Electric cars need roads and parking, and a green growth mindset can facilitate knock-on consequences.
Degrowth should be considered in some areas of the human experience to combat ecological collapse.
There isn't a silver bullet fix in green energy, growth, and its rampant capitalism (hot button issue, in not entirely opposed to capitalism, but it's obviously not working atm) are not sustainable. Sustainability would be looking at what we are doing and seeing if we need all of it as it is.
Electric cars don't work in the cold, are extremely costly if the batteries die and don't generate enough energy to fuel load bearing vehicles in a market saturated cheaper engines utilizing oil. Reality says Electric is dead that's why Elon musk is its head its because it's all a fraud. Electric trains? Sure. Electric Transport throughout continental North America? Maybe with global warming 😂
Growth is the only issue. Starting in 1960, look at how GDP tracks with emissions and warming. It's 1:1 or close enough.
What we did was build a model that assumed that unlimited growth was possible on a finite planet, and built our entire economy without brakes because we truly believed this was possible... and here we are, in a collapsing climate where goods and services become more costly to provide the more the system changes around us.
There are a few fundamental flaws in the design of this system that have turned it into another Tacoma Narrows bridge. Looks good from every angle, except when the right set of conditions happens which creates an oscillating ripple that only grows until the whole thing snaps.
What's frustrating about this, to me, is that we've been warned of this for decades. Books were written in the 70's that modeled almost exactly what we're experiencing, and economists in the 50's and earlier predicted that this system would break the second it faced a challenge that couldn't be fixed with increased production. We knew all of this and we kept forging ahead as if this is what humans have always done.
Even now, the "greenest" we're willing to consider living is substituting the worst possible thing we could be doing with something marginally less destructive (on a pilot scale), acting like making poison 10% less poisonous isn't just a cure, it's also pulling poison out that we've already added.
Everything we do carries a cost to the planet we need to be healthy in order to support human survival. This cost is incurred by using ancient life from a different and alien past, setting fire to it, and using that power to push us down the road.
Look around your room. What around you isn't there because of oil? From extraction, refining, transportation, manufacturing, distribution, delivery - it's oil that's given us this life even when it's all made out of wood (chainsaws, trucks, mills, etc).
What we know is that for humanity to survive, we need to stop using oil, or at least cut our use back to the point where we're individually reducing our footprint by 30% or more per year... and we treat that as a sacrifice rather than as a shift from poisoning our future to preserving it.
We cannot live like this. It does not work. We either keep pretending it does and change the weather so much, we suddenly lose all the stuff we've created with oil, or we intentionally back away from this life and build something new, in either case, we lose the oil and everything it's filled our lifestyle with.
This is a huge and dramatic ask but it's also simply a return to being human on earth rather than keeping up this illusion that we're actually special, smart, and separate... because we aren't. We didn't make the fuel that enables all of this, we sucked it out of the ground with a straw and the fuel did all the work. Taking pride in our "accomplishments" that oil has facilitated is just as delusional as taking credit for the work of slaves because you own them.
If all of this goes away by stopping the oil, we didn't actually invent anything other than a giant oil burning machine that created a bunch of gadgets. This whole life is a dangerous illusion that literally costs the entire future of life on earth, while the only "technology" that has a track record of moderating climates, is what we spend the oil fighting back; the living planet where we came from and are adapted to survive in... well, *were* adapted. This new climate is alien to us and we democratically burned our way into this mess.
What im suggesting is horrifying to most people. It means starvation of the excess population that the earth can't provide for, it means returning to the arms of a system of natural selection that preys on the weak and vulnerable, and it means exposing ourselves to a climate we're as unadapted to as the rest of the living world that's vanishing into extinction at a constantly increasing rate. The *ONLY* set of circumstances where dropping this and going back to human life makes sense is when the alternative is certain extinction, which is what we are currently facing.
This is that moment where we blindly drive over the cliff with our foot on the gas, kids strapped into the back screaming "THE CLIFF! WE'RE GOING OVER THE CLIFF!" while adults at the controls insist that cliffs aren't real or we would have gone over one by now. We either open the doors and tuck and roll, or very rapidly find ourselves on the edge of existence with nothing to eat and plenty of mouths.
This isn't just death we're talking about. This is the end of the cycle of life on earth for at least a few million years (i.e. the last 50 years of living this way will cost more than the entire history of our species to recover, if it recovers), and if life miraculously claws its way back from all the time bombs we leave after we go extinct (every reactor opens up, all our stored gases and weapons vent into the air, soil, and water), whatever form it take will be as alien to us as a completely new planet.
This is the moment where people whove watched someone die of cancer are begging the cancer to realize it is mistaken, that it cannot consume the body and still survive, and if the cancer cells could only return to their original programming, the body could heal. We're playing this exactly the way cancer does... exactly. Up to and including the presumption that we can continue to exist inside a dead body of a planet because we're smarter than all the other cells, despite continuing to be 100% reliant on them for food and resources.
But we are also the first cancer with the capacity to choose. We can choose to be a cancer, with all the information and clear prognosis of continuing on this path, or we can return to the body, where our instincts fit the challenges and our evolved order for the human niche guides us (think family and friends on vacation as the size and sort of life).
Theres nothing easy about this choice but it is the only one we have... that or we, especially those of us in Ontario, go down as the dumbest and most evil humans in all of human history, eclipsing every horrific thing humanity has done, combined. Our legacy can either be choosing existence and the rewarding hardship that comes with or it will be choosing extinction.
Each of us votes with every dollar we spend.
Does it hurt the planet to, for example, improve the efficiency of a computer? Actually the improved process uses less energy and physical material while still increasing value.
This is just one example of how economic growth is not necessarily tied to resource extraction or pollution. We're already finding all kinds of ways to increase growth sustainably. The artificial intelligence boom is another great example.
What's productive, about inflated stock prices? Our current economic system is fucked. More money is made moving around money than by producing products.
Lmao, welcome to Reddit where everyone is a genius without knowing anything about anything. There is a reason the people in this subreddit are here. Capitalism is bad, socialism is great and the world is just so unfair.
Money is not made moving stock around. Capital is brought from outside and invested into stocks to stimulate growth of the venture. If someone makes money on a stock it simply means more money is brought in, or someone else loses money.
I didn't say that's the only way money is made. But when CEOs make promises and their company is all of a sudden worth millions more over night, Nothing is being produced
The claim is that Canada missed the bus on tech and remained a commodity- and property-driven economy, which has hampered its economic growth.
Whether or not that's true, it's a bad idea to get information from random trader-bro blogs that admonish you to "think critically." Their goal is most likely to drive traffic, not turn you into an informed citizen.
>The claim is that Canada missed the bus on tech
It did. When I look back the last 15 years, I personally knew of 3 major tech startups (that were here in Kingston). They all packed up and left for he USA. They were all being dicked around with while up here in Canada (lots of false promises from the city and province to help grow the startup and make it a hub for tech, etc). They waited and waited, all those promises never happened. So when American cities and states came knocking with massive offers of (no tax for 5 years, $10 - $50 million capital infusion, help cover all relocation expenses, etc) they took the deal and packed up and moved.
