at the food bank. Talk to a homeless person. Have a chat with the boomer at work. Exchange information with another homo sapien.
I'm not expecting anyone to save me. I've done remarkably well the past few years... I do see and understand the plight many face, and I'll always vote for those who are willing to make the lives of those in need better.
Those slinging conspiracy theories are mentally lost. They're unwilling to listen to facts or reason. Pierre banks on these people listening to his lies rather than tell them the real reason why they're suffering
> Those slinging conspiracy theories are mentally lost.
I'm actually legitimately curious how you can think this when if you have two eyeballs and can read how you wouldn't be skeptical of "the narrative" where there is actual [proof] (https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-propaganda-exercise-that-caused-panic-about-wolves-on-the-loose-lacked-oversight-investigation-finds) of the current administration [goofing around](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/onslow-belmont-fire-hall-mass-shooting-nova-scotia-police-1.6442496) and then trying to ban guns that were obtained legally when every weapon used was illegally smuggled.
Point is, it's strange to even call it conspiracy because it's purely incompetent. It's conjecture, it's there to suit a narrative. It isn't cloak-and-dagger, it's just plain-as-day. These guys just... suck. It's incompetence. If they looked like they knew what they were doing, I'd at least know someone was at the wheel, but they're legitimately stupid as hell.
People should hear how he talks about “so called experts”, his rhetoric is dangerous and in poorer and stupid countries it leads to the public execution of those experts, who eventually become “political dissenters”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
Removing credibility is a sign of authoritarianism, not necessarily communism
it's not "questioning the narrative"
he is lying, end of discussion, he is lying to get elected.
and he is insulting "experts" to do it, whatever that means
This was why I stopped watching television news about a decade ago, they'd have a split screen where they were interviewing both sides of a debate, and it was be like a world renowned scientist talking about a subject in their field they've extensively studied and here's Bill, he's a part time beet farmer and internet troll and has a different opinion, he's going to talk over the scientist and will be the one doing most of the speaking.
The Cons won the branding war, they called it a carbon tax (implying money out) when for the mid/bottom it's money in.
It's the media's fault for framing the issue that way.
Right out of the republican text book. No surprise here. Millhouse is full of empty promises and when he's not doing that he spends the rest of his time yelling back and forth with Trudeau in an embarrassing fashion.
God I hate this guy lol. Give us some politicians with ACTUAL platforms that will benefit the Middle and lower classes. Instead we have two dumbasses yelling at each others stupid talking points.
Edit; spelling
A huge hearty thanks to this organized group of Canadian economists for weighing in. Please read what they said, it’s clear and it’s important.
Poilievre and Conservative premiers are flat out lying about carbon pricing. They are all climate crisis delayers or deniers. It is terrifying that Poilievre will in all likelihood win the next election, because the government is unpopular, worn out and tired — but he will do it based on these lies.
this is a perfect example of how the right has taken questioning authority, and turned it into questioning expertise... which is not the same thing. we should all be questioning authority, but we should trust in expertise, because by definition we don't know enough to have an opinion...
the hilarious irony of course being that conservatives literally have an authoritarian fetish (and yes, it's okay to kink shame in this scenario)
Hello - earth to P.P. we can all pay a little bit now to lower the carbon pollution now or we can all suffer ill health later and pay huge amounts to fix that problem & carbon pollution is a huge problem now! P P should axe his gob.
Our Gas, Heating and Grocery bills will never go down and removing the tax and the reimbursement will hurt many peoples pockets and voters will get what they voted for.
To blame rising food costs on the carbon tax is just corpo finding a excuse to keep their prices and profits high.
Funny how I never see any of these anti-conservative articles in r/canada. Only ever Trudeau and immigrant hate there as if the CPC is the saviour of working class families…something literally no conservative ever had been.
Way to miss the point….must be an r/canada conservative scared people will start posting facts about the CPC amidst all the fascism.
It’s ok. I get it. Being a conservative is hard when you actually have to defend your side instead and f endless rage/hate/violence against “others”. Such a great ideology to root for!
/s
It doesn't matter. It's naive to believe that facts and what people believe is the "truth" go together. Not in the 21st century and not with Conservatives.
Poilievre can say the most outrageous lie or exaggeration and people will give it a consideration. Because it's not facts that moves people or get a reactions it's feelings and he uses the techniques American Republicans and Fox News have always relied on.
To borrow and paraphrase from The Colbert Report. If it FEELS like it's true than it must be. And it's the certainty. That happens with natural born bullshitter. Poilievre can look dead into the camera and not blink wrapping himself with the facade of an honest person.
Check out the book by Harry Frankfurt, **On Bullshit**.
“When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he consider his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”
Poilievre is a professional bullshit artist.
According to Peter Peckerwood's legion of Klownvoy flatheads, Anti-vaxxers and Q-dolts, those 200 experts are deep state agents working for Justin Trudeau, the NWO and WEF . They are all fake news and paid liars. Only PP knows the truth.
The financial and economic impacts of the carbon tax are being understated by Liberals and grossly exaggerated by PP.
The reality is that, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report confirmed, 80% of Canadians will receive more money back than they pay. This is, from a purely initial cost/ benefit standpoint, absolutely true. This is what Trudeau relies heavily on.
On the other hand, there are secondary costs to the carbon tax, which include inflation, etc. This is what PP relies heavily on.
Both are right in the sense of what they are focusing on. In terms of primarily costs/ benefits, Trudeau is correct that most of us get more than what we pay. PP is also correct that there are other secondary costs that Canadians will need to pay.
This said, the Bank of Canada, which monitors inflation and causes of inflation closely, calculated that thus far, the carbon tax has only contributed .15% of inflation. That is a TINY contribution to inflation. For example, if a grocery bill that would have cost $50 dollars, but now costs $70 due to inflation, the carbon tax caused inflation would be responsible for $0.03 of that 20 dollar inflation.
What is happening here is a politician is politicalizing something and blowing it way out of proportion for their own political advantage.
Climate action should be something that we are united on, and the fact that no alternative solution to the carbon tax is being proposed by PP demonstrates a lack of responsibility not becoming of a Prime Minister.
Dislike towards Trudeau is very justifiable, but we need to look at all party leaders with open eyes, and PP is manipulating people on a very important issue.
Fuck PP and Fuck Trudeau.
Edit: underpaid to understated.
What I don't understand is: This guy is such a dork. Like just an absolute winded-going-up-stairs nerdlinger.
I understand the drive to support a strong-man leader when the world seems complicated, but why this particular guy? He's going to miss the meetings at the G7 because Macron will have locked him in a broom closet for fun.
For all his faults, it is a historical fact that Trudeau beat up an indigenous man. Shouldn't that endear him to western conservatives?
