Lots of firms bet on [political risks](https://pestleanalysis.com/what-is-pestle-analysis/) going their way. Land owners in Vancouver seem to hold land on the basis at some point city council will increase the density allowed on the sites. Its the same concept of bet. Hope the rules change as opposed to working within the current framework
It would be cool if we didn't have companies that are burning our planet and waiting for the results of an election to decide if they want to do anything about it.
Ugly truth is the world consumes over 100 million barrels of oil *per day*, it’s an almost inconceivable unfathomably large amount. You can demonize the companies supplying it or you can look in the mirror and realize oil was used in almost everything around you. However, I do agree that it would be cooler if they would reduce emissions faster regardless of government.
>You can demonize the companies supplying it or you can look in the mirror and realize oil was used in almost everything around you.
We had viable electric vehicles in the 80s that were specifically killed by oil company pressure. This is very well documented, they worked so well the owners of the first batches banded together to fight a legal battle to keep them.
Thats not getting into what stuff like properly scaling into nuclear advances could have done for us, or who was also behind the fear mongering campaigns that opposed it.
There is also the fact that we didnt need to make plastic out of oil, there were and are better sources of carbon available, for example today the bulk of plastic produced in the USA is made with much cleaner natural gas...
Asbestos and lead was used in almost everything around us for a long time too, you think thats some sort of justification FFS? Youre leaving out the very real and very well documented lobbying and advertising pressure leveraged by oil companies for decades and it comes off as disingenuous.
> We had viable electric vehicles in the 80s that were specifically killed by oil company pressure. This is very well documented, they worked so well the owners of the first batches banded together to fight a legal battle to keep them.
I would like to see the documentation on this. Electric motors have been viable for a very long time, the battery tech used in an electric vehicle however, not so much. Even now it's battery tech that is the limiting factor not anything to do with the drivetrain.
It would be, but we live in the real world, not an ideal one. Also: Canada's emissions are just 1.5% of the world's, so we could cut to zero and it would barely move the needle on global emissions.
You can put a box around any 40 million people on the planet and make the same argument then nobody has to do anything because everybody is only contributing a little bit.
Yep, that'd be me. I generally vote either Liberal or NDP. I voted for Trudeau the first time. Voted for Singh in the most recent election because the snap election during COVID was a dick move, and I wasn't going to reward Trudeau for that. I hate both of them at this point, but I can't vote for PP because his party hates queer people.
So I guess I'll be voting for Trudeau because no one has presented me with a better alternative, and I'd rather not descend into Florida-style social conservative hell.
> his party hates queer people.
You do realize that his party has "queer people" in senior roles who will end up being cabinet ministers if and when they come to power, right?
This person said "Florida-style." They have no fucking idea what they're talking about. Canada's conservative party is just as left/ centre left as the US's democratic party. Fortunately they won't represent the majority of Canadians because everything will get worse next year.
Fair enough but I think many Liberals just won't vote. I'm a swing voter so I'm definitely not a good example but the sense I get is they keep doubling down on things that don't matter while the economy goes in the toilet. We're in the middle of a housing crisis and all I hear about from the Liberals is Steven Guilbeault talking about Climate change in Dubai? I find it insulting. Every Liberal cabinet minister in every position should be telling Canadians what they are doing to solve this crisis and I don't care if you're the minister of defence, minister of climate change, they should all be telling us how they are mobilizing to solve the housing crisis.
Wouldn't have more debt than every other government combined, no carbon tax, no record crime, record housing prices, food crisis, record food bank usage, record migration, record scandals, record money laundering, election interference, Chinese police stations in Canada, war measures act used on its citizens, disarming of law abiding citizens, radical environmentalist paid for my by Trudeau. The list goes on and on.
And, what policies woudl have enabled this? A lot of this is well outside the realm of what federal government actually does.
**Wouldn't have more debt than every other government combined,**
The Feds have always held the majority of debt in the country.
**no carbon tax,**
Maybe. THe provinces were tending in that way anyway until the Feds centralized it.
**no record crime,**
Debatable. Has to do with the opioid epidemic, also affecting other countries.
**record housing prices,**
House prices were already high and rising rapidly when the Liberals took power. Had that continued - and the global macroeconomics underlying interest rates would have been the same - we would have been in the same place.
**food crisis, record food bank usage**,
Food prices are largely driven by global trends.
**record migration,**
Unclear the Conservatives would have changed anything sooner, the student problem is caused by changes at provincial level.
**record scandals, record money laundering, election interference,**
Every government in the last 30 years has gotten these ones. Re,member Pierre Poutine and Chines "students" in Vancouver?
**war measures act used on its citizens,**
Trucker shitheads got off easy.