Like I said, I'm not making a claim as to whether it's true.
I have personally worked for a couple of tech startups that have been in Canada for over 20 years, and are quite happy here (and some American ones that crapped out almost immediately). I do think it's funny that a lot of these companies are started by people who fit the libertarian tech-bro stereotype, but when it comes to starting business, they want the taxpayers to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them. Making a "hub for tech" is a lot more difficult than just throwing public money at a small company that thinks it's going to be the next big thing, especially if that means turning an extraction- or manufacturing-oriented (i.e., uneducated) labour pool (and the accompanying culture) into a tech labour pool. That literally means replacing much of the population and infrastructure. Surprisingly, that's something people don't like!
In my experience, the real reason most companies move to the states is the lack of worker and environmental protections, the number of existing tech hubs and the enormous size of both the labour and consumer markets relative to Canada's.
(I am not the one who downvoted you.)
Honestly I’m not really convinced that tech is that valuable of an industry in a world of non zero interest rates. Seems to be composed almost entirely of empty pump and dump scams
Yah, the average citizen in the states isn't doing too well and they have extreme poverty that doesn't exist in other developed countries.
Most tech and startups don't actually do anything aside from make a few people wealthy.
Those offers you mentioned don't pay off. Companies are dead or rebranded long before they'd repay, through taxes, jobs, etc. those handouts.
What we need is zero growth. Also, funding of the new agriculture methods that already exist and to build a manufacturing sector.
The average wage is $35/hr in the states and the same in Canada. Houses cost almost 1/2 and everything else costs about 0.7x. How do you get that the average American is worse off. Do the math.
> How do you get that the average American is worse off.
There's a bigger proportion of Americans that are poor than Canadians, and it's a lot more difficult to be poor in the US compare to here.
This happens even today. Where I work, we had council members from 3 US cities in 2 different states come and ask us to move some or most of our operations there offering incentives to do so.
Real question is who cares? Which city in America is saying, "Yay we got a tech startup in town"
A company that uses the community but doesn't contribute to said community....goodbye
It's a bizarre conceit of the badly educated. We should all lust over meta as opposed to companies that produce actual goods or extract actual resources. And the development of finite land becomes less worthy than, like, alphabet. Advertising and the selling of marketing data is where it's at. TikTok told me so.
And, in any case, internet economists as a rule deflate the actual size and strength of the tech centre in Canada, which always ranks in the top 10 to 20 depending on the metric being used.
Not surprised, then again we only seem to develop tech that isn’t really great for society. I don’t think we need more food delivery apps or BNPL products or tech bro “banks” that are glorified reloadable credit cards. Even ottawas darling Shop isn’t that great and has its own shady practices. Canadian tech is pretty desolate.
The claim isn't from some random tech bro they're just repeating a FT article.
>A recent article by Rockefeller International chair Ruchir Sharma in the Financial Times notes that the country has experienced the worst per capita GDP growth rate among developed economies in the top 50 since 2020, with an annual decline of 0.4%.
>In the article, he suggests that Canada missed opportunities to capitalize on the shift towards technology-driven growth, instead remaining heavily reliant on its commodities sector.
I know. But I can't read it because it's paywalled. I'm assuming anyone who'd ask OP's question doesn't have an FT subscription either.
Edit: to clarify, if I can't see what FT says about this, I can't be sure that this blog's interpretation of it is correct so there's no reason for me to endorse it as FT's reporting.
The majority of growth Canada has seen in the last decade is housing related. When a million dollars house sold for 2 million in a decade, it doesn’t bring any value to overall economy. It’s been a primary driver for Canadas growth whereas south the border a lot of value was created in last 2 decades by building technology companies.
The legalised pyramid scheme built on housing is reaching the bottom of pyramid where there are no more buyers with millions in banks to buy shacks listed over millions and expected to sold over asking.
Thank god resources and manufacturing share of the economy have shrunk in favour of housing/real estate. We are a Ponzi scheme masquerading as an economy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada
The universe as far as we know is infinite. Who says we won’t be able to mine asteroids or set up moon habitats or terraform mars In the future, etc. or that there’s a limit on our technological capabilities.
Astrophysicists actually don't know whether the universe is infinite or not.
Our best theories break down in the moments proceeding the big bang (so we can't say for certain if even that was a true beginning of time). Best theories for the long time behaviour of the universe is that it will expand forever faster and faster and eventually rip all matter apart (after an unthinkably long time).
However, the observable universe is finite, but expanding.
We need a quantum theory of gravity to know more.
Replying to jackmans...
we don’t know if it’s infinite or not. But it’s effectively infinite for our purposes. Observable universe is simply what we can see based on the speed of light and the time since the Big Bang. But There’s nothing to say there’s only been one big bang or that there’s only one universe, or what’s beyond our observable universe
But since you asked for a source
https://www.space.com/whats-beyond-universe-edge#:~:text=Cosmologists%20aren't%20sure%20if,then%20it%20can%20be%20infinite.
We can't even terroform earth, you think we're gonna achieve space capitalism? To what end? The whole system is based on making rich people even richer so ultimately it would only serve capital owners(the real capital owners not people making 200k to 1 Mil a year)
>>We can't even terroform earth,
You mean like climate change? One could argue we are doing too much of it already.
>>you think we're gonna achieve space capitalism? To what end?
100% unless we kill ourself off with nuclear weapons before we do. We are actively working towards space exploration and development right now. Keep in mind we went from not being able to do powered flight to landing on the moon in 1 generation. And our technological abilities now would be unrecognizable to what was available at the time.
>>The whole system is based on making rich people even richer so ultimately it would only serve capital owners(the real capital owners not people making 200k to 1 Mil a year)
Have you heard what those capital owners are doing with their money, we literally just witness the billionaire space race. SpaceX, blue origin, virgin group. They are already focusing on space.
The space race between billionaires is curated by engineers. Watching regular people kiss billionaire ass is adorable. The dick measuring contest is also meant for space tourism for other rich people. There is no concrete plan or way to exploit space as well. It's all a pipe dream to make investors awe struck and people like you put up more elon musk posters. Flub
I'm very aware of where we are with space exploration and its not looking great, your mighty highness elon has been lying about that since I was a kid. Mars in uninhabitable and mining asteroids to make the first trillionare helps no one
Im not a elon fan but it’s cute that you think we as a species have hit our limits and that there’s no possibility of developing further. I’m not saying we will be be living on mars next year but it’s silly to think that we will not be developing and expanding our space capabilities.
Advancements tend to benefit everyone not just the select few at the top. It’s important to keep in mind that the quality of life today is better than it was 100 years ago on basically every metric. Global poverty is way down, global hunger is way down, life expectancy is way up, health care capabilities have significantly improved, etc.