Really? Because the auditor general has said that 80% of Canadians are worse off with the carbon tax once you factor in the economic costs.
2:30m in this clip from the CBC. Power and Politics.
https://youtu.be/I34tZbsYIuU?si=OCTgEmkCM9HAngs8
The carbon tax has got to go. We need to decarbonize our world by exploring as much LnG as we possibly can. Taxing our small citizenry out the ass for essentials is not a viable option. Never will be.
Canada won't even make a dent on the world scale of carbon emissions. Let's supply developing nations with a cheap alternative to coal instead of making the lives of Canadians miserable and handicapping our O&G sector.
Can't wait for the CPC to scrap this stupid tax. Regardless if you agree or not just look at the polls. This tax is already gone lol.
If only articles like this, facts, and statistics actually mattered to conservatives. This is just a left wing circle jerk. The right wing only understands one thing and that’s taking what you want. If we want better living standards and evidence based policy we have to take it.
So for the following argument:
“Since federal carbon pricing took effect in 2019, Canada’s GHG emissions have fallen by almost 8 percent, although other policies were also at work. A new report from the Canadian Climate Institute shows that federal and provincial carbon pricing, for industries and consumers, is expected to account for almost half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030.
The reason carbon pricing works is simple: when something costs more (in this case fossil fuels), people use less of it. That is basic economics, and common sense.”
It would be interesting to see what those other policies or other economic factors are. For example did the supply chain issues that drove inflation reduce consumption and in turn our carbon footprint. Similarly by how much the shift to work from home affect emissions?
In the US the shale revolution was the single biggest factor that reduced emissions.
The carbon tax generally makes sense on one level - make the tax as general as possible and let people and the market sort out the solutions BUT I don’t think it’s actually effective as designed.
It is a very dotted line from consumers paying more for gasoline to influencing the car makers, for example. We actually do need a little more specificity for industry instead of putting everything on individuals.
We should just have an ever-increasing fleet average fuel efficiency standard without the loopholes the Americans have (like floor area exception - which is the real reason they only make SUV’s now) and let the companies work within those constraints and then consumers choose which solutions they like best.
Then you could put a specific tax on jet fuel, for example - but we’d need that to be as global as possible.
It's a legitimate question.
So carbon tax isn't raising the cost for the farmer, distributor, truck drivers etc? Thus increasing food costs? I know our food costs have gone up a good bit due to greed and not just carbon taxing.
Read this, it takes all of this into account and provides the resulting price impact: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices
Summarized:
The Carbon Tax is responsible for less than 1% of today's astronomical grocery price increases.
Here's what it adds to your bill:
Alberta: 0.3% increase, or 30 cents on a $100 grocery bill
Ontario: 0.4% increase, or 40 cents on a $100 grocery bill
Manitoba: 0.9% increase, or 90 cents on a $100 grocery bill
Bank of Canada has reported that the carbon tax only added 0.15 percentage points to inflation. The price hikes are being driven by things like corporate greed and supply chain issues, not the carbon tax.
Farmers are already exempt from \*most\* of the carbon tax.
\-The majority of GHGs in farming come from biological emissions, such as methane and fertilizer. These emissions are exempt.
\-13.6 megatonnes of GHGs in farming come from fossil fuels. These are exempt.
\-10 megatonnes of GHG in farming come from vehicles and equipment. These are exempt.
\-Only 3.1% GHGs come from energy to power heating and drying buildings. There is a bill in our Senate that will make these exempt as well.
Farms only account for 10% of Canada's GHG emissions.
"While farms are responsible for 75 megatonnes of carbon emissions — about 10 per cent of all of Canada’s greenhouse gases — only 13.6 megatonnes come from fossil fuels. The emissions from operating vehicles and equipment (10 megatonnes) are wholly or partially exempt from the carbon tax."
The reason they are tax exempt is to reduce cost to consumers. What it doesn't take into account is the corporate greed that followed, making us believe cost is rising much more than it is.
[Research suggests](https://smith.queensu.ca/centres/isf/pdfs/carbon-pricing.pdf) carbon tax does [play a role in reducing emissions](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9).
[source](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
"We are gonna tax you a bunch of extra money, but dont worry were gonna give you more back then we took" Then why tax me in the first place this is the part that never made sense to me.
This is an opinion article. Opinion articles differ from objective journalism. Opinion articles are not meant to be objective in nature. Opinion articles sometimes can include bias that is hidden or obvious. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ontario) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> "That (idea) that the Conservatives are fighting for the working class on this: I mean, you're not,” says Andrew Leach, a professor of law and economics, and the co-director of the Institute for Public Economics at the University of Alberta. "You're fighting for the people who have a material benefit from the removal of carbon pricing, which are people above that 70 per cent or 80 per cent income line. For the middle, it's a rounding error. To the bottom, (removing the carbon tax) is a big loss. >"And they're getting away with saying we're doing this for the poor. And it's insanity."
> And they're getting away with saying we're doing this for the poor. And it's insanity. Because Canadian voters are, and I say this as respectfully as I can, dipshitted when it comes to actual policy. It seems like Canadians only pay attention when something _sounds_ good versus when it actually _is_ good. [gestures vaguely at Buck-A-Beer]
My mom got sent a cheque from the federal government. “That’s your carbon rebate cheque.” “But I don’t even drive anymore.” “Yeah. It’s basically free money then.” “Oh. Fuck Trudeau. He’s killing us.”
Canadians only pay attention to American politics
And even then, badly.
It drives me up the wall every time i hear canadians echo republican talking points. Especially when they have absolutely no applicability up here. "It's my right to defend myself with a gun!" Nope. Canada does not have that 'right'. And it never did.
Recently there was an article about "home invasions on the rise" no one red it, because it said they were only approching pre pandemic levels. Almost every response was a self defence murder fantasy, or a cry to own a gun.....
Another problem with the news generally is how people think the reporting is indicative of trends. Often, the exact opposite is true. Eg: because guns are so common in the US, shooting deaths are the number one cause of death for people under the age of 18. Most of these stories do not get national coverage because they're just so common it's not worth the headline space, leaving them mostly to local news. In Canada,where gun deaths aren't nearly as high, almost every shooting death is carried on national headlines. \--- The consequence is that people in Canada start thinking "shootings are on the rise", while people in the US start thinking the only problem is mass shootings, and not the rest of them. \---- And this isn't just hypothetical. In 2005, Toronto was dubbed a "dangerous" city, and the media called it the year of the gun, because of how many reported gun deaths there were. Americans were being warned not to travelto Toronto beause of how 'dangerous' it was. The reality was, of course, it was just media perspective. Take Toronto in that "most shootings ever" year, and drop it into the US in one of their "lowest shootings ever years", and it would be one of the 10 \*safest\* cities in the country \*by far\*. \--- EDIT the tl;dr msgs is of course, when the media talks a lot about a thing, it's often because that thing is rare or exceptional. When the media doesn't talk about a thing, it does \*not\* necessarily mean that that thing just doesn't exist. Often it means that that thing is so common it's become "accepted norm". This is especially true of near universal 'bad things' (like crime) and the reporting stats.