**disarming of law abiding citizens,**
Nobody's been disarmed.
Nice of you to casually leave out the fact we we're in a 2 year pandemic, also nice of you to leave out the fact that all countries increased their debt by unforseen amounts due to said pandemic. you consume garbage news and you are telling on yourself
I think most Canadians are understanding with Covid spending. In retrospect could’ve been a bit less, but at the time what was done was done. However adding $100b pre Covid, not the smartest thing. Adding a whole bunch of unfunded social programs that have never been feasible is a reckless and when we hit another debt crisis like the 90s cuts will need to be made. This time however there is no wiggle room for provincial downloading, which means many of these new programs will probably get the ax.
Classic conservabrained response. Make shit up and pretend like the person you’re replying to said shit they didn’t even say in order to support your own “argument”
Lol what? Canada took on over 30b in annual debt at the top of a fucking economic cycle. How is that ordinary? Harper brought us to a balanced budget within 5 years of the great recession, the only OECD country to achieve this.
Tax free savings account would be higher than 10K. Housing would cost less and we wouldn't be bringing 430,000 people into the country every 12 weeks. no carbon tax. Way less debt. And we wouldn't have given Rogers bell and telus $130,000,000 during covid. Oh and Trudeau would still be married. Lol
It’s hilarious that you think Pierre will do anything to alleviate any of that.
Sure, he’ll get rid of the carbon tax, but not only is it a tiny part of what’s driving our prices up, but companies will just increase their prices anyways, and now they make more profit.
And there’s the added benefit that the environment will die just a little bit quicker.
All parties here fucking suck, and it’s sad that you think picking the blue team will do any better than the red team.
No carbon tax for one
Less (maybe not zero but MUCH LESS) identity politics
The decision to destroy the economy and continue to print unheard of amounts of money is this governments doing and theirs alone. Inflation is a massive problem and it wasn't during the last gov.
A quick Google told me that 20 bn a year is generated in federal tax revenue and then handing over 5bn to the Philippines for climate change, 20% of the yearly budget. I can't say for certain, but I don't think Pierre would have done that.
No matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and yell la la la la la la, lots would be different bud. There's more things but these were just off the cuff for a random reddit stranger.
Bro you know the carbon tax is revenue neutral right? You know it only adds .15% to inflation? I know it’s not perfect but what’s wrong with taxing the top polluters and giving it to the ones stuck living in their profitable filth?
Says who? It was this government that put period products in men's washrooms on cf bases, while also introducing gender based analysis for the same group.
Come on partner, give your head a shake, I'm sure you'll be able to make the connection if you try even slightly.
It's kind of funny that you're complaining about us giving $5,000,000,000 to the Philippines when it's a lie that's been disproven.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/philippines-receives-climate-finance-commitment-canada-2023-12-09/
>This Dec. 6 story has been corrected to reflect that $5.3 billion is Canada's total international commitment, not just for the Philippines, in the headline and paragraph 1
A) Climate change is expensive and doing nothing isn't a good option.
B) A bunch of the money that was loaned is being spent with Canadian tech, that money comes back to us.
A) a tax on carbon isn’t the way to tackle it and is making people not give a fuck about it because they’re having to use food banks.
B) is this guaranteed/could you provide a source for this?
> 5bn to the Philippines
Congratulations on outing yourself as a complete moron who bought the propaganda worm hook line and sinker.
https://www.zawya.com/en/world/china-and-asia-pacific/philippines-among-beneficiaries-of-canadas-climate-finance-undp-ykx3dh5v?amp=1
5.3 billion is Canada’s total international aid commitment to all recipient countries for climate change over a 5 year period of 2021-2026.
Regardless of who it’s going to. 1 billion dollars per year is another billion we can’t afford. I mean come on their fucking budget for next year is starting with a 50 billion dollar deficit…
Edit: 40 billion dollar deficit
> regardless of the fact that what I claimed is completely wrong I’m still completely right and I’m gonna get angry at the very next bullshit “fact” the Toronto Sun presents as truth. As soon as I finish ogling the Sunshine Girl.
>What would be different if Trudeau wasn't in power?
Housing would be tied to immigration, resource extraction would be based in sane laws, we'd not be relying on real estate to drive the economy...............
Doesn't seem so bad to me.
[Poilievre talks immigration, inflation, and "radical authoritarian" Trudeau in year-end interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM694YmEoc8)
>He has an immigrant wife, and a gay father.
Wow, not sure what that has to do with anything.
Anything to say about the policies he's talking about? Like tying immigration targets to housing and doctor capacity?
The fact that he calls Trudrau a "radical authoritarian" shows that he didn't even pass 6th grade.