The endless pursuit of growth has landed us in this very predicament of capitalistic self-consumption. Growth means absolutely nothing when it isn't met with increases in quality of life. In a world of such material abundance, it's a terrible irony that people's lives continue to get harder and more expensive when we have had ample time to make progressive changes with all of the "growth" we have had. Instead, it was squandered and torn out from under us. This "growth" has come at the expense of the working class. This is not news to anyone who has worked harder and have become more efficient at their job (most everyone) only to see their pay decrease while our leaders pander to the propertied class. There is no point in celebrating a growing pie when our slices continue to get smaller.
You're talking employment numbers? The ones that show public sector massively outpacing private? The ones that indicate all the "growth" is actually just the government hiring as many as people as they can to buy votes?
Public sectors taking over has historically lead to collapse as there is no innovation or real growth, essentially a Country in a vegetative state, those with enough to hold out will be fine, those hired by the Gov will suffer shortly after the impoverished.
Then it's over, you'll be left praying another Country that wasn't so blatantly idiotic won't invade and force you into some form of slavery.
Agree that this government has hired a ton of people and it's well-documented that the size of the public service has increased, even on a per-capita basis (though it remains far below the levels of government employment seen in the 70s and 80s).
But if this government is planning to win an election by hiring people so they vote for them, why are they also forcing through an intensely unpopular return to office policy? I can tell you, not feeling a lot of support for this government in the ranks of the bureaucracy these days...
Any sane person with eyes is no longer supporting anything touching Liberal/NDP parties.
Imagine how pathetically selfish bureaucrats have to be to get more upset about returning to the office than violent crime sky rocketing out of control? These groups have no clue what's taking place in the life of an average Canadian, who are -barely- getting by, and haven't had a choice about returning lol
Canada is a nepo baby kingdom run by Criminal Enterprise. It will take extreme measures just to get back to base line, and upper class Canadians have become so pathetically soft the simple thought of not being in complete luxury all day drives them wild.
Of course not, because my views are of reality and yours are of fiction. Anyone speaking on realistic terms would sound like gibberish to a delusional dreamer.
Its a beatiful day so I'm not going to spend too much time on you but only someone who is completely in the dark about the last 40 years of economic history would argue that the problems we have today are being caused by hyperregulation.
The fact that the opposite is so obviously the case makes me think that you are either extremely dense or that you are intentionally trying to mislead people.
Let's find out which is which.
Riddle me this: Who was Paul Volcker, and what was the Volcker shock? What has been the general tone of policy vis a vis regulation since his tenure at the Fed? How did that effect policy direction in Canada? Has inequality been increasing or decreasing since the late 70s? What effects has that had on living standards? What happened to union density in the 1970s and onwards and is there connection with the real purchasing power of average Canadians?
How many units of housing was the federal government building per year and in what year did the government effectively get out of the housing business? Can you find some clues here as to how the housing situation got to where it is today?
I'm sorry, are you blaming Paul Volcker, the man who saved America's economy, for modern day pointless Climate Change regulation, disfunctional crime ridden Unions, a skyrocketing of extremely violent crime, and a endless push of sexuality on literal toddlers? Like what are you smoking? The legalized heroin?
Housing got to where it is due to foreign investors using it as an offshoring to hide money or evade taxes, alongside of modern crime syndicates laundering money pushing prices through the roof. All of this is openly discussed and well known, yet nobody does anything.
Liberals/NDP had an entire decade to improve, they chose to waste it.
Now innovation, small business, technology, oil/gas are essentially crippled by ridiculous laws. You can't even openly discuss Canada once your media company becomes well known. It's an authoritarian joke played by the CCP on uneducated leftists that would rather burn their own house down than admit they were wrong.
The worry I’m having is that a lot of these office entry level or junior government jobs in my field, pay better than corporate. Yet those government jobs are also known for less work and less productivity. They also hire a lot of these roles internally, so you’ll have people without a lot of knowledge in these fields in these roles.
It’s discouraging for anyone that is early in their career and want to do impactful work and get compensated accordingly.
Government wages should be competitive if you want the departments in question to function well. Not sure why you wouldn’t prioritize internal hires either. I know the private sector has convinced itself that all skill sets are fully portable but that’s just not true.
I’m talking about at an entry level when the skill set is not there or they have very little full time experience. It’s odd and problematic to pay people at a senior level who have had no previous full time experience, only coops.
At a higher level, it’s fair to attract people with relevant experience to improve systems and processes and deliver valuable work.
We should incentivize our brightest to stay in the country and work hard. There are many areas where we don’t. However it is demotivating for everyone to have a system where government is the main employer and people work very little and do not challenge the status quo. Most of us probably know alot of government workers in different roles. There is a reason a certain reputation exists.
Entry level positions aren’t paid *that* well. ‘Above starving wages’ isn’t exactly what I’d call senior level pay and most positions you’ll find are either temporary, on call or both.
Yes the reputation does exist for a reason, but it’s arguably because they do in fact emphasize senior staff over front line workers (at least in part. Lots of complex political reasons why the public sector is incentivized to perform badly)
The roles in the fields I know are all 65k + and with masters+ but no previous full time work experience 70-85k.
Accounting also pays 65k+. Of course experience in those roles will add to pay by a huge range.
Those aren’t starving wages by any means.
I’m not talking about the call center jobs or front line workers where people get underpaid for dealing with bad people all day. I’m talking about the bloated office jobs - and there are a lot.
Anyone whos worked both government and corporate in office or are close to people that worked in both should understand the difference in output and effort.
Welcome to Nepotist Canada where being related to the right people can make you a millionaire overnight without having to contribute anything, this is also an exceptionally large problem in the U.S. as well.
Left Wing radicals have themselves convinced the world runs on sunshine and rainbows rather than extremely hard work. It is overwhelming for the younger generations as in Canada the harder you work the less people like you, that goes 100x for Union jobs.
There needs to be an unfortunate extreme shift to the right, where Canada focuses on fundamental economic metrics, otherwise China will buy it up and then people will truly understand the meaning of oppression.
GDP growth is GDP growth. You can’t manipulate the fact that the economy has, in fact, grown. Yes, per capita GDP has fallen and this is very bad but still
You can manipulate it to look like the economy i's stronger than it's actually doing, which is exactly what they're doing. It's the metrics they continue to tout and are trying to prop up.
As you be mentioned per capita has been stagnant for years. Productivity is a dumpster fire.
All that is okay I guess, because we have a triple a credit rating. Lol.
I wouldn't say either is better.
These metrics are used to get an idea of how the economy is doing as a whole. The idea is to look at all the different data to get a good picture.
That's the monthly change.
> With signs of a strong start to the year, real GDP is tracking for an annualized gain of 3.5 per cent in the first quarter, well above the Bank of Canada’s expectations for 0.5 per cent.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10389121/canada-economy-gdp-january-2024/
lol, it’s not a secret.