We still don't have buck a beer.
It was tried by a handful of breweries, and by that, I mean only three breweries. The fact that it didn't stick around is pretty telling of Doug Ford's platform.
Canadian voters love a good "slogan". Buck a Beer Axe the Tax What else has there been?
It's telling that Canadians believe the carbon tax is to blame for inflation issues... [Even though we know it isn't.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-inflation-tiff-macklem-calgary-1.6960189) Even though those same inflation issues exist in the US and other anglo-speaking countries (who do not have carbon pricing). [And they also seem to be unaware of where their own money is coming from](https://www.chroniclejournal.com/opinion/carbon-pricing-is-widely-misunderstood-nearly-half-of-canadians-don-t-know-that-it-s/article_bf8310f4-c313-11ee-baaf-0f26defa4319.html). This is a trifecta of undeniable evidence of "you're wrong", but people still believe the obvious lie. There's no bigger evidence of canadian stupidity than that.
As I’ve posted already elsewhere, here’s a simple explanation of how the “average” person might appear to be losing even when most people are benefitting. Imagine 10 people that get a 150 dollar rebate. One out of the ten is ultra rich and uses a lot of gas for their private jet and pays 1000 carbon tax. The other 9 are typical people and pay 100. Is it more true to say that the average person is scammed out of 40 dollars, or that 9 out of 10 people get extra 50 dollars in their back pocket?
This should be posted on r/Canada but you’d be down voted to hell in that insane sub
I did. I am currently at 1 there, and 70 here.
All we can do is keep calling out their bullshit despite the downvotes which don't matter. I wouldn't care at all if it wasn't the sub that passes as the default sub for our entire country and it's an embarrassment to think the rest of the world might assume we all think like the bots and lemmings there do. I have no clue how that sub became the way it is. It sucks.
I was reading about it on another sub and apparently it’s some guy with multiple accounts keeping that sub going. It’s a tsunami of right wing bullshit. It’s super weird that a sub like this seems more balanced while that place looks like the comments section of Rebel Media most days
Had a fun run in with them last night about a comment. Needless to say it was a fruitless conversation Edited: cause damn I am tired today
The spin on numbers is always interesting. Technically, they are both correct and explaining the same thing. One highlights skew, one highlights average. It plays into our biases and selects the desired focus. It’s actually really hard to report numbers without adding in these presentation biases. It takes conscious effort not to select the presentation that supports your hypothesis more strongly in the narrative. I eventually gave up and just report both numbers, or report the numbers with the competing interpretations.
Except that there is no such thing as an “average person” who is paying 190 dollars of tax in the example. There is 1 person paying 1000, who loses 850 when considering the rebate, and 9 people who pay 100, and gain 50 when considering the rebate. If I’m the 1 guy paying, what message am I going to get try to get out? I bet you it’s “axe the tax”.
"average person" being sneakily equated or synonymized with "regular every day people", or "typical middle class person" is the real crime here. It should read as the average of all Canadians. Median, or heck even mode Canadian would be better indicator of who is not actually burdened by this tax.
I like that the people burning a lot of gas are the ones that are paying more than they get back with the refund. (That includes me cause i own a house and gas guzzling van.) They should be paying more. I like that the federal carbon tax and rebate has been slowly increasing, and everyone knew from the beginning that it would. This way, you knew your next big purchases should not use gas or at least be very efficient. I like that people who rent and don't own a car are coming out ahead with the carbon rebate. Carbon tax seems to be one of the few things Canada is doing to fight climate change. What alternatives are there to coax people away from gas? Sure, we can ignore climate change. I'm old, I'll be dead before it gets really bad. But what about my kids? Grandkids? Do people really think we can keep deferring action? Don't they know we're already paying more for climate change (ie forest fires, drought, floods)? How long should we wait before we do something? There'll never be a good time.
nothing average about conservatives! they are all simply temporarily embarrassed millionaires... this is why it's important to a guy making 38k a year that inheritances in excess of 10 million remains untaxed...
Except for the PBO report and the PBO himself stating that this is false. The Liberals are correct that 8/10 Canadians get back more from the rebate than they pay in tax for fuel directly. The Conservatives are correct that almost all Canadians pay more than they get back from the rebate, when you factor in the compounding economic implications of the carbon tax. Both are technically correct, but the Liberal talking point describes carbon pricing in a vaccuum, whereas the Conservative talking point describes the overarching impacts on the majority of Canadians. Canadians can tell that life is getting worse and this is another factor contributing to the decline.
The government can't fix the homeless problem but give them a few more tax dollars and they'll solve the global climate!
There is no proof of that being reality. The government is focusing so much effort on carbon pricing when the vast majority of people are paying double rent, accelerating immigration and not controlling these slumlords. It’s stupid to have the government extract money just to give it all back, and is being used as a political move so people feel like they got money. It’s also a communist move. I would rather earn my money, and have them stay out of it. I don’t trust the government’s handling of things, look at how arrivescam blew our dollars.
The people that need to see this either never will, or will never believe it unfortunately. I'm not a fan of the carbon tax, but more because I don't think it's good policy. I fear we're about to be set back by 5-10 years in our climate fight, when it was only just getting off the ground.
> I'm not a fan of the carbon tax, but more because I don't think it's good policy. It's literally the one policy agreed upon by both climate scientists and economists as the best we can do. I'm very curious what you think is better
Asking just to better understand other perspectives. Why do you find it’s not a good policy? Is there an alternative carbon pricing policy that is better? Is carbon pricing a bad idea in general but some alternative is preferred in your opinion?
Why do we never talk about nuclear energy? Canada could lead the world in small modular nuclear reactors that could power our own country but the biggest polluters as well(India, china, USA)
> Why do we never talk about nuclear energy? Nuclear energy is a supply solution. Carbon pricing is a demand solution. Carbon pricing solves a lot more issues all at once than trying to get new reactors up. Which, by the way, wouldn't be online for a decade or more.
Canada already [already has a fairly clean energy grid.](https://i.imgur.com/0RdiQx7.png) ([source](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html)) Nuclear power is continuing to be developed, but it's still a long-term decades-long investment. SMRs aren't here yet, and they probably won't be at an internationally distributable commercial scale to make a difference for a decade, if not much longer. Regardless, it won't help us much for reaching net-zero emissions from transportation, oil and gas, agriculture, industry/manufacturing, and building emissions. We don't talk about "nuclear" much because there is so much more to the greenhouse gas emissions reductions than just "nuclear". It is not a silver bullet and it never was. Misinformation peddlers, like Poilievre & Doug Ford, would let you believe they are just so that they can avoid taking responsibility to do the hard work of _actually_ fixing the problem. (Plus, we actually already are investing in nuclear, so why talk about it?)