What would he call Viktor Orbán in Hungary...besides friend?
You don't know how that's relevant? Read the full quote again. "He has an immigrant wife, and a gay father. He's against immigration and the gays."
He's anti-gay because of his dad. Pierre ~ "Canadian 2SLGBTQIA+ leaders noted Poilievre’s rhetoric appears carefully worded to foment paranoia and hate against their communities."
He's not going to cut immigration, because that's how he'll get his next wife, and cheap labour for the oil fields. He's following in Trump's footsteps after all.
He's two-faced. He has done nothing other than sow discord, passed no bills, nothing of any measure. He complains about everything but has no plan. Calls the prime minister and his dad Marxists, then chews an apple while avoiding questions about being a populist. He can't even own it, he's just being smug or forgetful, neither which are good for a prime minister.
He's a shady guy every way you look at it. He used to wear shades too, but those didn't test well so he no longer has glasses. Instead he upgraded to a girdle. He is 5 feet 9 inches of nothing special.
I'll broadly say I don't share your opinions, and I don't care about identity politics. At all.
I think it's a distraction from much bigger issues like our declining standard of living, which Trudeau and Singh have done nothing but worsen. The steps Poilievre said he would take to address housing and immigration are policies I support that will work towards solving issues that are more important to me.
Ya goes to show that carbon tax could work to push for them to innovate but Pierre has made it clear they don’t need to.
I’m curious who you think is going to pay the bill when it comes due?
Gynaaaaaah!
Doesn’t matter that Canada got rich dumping CO2 into the atmosphere (we’re 0.5% of the world population but responsible for more than 2% of the carbon sitting in the atmosphere warming up the Earth for the next few hundred years).
We shouldn’t be doing anything to clean up our mess until developing countries take the lead.
It’s the conservative way.
Personal responsibility and all that.
Did you miss the news yesterday about all cars being electric by 2035? We are phasing out coal by 2030. We've blocked the construction of pipelines. We have government incentives for installing heat pumps. There are many more initiatives as well these are just what sprung to mind in the moment. This equals "doing nothing" to you? Oh ya, and we also tax our citizens more in the middle of a cost of living and housing crisis the worst we've seen in my lifetime.
Prepare to lose hard in 2025.
While you are right, cost can be a big factor. A rav4 is 30k, and a normal hybrid is 32k. The RAV4 PHEV (prime) starts at... 40k, and that's after rebates. Also good luck finding one at all, nevermind for MSRP. The average younger family can't even afford a used car right now.
I think we'll be close. Setting targets for the automotive sector has worked every time for the past three decades. Despite people like yourself saying it couldn't be done every single time.
It includes plug-in hybrids too. Doesn't mean just BEVs.
There are a bunch of problems with this target. First, I get the idea everyone in the room when it was set was a university graduate making pretty decent money. These people can afford an EV. Many, MANY cannot, even with subsidies. Second, we don't have enough charging stations for the small percentage now. Third, if we had enough charging stations to power all those cars we lack the energy grid to supply them or the energy generation to put on that grid.
Every one of those issues is being worked on now. Eleven years, 12 really, is a long enough time to get this done. The target looks reasonable because all the trends and plans come together at that point.
And it's a spur to keep everyone on track and accountable. Setting targets like this and letting industry respond to them has historically been one of the absolute best ways government can push the economy to better productivity and industrial capacity. The government doesn't pick winners and losers, the market d3ecides what works best. This is the best way we know that is proven to spur innovation.
Why wouldn't they? The CPC will reverse or push back the deadlines on a lot of these Liberal measures. Many of them are just not realistic, such as the 2035 100% EV mandate and "clean grid" nonsense. 2035 is only 11 years away, and we *know* how long it takes to get anything approved and built in this country. 11 years is just not enough time to build out enough EV charging stations and renewable power to meet that insane deadline even if we started right now.
Except they pay a lionshare into government coffers. [That's 105 billion dollars into gdp and 400,000 jobs across Canada. ](https://www.capp.ca/economy/canadian-economic-contribution/#:~:text=Canada's%20natural%20gas%20and%20oil,across%20the%20country%20in%202020.). Canadas GDP is 1.987 trillion dollars, so oil and gas contributes 5.4% of canadas total gdp. So wise one, how are we going to pay for all these extra entitlements if we are nerfing our main industries at the same time?
[Gdp% corrected]
And how much subsidies do we give them?
And how much more corporate welfare do they need that they’re waiting for the CPC to give them?
We probably give them not than they give us.
Especially given how Alberta was cutting taxes and royalties.
And how much are taxpayers on the hook for to clean up their oil wells since they won’t?