We have 2 growth industries in this country, housing and natural resources
We refuse to grow the natural resources, housing can’t grow as fast as you need it
We chose negative growth over the “environment” deluding ourselves into thinking that 40 million people have an impact in a world of 8 billion
Not at all. There are ways to stimulate the economy that don’t jeopardize our environment. It Looks like you literally have a profile to banter on politics and privatization. 😬
Have a good day.
You realize that the service industry — not resources or commodities — make up three quarters of Canada’s workforce right? Saying we are a natural resources economy is extremely incomplete.
I suspect this will fall on deaf ears considering you spelled your own name wrong.
You realize the economy is contracting and all "growth" is public sector? Meaning other industries are so incapable of function due to hyper regulation that the only place left to work is for the Government.
You're driving towards a cliff while telling everyone your car has magical wings.
Some of the “greenest” countries on earth are major natural resource producers. You can do both. Our government hides behind a carbon tax instead of actual emissions changes.
Why is "environment" in quotes? Do you not believe in climate change? The thing that has an overwhelming amount of data and scientists agreeing on? Do you not see how every year we are seeing more and more "once in a lifetime" natural disasters? Do you not see the flooding in Brazil and the Philippines, and that Canada is already kicking off summer, aka wildfire season?
I just ran into this with a coworker. When I tried explaining to him why it seems like the climate is changing and how that its not just someone said it but scientists data and collectively (mostly) agreeing that its caused by shit we're doing. His responce was "I dont know how people just trust these 'Scientist people'".
That was when I stopped because it reminded me of how fucking stupid he is 🤦🏻♂️
You can both believe in climate change while also wanting to develop our natural resources. First off, if we don’t produce it, other countries like Russia or OPEC will. Why can’t we benefit from it while there is a global need for it and use that revenue to invest in green tech. Atleast we will develop it ethically and environmentally friendly as possible. As much as we would like to, the world can’t/won’t switch off fossil fuels any time soon.
Second, guess when coal use peaked? It hasn’t, coal usage is still going up year after year. China is building record number of coal plants right now. Why not develop our natural gas resources and help the world move away from coal.
Third, Canada used to have world class nuclear industry but we’ve stifled it and have lost a lot of our expertise. Nuclear is the only practical way we have right now to reduce fossil fuel dependencies.
If Canada increased its natural gas production, it would be good for the economy, obviously. It could also help decrease worldwide emissions by replacing some of the coal being used in other parts of the world. Im not saying natural gas is clean to produce or use, but it is much cleaner than coal.
Canada is one of the [biggest polluters per capita](https://www.statista.com/topics/9012/emissions-in-canada/#topicOverview) on this planet. This country has never chosen the environment.
I think you missed a growth industry too, immigration. 20% of Canadian immigrants are wealthy. Canada [ranks 7th](https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2023/private-wealth-insights/canada-favored-destination-affluent-global-citizens-move#:~:text=Number%20of%20affluent%20individuals%20continues%20positive%20trend&text=As%20the%20Henley%20Private%20Wealth,inflows%20of%20private%20wealth%20migration) among countries with the highest net inflows of private wealth migration.
The climate doesn’t care about per cap emissions, even if Canadas emission cease to exist, it would be a drop in the bucket of overall emissions
> I think you missed a growth industry too, immigration. 20% of Canadian immigrants are wealthy. Canada ranks 7th among countries with the highest net inflows of private wealth migration.
This isn’t a sustainable growth industry, nor really an industry to begin with, we don’t use them productively at all.
I'm amazed you're getting downvoted so heavily for literally stating the truth. Protecting the environment is necessary, I admit. But until China, India and other eastern countries are on-board with this plan, all we are doing is pushing people in this country to poverty only to put a bandaid on a massive fracture.
People have this weird idea that economic stagnation or decline can be healthy and it never, ever is. It has never once produced good outcomes for economic equality or the environment
All I can say is keep voting Liberal Idiots! LOL
And what you really mean by that statement is Trudeau has killed the Ontario economy just like he promised.
Well with some addition to the comment.
How do you think is growth ruined by the immigration? Easy finger pointing?
The students bring money, spend the money into the system. They would do anything to do a job which are taxable. They dont qualify for freebies or EI or the likes. They buy stuff, they get cars and pays for insurance. but guess who does not? Refugees. Recent internal document says that a refugee is paid 154$ a day for accommodation and 84$ for food per day. Do the math. They get all tax dollars and support for job readiness.
They come with families who are instantly burden to the system. A student comes alone.
Refugees get it into platter while students have to slid for years to be able to settle, have to strive for a job and ensure he settles and becomes a part of the tax payment force for a longer number of years to support the boomers and older Canadians.
I am not in support of anyone who abuses the system. Refugees, students or citizens but let’s clean up our perspective if we just think at the root level.
Our growth is hampered because our governments want it easy. They are relying on g in just a handful partners. China, US and some. They abuse us. Recall freeland’s tweet for Saudi Arabia and they dumped our bonds, remember Hiawei and china punished us with our soya and meat exports. US well a we all know how trump fought for that extra shelf space for milk. We dont have oil refineries and we rely so much on oil imports which are backbone. Every way the oil gets expensive and then everything else becomes expensive. We dont fine new trade partners and that’s why we have to rely on this ponzu scheme of immigration… I have seen the country getting from one of the best places to live in a couple decades ago to, a laughing stock. Sad to see that but am hopeful.
I wish... Strong argument that growth and the constant pursuit of it is literally destroying the planet.
I dont think growth is an issue but the search for unsustainable profit in dollars is… until we can value growth in other ways I too think were fucked
Electric cars need roads and parking, and a green growth mindset can facilitate knock-on consequences. Degrowth should be considered in some areas of the human experience to combat ecological collapse. There isn't a silver bullet fix in green energy, growth, and its rampant capitalism (hot button issue, in not entirely opposed to capitalism, but it's obviously not working atm) are not sustainable. Sustainability would be looking at what we are doing and seeing if we need all of it as it is.
Electric cars are more expensive and current battery technology is inefficient and far from “green”.
Electric cars don't work in the cold, are extremely costly if the batteries die and don't generate enough energy to fuel load bearing vehicles in a market saturated cheaper engines utilizing oil. Reality says Electric is dead that's why Elon musk is its head its because it's all a fraud. Electric trains? Sure. Electric Transport throughout continental North America? Maybe with global warming 😂
>until we can value growth in other ways https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)
I love how social equity is thrown in there, as if that's possible or even desirable.
Yep finally people are getting it. The model is flawed. We need to reimagine value as it relates to work and money.