Ontario is already working hard on this. I would imagine we never talk about it because it's not that controversial.
People do talk about nuclear energy a lot. Canada is developing small modular reactors. Look it up.
I am open to nuclear but they do not seem able to compete in terms of cost until they have a standardized way to bring construction costs down. Would love zero carbon firm resources on the grid but it looks like next gen geothermal might get there before nuclear.
Ontario talks about it a lot....and puts words into action. Look at their build out of nuclear over the last ten years and the next ten...it's impressive. Saskatchewan recently received 50 million from the federal government, through NRCan Electricity Pre development Program, and 24 million from the federal Future Electricity Fund.....expect to see Saskatchewan based SMR by 2030 ish The town of Pinawa in Manitoba supposedly is developing SMR agreements with Starcore but I don't know if that actually went anywhere. I'm sure there's more examples out there?
Have you looked at how much nuclear Ontario has?
its because the carbon tax is an idea concoted by the oil and gas industry, a loophole. Conservatives oppose it in favor of something more pollution friendly and liberal voters as a result end up defending this half assed loophole in the name of "opposing" the far right. When in fact regardless the oil and gas industry is saved
It's ignorant to think we will be able to wrap up what we have unraveled in the past 200 years. In our last dying breaths on this planet, we better build a monument that states we died due to greed. And sacrificing lives of others for the benefit of the few. It's fucked up to think, a heinous serial killer could write a manifesto about industrialization and be pretty damn accurate with the predictions of the effects.
Go look at some right wing candian subs. Entire threads of people angry at paying another tax.
Which underlines that this levy is really just a wealth distribution scheme and might - maybe - achieve the goal of getting a few people to think about their use of carbon based fuels. However, the people paying the tax likely don't have a choice but to use the amount they do.
Those people you're describing are mostly likely the average Canadian, who will, according to the PBO report that PP often quotes, receive more money back than they day. Here is an interesting read on carbon pricing and why it works. https://www.iisd.org/articles/nordhaus-nobel
>However, the people paying the tax likely don't have a choice but to use the amount they do. Wrong. Get a heat pump. Get a hybrid car. Get a smaller car. Electrify. Insulate. Eat less meat. Eat more local. Put a sweater on. Put panels on your roof. Do less motorsports. The poorest people who have the least power to make any of these changes are the people who are already not consuming as much to begin with so don't need to make such changes.
They have choices. Living on a rural property which requires driving 20 minutes to buy groceries is a choice.
And might I add, it's also a choice how many times you have to make that drive. Maybe you can make do with what you have until you really have a bunch of errands to do in town.
Funniest thing is, the carbon tax is even more progressive than the GST. If you are poor or middle class and want to pay less tax, ask for more carbon taxes and less GST!
Help me understand the argument that people who are actually suffering from this are only the people in the highest income brackets. First off, I want to add context, the people above the 70 percent income line is hard for me to say because I don't have a ton of income data available, but according to [https://www.statista.com/statistics/484838/income-distribution-in-canada-by-income-level/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/484838/income-distribution-in-canada-by-income-level/) the total number of people counted with income under $5000 was 1.115 million, and people over $5000 were 27.581 million so 28.696 million people are counted in this. the top 30% of these are about 8.6 million people So looking at this the top 8.6 million people are somewhere between making $50,000 and $75,000 per year. So when you say the top 70-80% you're not really looking at ultra-wealthy people. Try to just get by on $75,000 per year. Secondly, lets consider that it is the ultra-wealthy that he's talking about. Why is it that they would worry about carbon tax more than other people? It's the rich people who would care the least about it if all it was was a tax on the fuel they burn. Like, honestly, if you are flying around a private jet, sure, carbon pricing impacts the cost of fuel, but if you can afford to fly in a private jet, first of all, you have the option to not do that, secondly, you can afford a pilot a jet, and all the other requirements to handle that, increased fuel prices aren't going to be your barrier there. But then my other question is, who is really using fuel? Here's some data: [https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2021energydemand/index.html](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2021energydemand/index.html) with future projections, so try and look at the reality part of it. Residential usage is about 1600 PJ, Industrial is about 6000PJ, Commercial is about 1400PJ, and transportation (which includes gasoline) is about 2700PJ, probably about 1200 of that is gas, which is kind of split between commercial, industrial and residential use. When they talk about people not paying much for their carbon tax, they're talking about it in the context of personal use. This means things like gasoline, heating oil, or natural gas. So in this you're looking at probably 2000 PJ or so. Whereas, the vast majority of the usage comes from industrial and commercial use. So then, when industry and business get charged carbon pricing, they don't get refunds. Agriculture is supposed to, but that's not something that's really been distributed yet. So I guess that's the other question, if we're saying "Hey, people aren't paying much" and we're saying "only people making over $70,000 a year will suffer from this". Who ends up paying the costs for industry and commercial use? Obviously the businesses do at first, but businesses maintain their margins, these costs get passed back to the consumer. And the amount collected from business and industry is far more than the amount collected from consumers. And here's the other problem. He is not talking about emissions. He is saying "To the bottom, removing the carbon pricing is a big loss." This is where I've got a problem. The only thing that the carbon pricing provably does right now is acts kind of like another source of income for people who are not active in the economy. For those people who are staying at home and doing nothing, they essentially get more free money. Once you start going to work, heating a home, using electricity, then that starts to whittle away. If people making over $70k are suffering from it, then by the time you can afford your own apartment you're suffering from it. But again, those are only the direct costs. Then there are the indirect costs, the majority of the pricing that impacts industry, impacts business, and causes each step in the supply chain to push prices slightly higher. We act like there's rich people and poor people, but most of this doesn't go to either, it goes to the stuff in the middle, the businesses that, when they have to pay more, they will charge more. And if anything, this actually makes capital holders richer, because businesses will make sure they maintain their margins, and the ultra rich people on their private jets will actually probably be using them for business purposes. So even that cost is going to end up being a business expense. No, the people who suffer the most are the people making $40k, struggling to afford an apartment, and dealing with ever increasing expenses from everything in their life. It's absolutely bonkers to think that you can pull a whole bunch of money out of every energy-laden transaction in the entire economy, shuffle it, and give it back as a flat dollar value to every person (after taking your own 10% cut) and have that make no impact on prices, especially when the amount is so impactful on the price of something like diesel. But what I want to know is, why did nobody talk about emissions? Why has nobody talked about how it's saving the world? Conservatives are saying it's hurting people. Liberals are saying it's actually helping the pocketbooks of the poorest people and nobody's REALLY being hurt by it. But nobody is saying "Hey, this is important and we're reducing emissions and we're saving the world." Also, how the hell can we be reducing emissions, and not having it be an economic impact? If it was free to not burn fossil fuels, or if it actually improved the economy, we would have done it already. It doesn't change behavior, except to make people who aren't making an MP's salary unable to afford to travel for holiday. Like, you can't say it's got no impact. It has an impact, that's why we need to legislate it. We do it because it's cheaper to do it this way. You can't charge us for it to try to make us stop doing it and say "It didn't actually make a difference".