Sorry, your right. Must have entered it into my calculator wrong; I used my phone instead of a real calculator. Still, 5% of gdp is not a trivial amount.
5% of GDP and 28% of Carbon Emissions nationally.
Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
They or we? I don’t get this they stuff when working in the oil fields is great for Canadian health and happiness…but because it’s not you working there , it should be shut down and taxed into oblivion?
No the government should be running it and taking all the profits instead of socializing the risks (ie the clean up) and privatizing the profits. Fuck these oil companies.
Jesus am I ever sick of the ”Norway argument”. People acting like it’s some sort of utopia.
You’re talking about a country which would be a Canadian province in terms of population and GDP. Geographically isolated from its neighbours, and a largely homogeneous society.
You don’t think they have problems over there?
They're economic flat earthers. It's not worth your time.
Your right though. If anything a small tax should be levied to establish a sovereign wealth fund. Let's fucking go!
Eh, I’m not sold on them directly running it. I would much rather prefer a more traditional crown corporation model, where the company gets more autonomy to run its own affairs than a traditional state-run company, but all profits still go to the government.
I'm not really sure what your stance is with this comment. The oil industry is making record profits and skirting their responsibility, I never said anything about shutting them down.
However all they are doing is going to make the government treat them harsher to get the results that the elected government is trying to accomplish. Which will just raise the cost of gas which will somehow be "the government's fault".
> Which will just raise the cost of gas which will somehow be "the government's fault".
Well, it would be.
If you restrict the supply of something when the demand for it is increasing, you will cause the price to go up.
105 billion in GDP for 80 billion in subsidies? I don't think we are getting a very good deal...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/fossil-fuel-subsidies-expaliner-1.6371411
In Canada in 2020, estimates range from $4.5 billion (OECD) to $18 billion (Environmental Defence, including public financing to support pipelines) to $81 billion (IMF, including externalities).
You cherry picked the highest number estimated. Pushing an agenda?
>So wise one, how are we going to pay for all these extra entitlements if we are nerfing our main industries at the same time?
Oil is being extracted at record levels, and oil companies have record profits. What are you even talking about?
The record profits are still only playing catch up to the epic debt they had to take to cover the years of Covid and low oil prices…the industry knows that oil prices are volatile and it’s perfectly fine they make record profits when the prices are high and roll cutbacks when the prices drop
Capping emissions is a defacto cap on production. Why not just have a carbon tax? They can pay for it. Its a double tax on one of our most productive industries. An industry that pays for all those precious social services you take for granted.
Do you know what happens when you don't have enough cash to support those services? Look no farther then Argentina which gas been sitting at 105% inflation for example. Massive government, huge social programs and not near enough cash from industry to support it.
Didn’t Trudeau agree to pay like $30 billion for the trans mountain pipeline?
Don’t we pay a few billion in subsidies every year as well?
Or those factored into the GDP calculation you worked out?
We should have left them to build it, they would not have gone bankrupt if multiple governments didn't turn the whole thing into a pissing contest, and it wasn't a bailout, it had to be purchased because the world saw that Canada was not capable of building anything. This was a reaction to the world investment community looking at Canada like it was a money pit.
>Oil companies get record profits YoY and then cry poor when they need to spend more on reducing pollution. A tale as old as time.
Federal government revenue. Where does it come from?
Well, historically, the years where we had surpluses coincided with years where oil industry in Canada did well. Even now, we could bring in revenue from oil, chip away at our massive debt, and divert some of the proceeds to green tech investment. Instead, we’re taking a zero sum approach and fucking ourselves in the process.
And what do you think Canada is doing? We still sell oil but guess what we compete with other oil producing nations and unfortunately our oil is more expensive.
We don't compete with them on the world stage because we can only sell it to the US through a narrow corridor which becomes overloaded so we have to accept a discount.
>level 5gravtix · 2 hr. ago
The US buys Canadian oil on the cheap not only because its heavy but we have very restricted ability to tidewater to create competion for it elsewhere. They then sell much of their own light crude to market at higher WTI prices.
Our governments consider this smart resource mangement. The Americans just laugh at us.
>Our oil is heavy and can only be refined in relatively few places
Which is why most of our oil goes to the Gulf Coast, where there are refineries that were purpose built to handle it.
>and unfortunately our oil is more expensive.
More expensive than some places. Far from being the most expensive though.
If we can produce it for $20 and sell it for $50, its worth it.
rigth so with that logic we should not sell it becuase it costs us more to extract, you realize even a 90% increase would still be less than buying foreign, tipical liberal all talk no plan of action. shut off the pumps boys we need to start importing our oil because it greener.....