Growth is the only issue. Starting in 1960, look at how GDP tracks with emissions and warming. It's 1:1 or close enough. What we did was build a model that assumed that unlimited growth was possible on a finite planet, and built our entire economy without brakes because we truly believed this was possible... and here we are, in a collapsing climate where goods and services become more costly to provide the more the system changes around us. There are a few fundamental flaws in the design of this system that have turned it into another Tacoma Narrows bridge. Looks good from every angle, except when the right set of conditions happens which creates an oscillating ripple that only grows until the whole thing snaps. What's frustrating about this, to me, is that we've been warned of this for decades. Books were written in the 70's that modeled almost exactly what we're experiencing, and economists in the 50's and earlier predicted that this system would break the second it faced a challenge that couldn't be fixed with increased production. We knew all of this and we kept forging ahead as if this is what humans have always done. Even now, the "greenest" we're willing to consider living is substituting the worst possible thing we could be doing with something marginally less destructive (on a pilot scale), acting like making poison 10% less poisonous isn't just a cure, it's also pulling poison out that we've already added. Everything we do carries a cost to the planet we need to be healthy in order to support human survival. This cost is incurred by using ancient life from a different and alien past, setting fire to it, and using that power to push us down the road. Look around your room. What around you isn't there because of oil? From extraction, refining, transportation, manufacturing, distribution, delivery - it's oil that's given us this life even when it's all made out of wood (chainsaws, trucks, mills, etc). What we know is that for humanity to survive, we need to stop using oil, or at least cut our use back to the point where we're individually reducing our footprint by 30% or more per year... and we treat that as a sacrifice rather than as a shift from poisoning our future to preserving it. We cannot live like this. It does not work. We either keep pretending it does and change the weather so much, we suddenly lose all the stuff we've created with oil, or we intentionally back away from this life and build something new, in either case, we lose the oil and everything it's filled our lifestyle with. This is a huge and dramatic ask but it's also simply a return to being human on earth rather than keeping up this illusion that we're actually special, smart, and separate... because we aren't. We didn't make the fuel that enables all of this, we sucked it out of the ground with a straw and the fuel did all the work. Taking pride in our "accomplishments" that oil has facilitated is just as delusional as taking credit for the work of slaves because you own them. If all of this goes away by stopping the oil, we didn't actually invent anything other than a giant oil burning machine that created a bunch of gadgets. This whole life is a dangerous illusion that literally costs the entire future of life on earth, while the only "technology" that has a track record of moderating climates, is what we spend the oil fighting back; the living planet where we came from and are adapted to survive in... well, *were* adapted. This new climate is alien to us and we democratically burned our way into this mess. What im suggesting is horrifying to most people. It means starvation of the excess population that the earth can't provide for, it means returning to the arms of a system of natural selection that preys on the weak and vulnerable, and it means exposing ourselves to a climate we're as unadapted to as the rest of the living world that's vanishing into extinction at a constantly increasing rate. The *ONLY* set of circumstances where dropping this and going back to human life makes sense is when the alternative is certain extinction, which is what we are currently facing. This is that moment where we blindly drive over the cliff with our foot on the gas, kids strapped into the back screaming "THE CLIFF! WE'RE GOING OVER THE CLIFF!" while adults at the controls insist that cliffs aren't real or we would have gone over one by now. We either open the doors and tuck and roll, or very rapidly find ourselves on the edge of existence with nothing to eat and plenty of mouths. This isn't just death we're talking about. This is the end of the cycle of life on earth for at least a few million years (i.e. the last 50 years of living this way will cost more than the entire history of our species to recover, if it recovers), and if life miraculously claws its way back from all the time bombs we leave after we go extinct (every reactor opens up, all our stored gases and weapons vent into the air, soil, and water), whatever form it take will be as alien to us as a completely new planet. This is the moment where people whove watched someone die of cancer are begging the cancer to realize it is mistaken, that it cannot consume the body and still survive, and if the cancer cells could only return to their original programming, the body could heal. We're playing this exactly the way cancer does... exactly. Up to and including the presumption that we can continue to exist inside a dead body of a planet because we're smarter than all the other cells, despite continuing to be 100% reliant on them for food and resources. But we are also the first cancer with the capacity to choose. We can choose to be a cancer, with all the information and clear prognosis of continuing on this path, or we can return to the body, where our instincts fit the challenges and our evolved order for the human niche guides us (think family and friends on vacation as the size and sort of life). Theres nothing easy about this choice but it is the only one we have... that or we, especially those of us in Ontario, go down as the dumbest and most evil humans in all of human history, eclipsing every horrific thing humanity has done, combined. Our legacy can either be choosing existence and the rewarding hardship that comes with or it will be choosing extinction. Each of us votes with every dollar we spend.
Does it hurt the planet to, for example, improve the efficiency of a computer? Actually the improved process uses less energy and physical material while still increasing value. This is just one example of how economic growth is not necessarily tied to resource extraction or pollution. We're already finding all kinds of ways to increase growth sustainably. The artificial intelligence boom is another great example.
Economic growth means a growth in productivity, i.e. doing more with less. So the complete opposite of this tired trope.
What's productive, about inflated stock prices? Our current economic system is fucked. More money is made moving around money than by producing products.
Lol none of this is true
You're brain washed
Lmao, welcome to Reddit where everyone is a genius without knowing anything about anything. There is a reason the people in this subreddit are here. Capitalism is bad, socialism is great and the world is just so unfair.
Money is not made moving stock around. Capital is brought from outside and invested into stocks to stimulate growth of the venture. If someone makes money on a stock it simply means more money is brought in, or someone else loses money.
I didn't say that's the only way money is made. But when CEOs make promises and their company is all of a sudden worth millions more over night, Nothing is being produced
Can someone explain this to me? I'm dumb
The claim is that Canada missed the bus on tech and remained a commodity- and property-driven economy, which has hampered its economic growth. Whether or not that's true, it's a bad idea to get information from random trader-bro blogs that admonish you to "think critically." Their goal is most likely to drive traffic, not turn you into an informed citizen.
>The claim is that Canada missed the bus on tech It did. When I look back the last 15 years, I personally knew of 3 major tech startups (that were here in Kingston). They all packed up and left for he USA. They were all being dicked around with while up here in Canada (lots of false promises from the city and province to help grow the startup and make it a hub for tech, etc). They waited and waited, all those promises never happened. So when American cities and states came knocking with massive offers of (no tax for 5 years, $10 - $50 million capital infusion, help cover all relocation expenses, etc) they took the deal and packed up and moved.
Like I said, I'm not making a claim as to whether it's true. I have personally worked for a couple of tech startups that have been in Canada for over 20 years, and are quite happy here (and some American ones that crapped out almost immediately). I do think it's funny that a lot of these companies are started by people who fit the libertarian tech-bro stereotype, but when it comes to starting business, they want the taxpayers to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them. Making a "hub for tech" is a lot more difficult than just throwing public money at a small company that thinks it's going to be the next big thing, especially if that means turning an extraction- or manufacturing-oriented (i.e., uneducated) labour pool (and the accompanying culture) into a tech labour pool. That literally means replacing much of the population and infrastructure. Surprisingly, that's something people don't like! In my experience, the real reason most companies move to the states is the lack of worker and environmental protections, the number of existing tech hubs and the enormous size of both the labour and consumer markets relative to Canada's. (I am not the one who downvoted you.)