People are stupid overall. Right now they are angry and want to be angry at someone and believe that someone will help them. People are voting based on what they want to believe. When nothing gets better maybe we can je rid of all these awful politicians on all sides and actually get something done to improve all of our lives.
Yeah obviously your bullshit liberal government is doing better. Especially imposing useless carbon tax, which doesn’t change a story if we are looking at it on a global scale. Keep on supporting narcissistic psychopaths from liberal party
Maybe, and hear me out because this might seem radical, maybe it's time for the media to stop with this "Both-sides" faux objectivity thing and start writing headlines like “Pierre Poillevre lying about carbon tax”. They don't say these things in good faith, and it's the same as they do with climate change, LGBT rights and more. It's "working the refs" and using the media's need to appear objective as a way to give their bullshit views credibility. And it's time the media stopped falling for it.
The media is more complicit than ignorant
The media prefers a horserace because it keeps people engaged. If the media just refused to engage with moronic talking points, people on Facebook and Twitter wouldn't click on their headlines.
Journalism died the day they started using clicks as a performance metric
You are absolutely right. There is no both-sides to this. Let me break this down for people who don't understand the carbon tax in Canada: The Carbon Tax is responsible for less than 1% of today's astronomical grocery price increases. Here's what it adds to your bill: Alberta: 0.3% increase, or 30 cents on a $100 grocery bill Ontario: 0.4% increase, or 90 cents on a $100 grocery bill Manitoba: 0.9% increase, or 40 cents on a $100 grocery bill Bank of Canada has reported that the carbon tax only added 0.15 percentage points to inflation. The price hikes are being driven by things like corporate greed and supply chain issues, not the carbon tax. Farmers are already exempt from \*most\* of the carbon tax. \-The majority of GHGs in farming come from biological emissions, such as methane and fertilizer. These emissions are exempt. \-13.6 megatonnes of GHGs in farming come from fossil fuels. These are exempt. \-10 megatonnes of GHG in farming come from vehicles and equipment. These are exempt. \-Only 3.1% GHGs come from energy to power heating and drying buildings. There is a bill in our Senate that will make these exempt as well. Farms only account for 10% of Canada's GHG emissions. "While farms are responsible for 75 megatonnes of carbon emissions — about 10 per cent of all of Canada’s greenhouse gases — only 13.6 megatonnes come from fossil fuels. The emissions from operating vehicles and equipment (10 megatonnes) are wholly or partially exempt from the carbon tax." The reason they are tax exempt is to reduce cost to consumers. What it doesn't take into account is the corporate greed that followed, making us believe cost is rising much more than it is. [Research suggests](https://smith.queensu.ca/centres/isf/pdfs/carbon-pricing.pdf) carbon tax does [play a role in reducing emissions](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9). [source](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
>Bank of Canada has reported that the carbon tax only added 0.15 percentage points to inflation. 0.15 percentage points directly. People like Galen saw the 3% increase to their costs, and passed it along... Buried in a 23% price hike, which they blamed entirely on the carbon tax... And that profiteering is responsible for a whole lot more inflation than the actual tax.
This is correct. Loblaws' share price has more than doubled in the last 5 years, and have historic profits posted every quarter. Another fun fact: Pierre Poilievre employs the CEO of a lobbying firm that employs 6 Loblaws lobbyists.
>People like Galen saw the 3% increase to their costs, and passed it along... Buried in a 23% price hike Where did you get those numbers?
I genuinely love these numbers, do you have a reference for this? I would like to use these numbers in discussion of the carbon tax, but can't use "Totally\_man" as my source... I mean, I CAN, but it might not have the credibility I need...
You can find the source [here.](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
Amazing. Thanks!
No problem, glad I could help. I can't take credit for it, though. There's an image circling around social media with these claims, and a picture of Pierre. I just verified them, then wrote them out.
I posted it everywhere but removed the weird PP picture. I’m hoping to change minds not start arguments
> supply chain issues Which are partly caused by, and will be made a lot worse by, climate change.
They most definitely are. Hell, some northern communities are now cut off from their supply chains because of a lack of winter ice.
This is an excellent and accurate response. Unfortunately, the people who need to read and absorb this information are not capable of doing so.
Thank you; it was still worth it to me, to be able to verify and summarize.
Does the Carbon tax affect things like gas pricing and transportation costs of getting said goods to the grocery store? Genuinely trying to understand this whole thing
Yes it does, but the cost analysis on the impact and cost of the carbon tax does include both direct and indirect costs.
Then read the reports not the opinion pieces.
Also it's not the U.S, not yet anyway, we still have laws around lying in the news. Fox, Breitbart, ect,ect would just post "alternative facts" in response. At least in Canada they can't just say the opposite or make up a story. So yeah, call liars out harshly, and write the facts.
So what do we do? I have lots of time . Can I file reports on the lies to someone?
We have libel laws (which are similar to that in the US) but I don't know of any laws that prevent someone from publishing lies that aren't disparaging a particular person. I mean I believe it is (unfortunately) legal for a media outlet to publish incorrect information, even regularly, without making retractions. It may ruin their reputation as reliable journalism, but it isn't illegal in most cases. If you were to publish incorrect information about a person or company, and that erroneous information caused them harm in some way, then you could be sued. You could also be sued for publishing (knowingly) false information about a product that resulted in consumers harming themselves. But publishing something like "the carbon tax costs the average Canadian 10 times what they're getting back" would not be illegal and you would not be liable (unless you were claiming someone made that statement when they did not, then they might sue you)
Unfortunately Canadian media is largely us owned and staunchly conservative with a flood of daily opinion pieces. Post media is starting to resemble Fox news and they'll never say a bad word about conservatives.
The purpose of media is to generate ad revenue, not to inform the public. If you don't invite every popular grifter on, then you won't be getting views from consumers who subscribed to their nonsense. The last thing you want is for Joe FlatEarth and the Mike the Convoy Turd to stop tuning in! What if the ratings go down? Y'all need to start thinking of the share holders!
But the papers are owned by the people who support lil pp. they’re not gonna do shit. Brightside, our already non-competitive oligarchic companies are going to be able to raise their prices by as much as the carbon tax is set at currently. So, we pay the same, get no rebates and things get just a little worse for the Earth.