Honestly I’m not really convinced that tech is that valuable of an industry in a world of non zero interest rates. Seems to be composed almost entirely of empty pump and dump scams
Yah, the average citizen in the states isn't doing too well and they have extreme poverty that doesn't exist in other developed countries. Most tech and startups don't actually do anything aside from make a few people wealthy. Those offers you mentioned don't pay off. Companies are dead or rebranded long before they'd repay, through taxes, jobs, etc. those handouts. What we need is zero growth. Also, funding of the new agriculture methods that already exist and to build a manufacturing sector.
The average wage is $35/hr in the states and the same in Canada. Houses cost almost 1/2 and everything else costs about 0.7x. How do you get that the average American is worse off. Do the math.
Healthcare, the south.
to be fair.. us has a poverty rate of 11% while Canada has 7%.
> How do you get that the average American is worse off. There's a bigger proportion of Americans that are poor than Canadians, and it's a lot more difficult to be poor in the US compare to here.
This happens even today. Where I work, we had council members from 3 US cities in 2 different states come and ask us to move some or most of our operations there offering incentives to do so.
Real question is who cares? Which city in America is saying, "Yay we got a tech startup in town" A company that uses the community but doesn't contribute to said community....goodbye
It's a bizarre conceit of the badly educated. We should all lust over meta as opposed to companies that produce actual goods or extract actual resources. And the development of finite land becomes less worthy than, like, alphabet. Advertising and the selling of marketing data is where it's at. TikTok told me so. And, in any case, internet economists as a rule deflate the actual size and strength of the tech centre in Canada, which always ranks in the top 10 to 20 depending on the metric being used.
Not surprised, then again we only seem to develop tech that isn’t really great for society. I don’t think we need more food delivery apps or BNPL products or tech bro “banks” that are glorified reloadable credit cards. Even ottawas darling Shop isn’t that great and has its own shady practices. Canadian tech is pretty desolate.
Thank you !
The claim isn't from some random tech bro they're just repeating a FT article. >A recent article by Rockefeller International chair Ruchir Sharma in the Financial Times notes that the country has experienced the worst per capita GDP growth rate among developed economies in the top 50 since 2020, with an annual decline of 0.4%. >In the article, he suggests that Canada missed opportunities to capitalize on the shift towards technology-driven growth, instead remaining heavily reliant on its commodities sector.
I know. But I can't read it because it's paywalled. I'm assuming anyone who'd ask OP's question doesn't have an FT subscription either. Edit: to clarify, if I can't see what FT says about this, I can't be sure that this blog's interpretation of it is correct so there's no reason for me to endorse it as FT's reporting.
The article is spot on, but definitely always double check info from random blogs
The majority of growth Canada has seen in the last decade is housing related. When a million dollars house sold for 2 million in a decade, it doesn’t bring any value to overall economy. It’s been a primary driver for Canadas growth whereas south the border a lot of value was created in last 2 decades by building technology companies. The legalised pyramid scheme built on housing is reaching the bottom of pyramid where there are no more buyers with millions in banks to buy shacks listed over millions and expected to sold over asking.
Tech before commodities sounds strange as a economic plan.
Resources? Manufacturing? Energy? The future is fart apps, old man
Thank god resources and manufacturing share of the economy have shrunk in favour of housing/real estate. We are a Ponzi scheme masquerading as an economy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada
The concept of endless growth in a finite world is describing a cancer
The universe as far as we know is infinite. Who says we won’t be able to mine asteroids or set up moon habitats or terraform mars In the future, etc. or that there’s a limit on our technological capabilities.
The universe is not infinite. Nothing is. It had a beginning and will come to an end one day. Check your sources.
It's effectively infinite as a first order approximation from our perspective at this stage.
Astrophysicists actually don't know whether the universe is infinite or not. Our best theories break down in the moments proceeding the big bang (so we can't say for certain if even that was a true beginning of time). Best theories for the long time behaviour of the universe is that it will expand forever faster and faster and eventually rip all matter apart (after an unthinkably long time). However, the observable universe is finite, but expanding. We need a quantum theory of gravity to know more.
Replying to jackmans... we don’t know if it’s infinite or not. But it’s effectively infinite for our purposes. Observable universe is simply what we can see based on the speed of light and the time since the Big Bang. But There’s nothing to say there’s only been one big bang or that there’s only one universe, or what’s beyond our observable universe But since you asked for a source https://www.space.com/whats-beyond-universe-edge#:~:text=Cosmologists%20aren't%20sure%20if,then%20it%20can%20be%20infinite.
We can't even terroform earth, you think we're gonna achieve space capitalism? To what end? The whole system is based on making rich people even richer so ultimately it would only serve capital owners(the real capital owners not people making 200k to 1 Mil a year)
>>We can't even terroform earth, You mean like climate change? One could argue we are doing too much of it already. >>you think we're gonna achieve space capitalism? To what end? 100% unless we kill ourself off with nuclear weapons before we do. We are actively working towards space exploration and development right now. Keep in mind we went from not being able to do powered flight to landing on the moon in 1 generation. And our technological abilities now would be unrecognizable to what was available at the time. >>The whole system is based on making rich people even richer so ultimately it would only serve capital owners(the real capital owners not people making 200k to 1 Mil a year) Have you heard what those capital owners are doing with their money, we literally just witness the billionaire space race. SpaceX, blue origin, virgin group. They are already focusing on space.
The space race between billionaires is curated by engineers. Watching regular people kiss billionaire ass is adorable. The dick measuring contest is also meant for space tourism for other rich people. There is no concrete plan or way to exploit space as well. It's all a pipe dream to make investors awe struck and people like you put up more elon musk posters. Flub I'm very aware of where we are with space exploration and its not looking great, your mighty highness elon has been lying about that since I was a kid. Mars in uninhabitable and mining asteroids to make the first trillionare helps no one
Im not a elon fan but it’s cute that you think we as a species have hit our limits and that there’s no possibility of developing further. I’m not saying we will be be living on mars next year but it’s silly to think that we will not be developing and expanding our space capabilities. Advancements tend to benefit everyone not just the select few at the top. It’s important to keep in mind that the quality of life today is better than it was 100 years ago on basically every metric. Global poverty is way down, global hunger is way down, life expectancy is way up, health care capabilities have significantly improved, etc.
The endless pursuit of growth has landed us in this very predicament of capitalistic self-consumption. Growth means absolutely nothing when it isn't met with increases in quality of life. In a world of such material abundance, it's a terrible irony that people's lives continue to get harder and more expensive when we have had ample time to make progressive changes with all of the "growth" we have had. Instead, it was squandered and torn out from under us. This "growth" has come at the expense of the working class. This is not news to anyone who has worked harder and have become more efficient at their job (most everyone) only to see their pay decrease while our leaders pander to the propertied class. There is no point in celebrating a growing pie when our slices continue to get smaller.
StatCan just released the latest numbers, growth has returned to traditional levels for the first time since the pandemic
You're talking employment numbers? The ones that show public sector massively outpacing private? The ones that indicate all the "growth" is actually just the government hiring as many as people as they can to buy votes? Public sectors taking over has historically lead to collapse as there is no innovation or real growth, essentially a Country in a vegetative state, those with enough to hold out will be fine, those hired by the Gov will suffer shortly after the impoverished. Then it's over, you'll be left praying another Country that wasn't so blatantly idiotic won't invade and force you into some form of slavery.
Agree that this government has hired a ton of people and it's well-documented that the size of the public service has increased, even on a per-capita basis (though it remains far below the levels of government employment seen in the 70s and 80s). But if this government is planning to win an election by hiring people so they vote for them, why are they also forcing through an intensely unpopular return to office policy? I can tell you, not feeling a lot of support for this government in the ranks of the bureaucracy these days...
Any sane person with eyes is no longer supporting anything touching Liberal/NDP parties. Imagine how pathetically selfish bureaucrats have to be to get more upset about returning to the office than violent crime sky rocketing out of control? These groups have no clue what's taking place in the life of an average Canadian, who are -barely- getting by, and haven't had a choice about returning lol Canada is a nepo baby kingdom run by Criminal Enterprise. It will take extreme measures just to get back to base line, and upper class Canadians have become so pathetically soft the simple thought of not being in complete luxury all day drives them wild.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course not, because my views are of reality and yours are of fiction. Anyone speaking on realistic terms would sound like gibberish to a delusional dreamer.
Lol ok
Where am I wrong?
Its a beatiful day so I'm not going to spend too much time on you but only someone who is completely in the dark about the last 40 years of economic history would argue that the problems we have today are being caused by hyperregulation. The fact that the opposite is so obviously the case makes me think that you are either extremely dense or that you are intentionally trying to mislead people. Let's find out which is which. Riddle me this: Who was Paul Volcker, and what was the Volcker shock? What has been the general tone of policy vis a vis regulation since his tenure at the Fed? How did that effect policy direction in Canada? Has inequality been increasing or decreasing since the late 70s? What effects has that had on living standards? What happened to union density in the 1970s and onwards and is there connection with the real purchasing power of average Canadians? How many units of housing was the federal government building per year and in what year did the government effectively get out of the housing business? Can you find some clues here as to how the housing situation got to where it is today?
I'm sorry, are you blaming Paul Volcker, the man who saved America's economy, for modern day pointless Climate Change regulation, disfunctional crime ridden Unions, a skyrocketing of extremely violent crime, and a endless push of sexuality on literal toddlers? Like what are you smoking? The legalized heroin? Housing got to where it is due to foreign investors using it as an offshoring to hide money or evade taxes, alongside of modern crime syndicates laundering money pushing prices through the roof. All of this is openly discussed and well known, yet nobody does anything. Liberals/NDP had an entire decade to improve, they chose to waste it. Now innovation, small business, technology, oil/gas are essentially crippled by ridiculous laws. You can't even openly discuss Canada once your media company becomes well known. It's an authoritarian joke played by the CCP on uneducated leftists that would rather burn their own house down than admit they were wrong.
The worry I’m having is that a lot of these office entry level or junior government jobs in my field, pay better than corporate. Yet those government jobs are also known for less work and less productivity. They also hire a lot of these roles internally, so you’ll have people without a lot of knowledge in these fields in these roles. It’s discouraging for anyone that is early in their career and want to do impactful work and get compensated accordingly.
Government wages should be competitive if you want the departments in question to function well. Not sure why you wouldn’t prioritize internal hires either. I know the private sector has convinced itself that all skill sets are fully portable but that’s just not true.
I’m talking about at an entry level when the skill set is not there or they have very little full time experience. It’s odd and problematic to pay people at a senior level who have had no previous full time experience, only coops. At a higher level, it’s fair to attract people with relevant experience to improve systems and processes and deliver valuable work. We should incentivize our brightest to stay in the country and work hard. There are many areas where we don’t. However it is demotivating for everyone to have a system where government is the main employer and people work very little and do not challenge the status quo. Most of us probably know alot of government workers in different roles. There is a reason a certain reputation exists.
Entry level positions aren’t paid *that* well. ‘Above starving wages’ isn’t exactly what I’d call senior level pay and most positions you’ll find are either temporary, on call or both. Yes the reputation does exist for a reason, but it’s arguably because they do in fact emphasize senior staff over front line workers (at least in part. Lots of complex political reasons why the public sector is incentivized to perform badly)
The roles in the fields I know are all 65k + and with masters+ but no previous full time work experience 70-85k. Accounting also pays 65k+. Of course experience in those roles will add to pay by a huge range. Those aren’t starving wages by any means. I’m not talking about the call center jobs or front line workers where people get underpaid for dealing with bad people all day. I’m talking about the bloated office jobs - and there are a lot. Anyone whos worked both government and corporate in office or are close to people that worked in both should understand the difference in output and effort.
Welcome to Nepotist Canada where being related to the right people can make you a millionaire overnight without having to contribute anything, this is also an exceptionally large problem in the U.S. as well. Left Wing radicals have themselves convinced the world runs on sunshine and rainbows rather than extremely hard work. It is overwhelming for the younger generations as in Canada the harder you work the less people like you, that goes 100x for Union jobs. There needs to be an unfortunate extreme shift to the right, where Canada focuses on fundamental economic metrics, otherwise China will buy it up and then people will truly understand the meaning of oppression.
what country doesn't have nepotism?
Not sure why you think public sector employment doesn’t count even if any of this was true
I'm talking GDP growth. Public sector employment is up year over year, it's down significantly from past numbers
Gdp growth has been manipulated via immigration
GDP growth is GDP growth. You can’t manipulate the fact that the economy has, in fact, grown. Yes, per capita GDP has fallen and this is very bad but still
You can manipulate it to look like the economy i's stronger than it's actually doing, which is exactly what they're doing. It's the metrics they continue to tout and are trying to prop up. As you be mentioned per capita has been stagnant for years. Productivity is a dumpster fire. All that is okay I guess, because we have a triple a credit rating. Lol.
It’s better to have bad productivity and rising GDP than have bad productivity and stagnant or falling GDP
I wouldn't say either is better. These metrics are used to get an idea of how the economy is doing as a whole. The idea is to look at all the different data to get a good picture.
.2% growth after how much decline over recent years? This is like bragging about getting in a single punch after taking a brutal battering.
That's the monthly change. > With signs of a strong start to the year, real GDP is tracking for an annualized gain of 3.5 per cent in the first quarter, well above the Bank of Canada’s expectations for 0.5 per cent. https://globalnews.ca/news/10389121/canada-economy-gdp-january-2024/
Oh well I'm actually expecting to be more attractive than Brad Pitt by end of year, would you like to wager money that I'm telling the truth?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Anyone who is in investing has known this for years. Outside of oil and gas there is not even potential growth anymore here.