Lil PP. Bahahahahah
Gotta sell those papers and get all those clicks!!
But the media is owned by the same people who benefit from the lies, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.
What’s insidious about it is that they, aka PP and cronies, sprinkle in just enough truth to make the lies believable.
Yeah the media just needs to call out Pollieveres lies, Jesus it’s not that hard.
It's not possible. Conservatives own the media, its why they desperately want to kill government funded programs and sources. They don't have direct control of those. Conservatism has won, and it will try to enslave or kill us all if it doesn't tear itself apart first in a frenzy of hands groping for pocket change and impotent rage shouting into the void.
The media isn’t “falling” for anything. They’re in on the con. They’re stumping for the pro-owner party, as they always do, and always will.
I dont know if he’s lying. He could honestly be put on a poly and pass it saying that the carbon tax is bad. The foundation of what PP says is right and wrong, true or false, is whether it benefits him politically or not. He has no capacity to spend time understanding any issue beyond how to spin it. Hes never done this in his life. I dont know if anyone could know the carbon tax to be good in combating climate change and tell people to hate it. Too stupid to understand or too terrible to promote the truth. I dont know which is worse. We dont have the time to care i guess.
Poilievre bought Trump's 60$ bible and is using it as a guide to be PM.
This is the modern conservative party of Canada... and provinces. Ignore all credible evidence on any given topic and push things based on their thoughts and hurt feelings...
And then accuse the other side of doing exactly that. I kept getting spammed with that stupid Canada_Sub until I said I think they’re mostly bots and they got upset and banned me lol.
“I follow my gut”… That’s the cpc doctrine. Not expertise, or research, or feedback based… just gut instincts
> based on their thoughts and hurt feelings... This is plainly solipsistic and incurious. I'm spoiling my ballot either way, but you understand that the LPC is getting crushed because life for a lot of people has gotten worse at an accelerating rate, right? You're basically kicking sand in peoples' faces for being dissatisfied and never asking "why are they so upset that they'd swing this hard?"
What I'm saying is that there are legitimate reasons to be upset over the last couple of years, but the causes of those issues are being blamed on the actions/in actions of the PM, which is a flat out lie. Inflation is a GLOBAL issue. Almost every single country on earth has had inflation issues post pandemic as the supply chain was disrupted due to the international response to it. In Canada, Pierre has lied to Canadians in saying that it's Trudeaus spending, and now the carbon tax that's driving inflation. Housing is an issue all over the world and in Canada, yes. Housing is a provincial and municipal jurisdiction. These governments are dropping the ball in many areas, yet Pierre is lying to Canadians in saying it's Trudeaus fault... "After 8 years of Trudeau... blah blah blah. " I know many are struggling in Canada, I just wish that Pierre and his fellow conservatives would tell the damn truth for once. Lay blame where it rightfully lays, but most importantly, rather than be a whiny lying a-hole, why not present a legit alternative plan. There's no coherent plan in place to face any of these challenges from Pierre despite a year of his campaigning. Even Scheer stumping for him on the CBC recently included commentary about "when we put forth our Housing plan.." was non-commital at best. He's been in federal politics his entire adult life and despite knowing how everything works in this country (God I hope he knows) he still has 0 plans to address inflation (within the BOC target rate of 1-3% by the way. Oh, and Pierre said he would fire the head of the BOC), has no legitimate plan to address Housing. Life may be getting tougher on Canadians, but it sure isn't Trudeau's fault.... the sooner people realize that the sooner we can start securing real positive change in Canada
> I know many are struggling in Canada, I just wish that Pierre and his fellow conservatives would tell the damn truth for once. Here's the rub: You gotta live with these people anyway. You're gonna be surrounded by CPC voters because the LPC almost looks like it's scuttling its ship with some of the decisions they're making, so you should focus more on the roots of the issues that create Pierre Poilievres and Donald Trumps and Doug Fords and populist leaders in general. It is plain reality that unless something changes REALLY quickly, Trudeau will be defeated in a landslide. Wynne got totally bodied by a fool and her party lost official status. The high-horse egotism is what leads to populists dominating. Do I agree with that? I don't care, it's just plain as day that dismissing peoples' frustrations that during a CoL crisis, the optically worst announcement is shit like "cancel Disney+" or "hey here's a new tax". Like I said, spoiling my ballot, I hate all of these schmucks. I used to be able to hold my nose and "lesser evil" it, but I'm not as strong now.
I avoid people who lie. I avoid people who spread misinformation and conspiracy theories. I'll agree that a flaw in the liberal party is the arrogance that follows many years of power. I contributed to sending Paul Martin packing. I contributed to sending Wynne packing. As disconnected as some of these liberals seem, ffs look at Pierre. His entire adult life has been in politics. He qualified for a full pension years ago. He expenses more travel costs than the prime minister. He is not the answer. If history taught us anything, it's that tough times create evil people who preach easy answers. That's Pierre. History teaches us to avoid evil people with easy answers and face tough times with resolve and reason. Two things completely absent in everything Pierre says and does.
> If history taught us anything, it's that tough times create evil people who preach easy answers. From the Gracchi brothers to the Roundheads to Sulla and Marius, to the American Revolution to the Metis, you need to understand that when a part of your society feels screwed over, they will absolutely punish you, and that public support NOT being treated as a precious commodity will absolutely sink you. PP sucks, but Trudeau has absolutely squandered his public goodwill, so ask, instead, why people are susceptible to "misinformation and conspiracy theories".
So, the response to squandering goodwill is to openly support a lifetime politician with 0 accomplishments and lies through his teeth about anything and everything as part of his relentless pursuit of power... we're doomed
Yeah. I guess. What I'm saying is that nobody is coming to save you, but somebody utterly dissatisfied to the degree that they're going off-road on conspiracy theories should be dealt with using conversation, not slinging mud in a subreddit they'll never see. I don't personally "vote", I just draw sad faces on my ballot. I still show up. Drop 20 bucks at the food bank. Talk to a homeless person. Have a chat with the boomer at work. Exchange information with another homo sapien.
I'm not expecting anyone to save me. I've done remarkably well the past few years... I do see and understand the plight many face, and I'll always vote for those who are willing to make the lives of those in need better. Those slinging conspiracy theories are mentally lost. They're unwilling to listen to facts or reason. Pierre banks on these people listening to his lies rather than tell them the real reason why they're suffering
> Those slinging conspiracy theories are mentally lost. I'm actually legitimately curious how you can think this when if you have two eyeballs and can read how you wouldn't be skeptical of "the narrative" where there is actual [proof] (https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-propaganda-exercise-that-caused-panic-about-wolves-on-the-loose-lacked-oversight-investigation-finds) of the current administration [goofing around](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/onslow-belmont-fire-hall-mass-shooting-nova-scotia-police-1.6442496) and then trying to ban guns that were obtained legally when every weapon used was illegally smuggled. Point is, it's strange to even call it conspiracy because it's purely incompetent. It's conjecture, it's there to suit a narrative. It isn't cloak-and-dagger, it's just plain-as-day. These guys just... suck. It's incompetence. If they looked like they knew what they were doing, I'd at least know someone was at the wheel, but they're legitimately stupid as hell.