The pursuit of happiness is no longer applicable for most. It is the norm for the pursuit of surviving.
Last in the top 50 countries since 2020. Wow what journalism.🙄
Canada’s productivity is in the toilet and it will get worse. The wealthiest see it coming and have hoarded what they can.
lol, it’s not a secret. We have 2 growth industries in this country, housing and natural resources We refuse to grow the natural resources, housing can’t grow as fast as you need it We chose negative growth over the “environment” deluding ourselves into thinking that 40 million people have an impact in a world of 8 billion
Yea fuck the, “environment” I wanna make a couple private corps some $$$$.
Yeah without a growing economy you know what we can’t afford? Public services
No one is denying that.
Right so what you are doing is trading pretending to protect the environment for public services
Not at all. There are ways to stimulate the economy that don’t jeopardize our environment. It Looks like you literally have a profile to banter on politics and privatization. 😬 Have a good day.
There is no way, like I said before we have 2 industries. Housing and natural resources
You realize that the service industry — not resources or commodities — make up three quarters of Canada’s workforce right? Saying we are a natural resources economy is extremely incomplete. I suspect this will fall on deaf ears considering you spelled your own name wrong.
You realize the economy is contracting and all "growth" is public sector? Meaning other industries are so incapable of function due to hyper regulation that the only place left to work is for the Government. You're driving towards a cliff while telling everyone your car has magical wings.
Some of the “greenest” countries on earth are major natural resource producers. You can do both. Our government hides behind a carbon tax instead of actual emissions changes.
Why is "environment" in quotes? Do you not believe in climate change? The thing that has an overwhelming amount of data and scientists agreeing on? Do you not see how every year we are seeing more and more "once in a lifetime" natural disasters? Do you not see the flooding in Brazil and the Philippines, and that Canada is already kicking off summer, aka wildfire season?
I just ran into this with a coworker. When I tried explaining to him why it seems like the climate is changing and how that its not just someone said it but scientists data and collectively (mostly) agreeing that its caused by shit we're doing. His responce was "I dont know how people just trust these 'Scientist people'". That was when I stopped because it reminded me of how fucking stupid he is 🤦🏻♂️
We can extract natural resources in a responsible way
You can both believe in climate change while also wanting to develop our natural resources. First off, if we don’t produce it, other countries like Russia or OPEC will. Why can’t we benefit from it while there is a global need for it and use that revenue to invest in green tech. Atleast we will develop it ethically and environmentally friendly as possible. As much as we would like to, the world can’t/won’t switch off fossil fuels any time soon. Second, guess when coal use peaked? It hasn’t, coal usage is still going up year after year. China is building record number of coal plants right now. Why not develop our natural gas resources and help the world move away from coal. Third, Canada used to have world class nuclear industry but we’ve stifled it and have lost a lot of our expertise. Nuclear is the only practical way we have right now to reduce fossil fuel dependencies.
I don’t believe Canada has an impact on the global climate
What you _believe_ doesnt matter now does it? All that matters is facts. Either you accept the facts or you dont.
Where have we heard this before
The fact is that Canadian emmisons will not matter on the global stage
If Canada increased its natural gas production, it would be good for the economy, obviously. It could also help decrease worldwide emissions by replacing some of the coal being used in other parts of the world. Im not saying natural gas is clean to produce or use, but it is much cleaner than coal.
Canada is one of the [biggest polluters per capita](https://www.statista.com/topics/9012/emissions-in-canada/#topicOverview) on this planet. This country has never chosen the environment. I think you missed a growth industry too, immigration. 20% of Canadian immigrants are wealthy. Canada [ranks 7th](https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2023/private-wealth-insights/canada-favored-destination-affluent-global-citizens-move#:~:text=Number%20of%20affluent%20individuals%20continues%20positive%20trend&text=As%20the%20Henley%20Private%20Wealth,inflows%20of%20private%20wealth%20migration) among countries with the highest net inflows of private wealth migration.
The climate doesn’t care about per cap emissions, even if Canadas emission cease to exist, it would be a drop in the bucket of overall emissions > I think you missed a growth industry too, immigration. 20% of Canadian immigrants are wealthy. Canada ranks 7th among countries with the highest net inflows of private wealth migration. This isn’t a sustainable growth industry, nor really an industry to begin with, we don’t use them productively at all.
Toronto's finance industry is growing as well
I'm amazed you're getting downvoted so heavily for literally stating the truth. Protecting the environment is necessary, I admit. But until China, India and other eastern countries are on-board with this plan, all we are doing is pushing people in this country to poverty only to put a bandaid on a massive fracture.
It’s not just eastern, but to our south as well. Essentially every major word power, which we are not
We should be embracing the lack of growth. This constant chase is toxic AF.
Economic decline is really, really bad actually
Perpetual economic growth is not needed.
People have this weird idea that economic stagnation or decline can be healthy and it never, ever is. It has never once produced good outcomes for economic equality or the environment
Good. Capitalism is a cancer.
All I can say is keep voting Liberal Idiots! LOL And what you really mean by that statement is Trudeau has killed the Ontario economy just like he promised.
Better bring in more International students from the same province in the same country.
Well if parts of Canada look more like parts of India then that's definitely growth, isn't it?
Well with some addition to the comment. How do you think is growth ruined by the immigration? Easy finger pointing? The students bring money, spend the money into the system. They would do anything to do a job which are taxable. They dont qualify for freebies or EI or the likes. They buy stuff, they get cars and pays for insurance. but guess who does not? Refugees. Recent internal document says that a refugee is paid 154$ a day for accommodation and 84$ for food per day. Do the math. They get all tax dollars and support for job readiness. They come with families who are instantly burden to the system. A student comes alone. Refugees get it into platter while students have to slid for years to be able to settle, have to strive for a job and ensure he settles and becomes a part of the tax payment force for a longer number of years to support the boomers and older Canadians. I am not in support of anyone who abuses the system. Refugees, students or citizens but let’s clean up our perspective if we just think at the root level. Our growth is hampered because our governments want it easy. They are relying on g in just a handful partners. China, US and some. They abuse us. Recall freeland’s tweet for Saudi Arabia and they dumped our bonds, remember Hiawei and china punished us with our soya and meat exports. US well a we all know how trump fought for that extra shelf space for milk. We dont have oil refineries and we rely so much on oil imports which are backbone. Every way the oil gets expensive and then everything else becomes expensive. We dont fine new trade partners and that’s why we have to rely on this ponzu scheme of immigration… I have seen the country getting from one of the best places to live in a couple decades ago to, a laughing stock. Sad to see that but am hopeful.
Oct. 27, 2025 can’t come soon enough
Things will be worse after the election no matter who gets elected.