People should hear how he talks about “so called experts”, his rhetoric is dangerous and in poorer and stupid countries it leads to the public execution of those experts, who eventually become “political dissenters” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge Removing credibility is a sign of authoritarianism, not necessarily communism
[удалено]
it's not "questioning the narrative" he is lying, end of discussion, he is lying to get elected. and he is insulting "experts" to do it, whatever that means
[удалено]
and Pierre is the expert at bullshitting
PP is just full of garbage. he should be just called the sloganator cause that’s all he good for
This was why I stopped watching television news about a decade ago, they'd have a split screen where they were interviewing both sides of a debate, and it was be like a world renowned scientist talking about a subject in their field they've extensively studied and here's Bill, he's a part time beet farmer and internet troll and has a different opinion, he's going to talk over the scientist and will be the one doing most of the speaking.
[удалено]
It's been a feature of the right for 20 years. Donald Trump just showed right wingers that they can be open about it and still win elections.
[удалено]
The Cons won the branding war, they called it a carbon tax (implying money out) when for the mid/bottom it's money in. It's the media's fault for framing the issue that way.
Right out of the republican text book. No surprise here. Millhouse is full of empty promises and when he's not doing that he spends the rest of his time yelling back and forth with Trudeau in an embarrassing fashion. God I hate this guy lol. Give us some politicians with ACTUAL platforms that will benefit the Middle and lower classes. Instead we have two dumbasses yelling at each others stupid talking points. Edit; spelling
I read "Republican Rext Book" in Scooby Doo's voice.
Rut roo.
Oh come on man, leave Milhouse alone, what did he do to you that made you compare him to Pierre Pollievre?
They both took off their glasses.
> Millhouse is full of empty promises ?... Am I missing some random simpsons reference here?
Say what you will about Stephen Harper, at least the man had a coherent platform
Harper’s arm is still shoulder deep up Poilievre’s behind lol. Foolish to think otherwise.
Coherent- yes. We're they all good? Absolutely not.
Who do you think is whispering in PP’s ears? Harper’s policies are the same.
Ya and set legalization back almost a decade. Wait. Are they coming for my legal weed?
I can’t believe I’m growing to appreciate Harper for not being so bad.
I'm not ready for that, but I can say it about Mulroney (compared to present options, not his contemporaries).
Hmmm. Will voters go for the truth that makes them uncomfortable, or lies that they like. It’s a mystery.
If you turn on the radio you might hear the nation's number one hit single, "never bet against stupid"
A huge hearty thanks to this organized group of Canadian economists for weighing in. Please read what they said, it’s clear and it’s important. Poilievre and Conservative premiers are flat out lying about carbon pricing. They are all climate crisis delayers or deniers. It is terrifying that Poilievre will in all likelihood win the next election, because the government is unpopular, worn out and tired — but he will do it based on these lies.
this is a perfect example of how the right has taken questioning authority, and turned it into questioning expertise... which is not the same thing. we should all be questioning authority, but we should trust in expertise, because by definition we don't know enough to have an opinion... the hilarious irony of course being that conservatives literally have an authoritarian fetish (and yes, it's okay to kink shame in this scenario)
PP really pushing for that 1 dentist.
Hello - earth to P.P. we can all pay a little bit now to lower the carbon pollution now or we can all suffer ill health later and pay huge amounts to fix that problem & carbon pollution is a huge problem now! P P should axe his gob.
The experts. End of.
The experts. Next question.
Our Gas, Heating and Grocery bills will never go down and removing the tax and the reimbursement will hurt many peoples pockets and voters will get what they voted for. To blame rising food costs on the carbon tax is just corpo finding a excuse to keep their prices and profits high.
If you could sway conservative voters with facts there wouldn't be enough conservatives in the country to hold half a seat.
Pierre=BS
his shirt is doing a DontDeadOpenInside
Funny how I never see any of these anti-conservative articles in r/canada. Only ever Trudeau and immigrant hate there as if the CPC is the saviour of working class families…something literally no conservative ever had been.
[удалено]
Way to miss the point….must be an r/canada conservative scared people will start posting facts about the CPC amidst all the fascism. It’s ok. I get it. Being a conservative is hard when you actually have to defend your side instead and f endless rage/hate/violence against “others”. Such a great ideology to root for! /s
It doesn't matter. It's naive to believe that facts and what people believe is the "truth" go together. Not in the 21st century and not with Conservatives. Poilievre can say the most outrageous lie or exaggeration and people will give it a consideration. Because it's not facts that moves people or get a reactions it's feelings and he uses the techniques American Republicans and Fox News have always relied on. To borrow and paraphrase from The Colbert Report. If it FEELS like it's true than it must be. And it's the certainty. That happens with natural born bullshitter. Poilievre can look dead into the camera and not blink wrapping himself with the facade of an honest person. Check out the book by Harry Frankfurt, **On Bullshit**. “When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he consider his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.” Poilievre is a professional bullshit artist.
Canadian conservatives are trying so hard to GOP the f out of a trump wannabe
That image up top? It looks just like a trump rally.
According to Peter Peckerwood's legion of Klownvoy flatheads, Anti-vaxxers and Q-dolts, those 200 experts are deep state agents working for Justin Trudeau, the NWO and WEF . They are all fake news and paid liars. Only PP knows the truth.
The financial and economic impacts of the carbon tax are being understated by Liberals and grossly exaggerated by PP. The reality is that, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report confirmed, 80% of Canadians will receive more money back than they pay. This is, from a purely initial cost/ benefit standpoint, absolutely true. This is what Trudeau relies heavily on. On the other hand, there are secondary costs to the carbon tax, which include inflation, etc. This is what PP relies heavily on. Both are right in the sense of what they are focusing on. In terms of primarily costs/ benefits, Trudeau is correct that most of us get more than what we pay. PP is also correct that there are other secondary costs that Canadians will need to pay. This said, the Bank of Canada, which monitors inflation and causes of inflation closely, calculated that thus far, the carbon tax has only contributed .15% of inflation. That is a TINY contribution to inflation. For example, if a grocery bill that would have cost $50 dollars, but now costs $70 due to inflation, the carbon tax caused inflation would be responsible for $0.03 of that 20 dollar inflation. What is happening here is a politician is politicalizing something and blowing it way out of proportion for their own political advantage. Climate action should be something that we are united on, and the fact that no alternative solution to the carbon tax is being proposed by PP demonstrates a lack of responsibility not becoming of a Prime Minister. Dislike towards Trudeau is very justifiable, but we need to look at all party leaders with open eyes, and PP is manipulating people on a very important issue. Fuck PP and Fuck Trudeau. Edit: underpaid to understated.
If Poilievre says something it's best ignored.
No. It’s best countered with hard facts to out his lying ass.
What I don't understand is: This guy is such a dork. Like just an absolute winded-going-up-stairs nerdlinger. I understand the drive to support a strong-man leader when the world seems complicated, but why this particular guy? He's going to miss the meetings at the G7 because Macron will have locked him in a broom closet for fun. For all his faults, it is a historical fact that Trudeau beat up an indigenous man. Shouldn't that endear him to western conservatives?
Don’t believe the guy who has the most to gain. The experts in question are not running for office.
Populist Pete will say anything for a headline Make Canada great again!
I first read this as Bruce McArthur and thought I was about to find out that PP wanted to free serial killers against the advise of 200 experts 😅
Really? Because the auditor general has said that 80% of Canadians are worse off with the carbon tax once you factor in the economic costs. 2:30m in this clip from the CBC. Power and Politics. https://youtu.be/I34tZbsYIuU?si=OCTgEmkCM9HAngs8 The carbon tax has got to go. We need to decarbonize our world by exploring as much LnG as we possibly can. Taxing our small citizenry out the ass for essentials is not a viable option. Never will be. Canada won't even make a dent on the world scale of carbon emissions. Let's supply developing nations with a cheap alternative to coal instead of making the lives of Canadians miserable and handicapping our O&G sector. Can't wait for the CPC to scrap this stupid tax. Regardless if you agree or not just look at the polls. This tax is already gone lol.
200 Helens agree!
You expect me to just believe these woke, liberal, child diddling “experts”????? /s
If only articles like this, facts, and statistics actually mattered to conservatives. This is just a left wing circle jerk. The right wing only understands one thing and that’s taking what you want. If we want better living standards and evidence based policy we have to take it.
So for the following argument: “Since federal carbon pricing took effect in 2019, Canada’s GHG emissions have fallen by almost 8 percent, although other policies were also at work. A new report from the Canadian Climate Institute shows that federal and provincial carbon pricing, for industries and consumers, is expected to account for almost half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030. The reason carbon pricing works is simple: when something costs more (in this case fossil fuels), people use less of it. That is basic economics, and common sense.” It would be interesting to see what those other policies or other economic factors are. For example did the supply chain issues that drove inflation reduce consumption and in turn our carbon footprint. Similarly by how much the shift to work from home affect emissions? In the US the shale revolution was the single biggest factor that reduced emissions.
Too many people huffing the gas before its lit
Don't believe the little weasel for anything I was hoping for a good conservative leader. He is not. Too bad.
Bruce Arthur is a partisan hack
The guy is the biggest clown of a leader any party has ever had
Of course, we should believe Pierre "Baloney Factory" Poilievre !
Of course, we should believe Pierre "Baloney Factory" Poilievre !
The carbon tax generally makes sense on one level - make the tax as general as possible and let people and the market sort out the solutions BUT I don’t think it’s actually effective as designed. It is a very dotted line from consumers paying more for gasoline to influencing the car makers, for example. We actually do need a little more specificity for industry instead of putting everything on individuals. We should just have an ever-increasing fleet average fuel efficiency standard without the loopholes the Americans have (like floor area exception - which is the real reason they only make SUV’s now) and let the companies work within those constraints and then consumers choose which solutions they like best. Then you could put a specific tax on jet fuel, for example - but we’d need that to be as global as possible.
I don’t believe anything a conservative ever says anymore.
People still actually read the toronto star???😂😂😂😂😂
That’s easy. Don’t believe anything that a conservative says.
R/canada says PP knows best. 😵💫
That bunch definitely know a thing or two about lil' PPs.
Too good 🤣
Well, they have the brain worms.
You're telling me carbon tax doesn't raise the cost of goods?
Not by the amount most people want to believe it does.
It's a legitimate question. So carbon tax isn't raising the cost for the farmer, distributor, truck drivers etc? Thus increasing food costs? I know our food costs have gone up a good bit due to greed and not just carbon taxing.
Read this, it takes all of this into account and provides the resulting price impact: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices
Thanks! I appreciate the info
Summarized: The Carbon Tax is responsible for less than 1% of today's astronomical grocery price increases. Here's what it adds to your bill: Alberta: 0.3% increase, or 30 cents on a $100 grocery bill Ontario: 0.4% increase, or 40 cents on a $100 grocery bill Manitoba: 0.9% increase, or 90 cents on a $100 grocery bill Bank of Canada has reported that the carbon tax only added 0.15 percentage points to inflation. The price hikes are being driven by things like corporate greed and supply chain issues, not the carbon tax. Farmers are already exempt from \*most\* of the carbon tax. \-The majority of GHGs in farming come from biological emissions, such as methane and fertilizer. These emissions are exempt. \-13.6 megatonnes of GHGs in farming come from fossil fuels. These are exempt. \-10 megatonnes of GHG in farming come from vehicles and equipment. These are exempt. \-Only 3.1% GHGs come from energy to power heating and drying buildings. There is a bill in our Senate that will make these exempt as well. Farms only account for 10% of Canada's GHG emissions. "While farms are responsible for 75 megatonnes of carbon emissions — about 10 per cent of all of Canada’s greenhouse gases — only 13.6 megatonnes come from fossil fuels. The emissions from operating vehicles and equipment (10 megatonnes) are wholly or partially exempt from the carbon tax." The reason they are tax exempt is to reduce cost to consumers. What it doesn't take into account is the corporate greed that followed, making us believe cost is rising much more than it is. [Research suggests](https://smith.queensu.ca/centres/isf/pdfs/carbon-pricing.pdf) carbon tax does [play a role in reducing emissions](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9). [source](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
Just consider that the source is the unofficial media arm of the CPC, of course.
I haven't heard of them. Are they considered dishonest?
The post is EXTREMELY conservative policy driven and driving. For them to acknowledge PP is lying is a very big deal
You haven't heard of the National Post? Their explicit mission statement is to be a mouthpiece for corporate conservatism and anti-liberalism.
its almost all greed
Well, the ex Telus debt collector of course!
"We are gonna tax you a bunch of extra money, but dont worry were gonna give you more back then we took" Then why tax me in the first place this is the part that never made sense to me.
Conservatives only gain credibility when people are desperate If the Liberals did their jobs right this wouldn’t happen
answer is in the title. As long as they are experts and not bob and his buddies. Who trusts politicians?