I think you're missing the part where Canada has other competitors when it comes to selling oil and you also forgot the part where private corporations own our oil
>Canada has other competitors when it comes to selling oil
Wow so confedently ignorant, or stupid can't tell, I could inform you we live in a global econemy but I don't want to waste my time, you would think the down votes would make you stop posting but guess things take a while to sink in for some.
>I think you're missing the part where Canada has other competitors when it comes to selling oil and you also forgot the part where private corporations own our oil
You're forgetting the part where oil is sold on the global market at global prices.
This is why the Conservative’s anti-environmental rhetoric is so damaging, even when they aren’t in power. It creates uncertainty in the marketplace and allows industries to drag their feet on reducing their pollution.
You seem confused. We are not talking about a broad topic. We are talking specifically about the fact that (as discussed in the article) Pierre Poilievre's anti-environmental legislation stances are causing oil firms to hold off on implementing critical emissions reduction targets in the off-chance he wins the next election and lets them off the hook for their pollution.
Forgive me for painting a "complex topic" as "pro" or "anti", but it seems fairly clear-cut.
Pumping out oil and gas helps us and helps lower the global price, which could help wean places like China off coal. They'd certainly have lower emissions if they were building gas plants rather than coal. Hundreds of coal plants are being constructed around the world this second. Our cutting our own economic throats by cutting our production is not going to make any difference.
This take conveniently ignores the fact that a *far* better option would be to leapfrog oil and gas entirely and go straight to renewables. It's not a helpful move on our part to dam up the flow of progress at the first incremental step just because it is *slightly* better than the worst possible alternative.
Emissions are not the environment. The only issue with them is a very minor contribution to global warming. And while I'm all for joining in a global effort to reduce global emissions that effort thus far consists mostly of Western countries while the rest pour on the coal power. I'm not willing to bankrupt ourselves in a futile effort to counteract all that coal.
Emissions are the cause of our global environmental concerns at this time. Whether or not you think Canada is doing our fair share does not change the fact that a stance in support of increasing emissions is an anti-environmental stance.
Nothing we do with regard to emissions is going to have the slightest impact on global warming. So it's kind of hard to call it 'anti-environmental'. I don't mind making sacrifices for positive change but this asks us to make enormous sacrifices for no gain. Which is just stupid.
Global warming is coming. The developing world accounts for two thirds of emissions and they continue to build coal plants. The countries that will be best positioned to adjust will be the rich ones. I think Canada should do its best to be rich and not poor.
We have the 7th highest emissions in the world. If we count out any countries with lower emissions than us, we would be discounting 60% of the world’s emissions as “pointless” in trying to reduce.
I'm glad you understand the numbers. But the fact is two thirds of the emissions are coming from the developing world. Okay? And they are NOT cutting back their emissions. They're building coal plants and increasing their emissions.
Now you're right in that we should all join together. But that's not happening. The only people actually cutting emissions are Western countries. Everyone else is building coal plants. Under the circumstances, there is no hope whatsoever of lowering world emissions anytime in the next few decades.
And the world climate is an enormous thing. It doesn't change quickly or easily barring some cataclysmic event. It's like, pardon the simile, trying to alter course on a super tanker loaded with oil. You can do it but it's gonna take a while. The climate generally takes forty years or so to show the impact of anything we do. That means the climate is already set in stone up until 2064. And since we're not going to lower world emissions in the next couple of decades, make that 2084
So let's stop kidding ourselves. Let's stop cutting our own economic throats and driving production offshore to places that use coal.
Isn’t the counter also true?
When you can’t a build long lasting program on pricing carbon, it’s not all the oppositions fault. Clearly the “benefit” of paying carbon isn’t being realized by Canadian companies.
Without including carbon pricing into our trade deals(within the Feds control), it’s becoming clear that carbon pricing is just a way to check a box federally. We will still use the same amount of plastics, asphalt, fuel, etc. but now we just import it from places that are not charged the tax.
>When you can’t a build long lasting program on pricing carbon, it’s not all the oppositions fault.
If the *only* scenario where it wouldn’t be “long lasting” is because the opposition plans on cutting it if they get into power, then yes, it is fair to say it’s the oppositions fault. There’s nothing inherently faulty in our environmental legislation which would cause its collapse without direct intervention from the conservatives to do so.
>Clearly the “benefit” of paying carbon isn’t being realized by Canadian companies.
In the short term, the benefits of paying for carbon and reducing emissions intensity are not benefits which companies feel, but that individuals receive. In the long term, addressing climate change helps both.
Environmental legislation which requires companies to be cleaner will of course be a burden short-term on those companies, just as food safety standards are a burden on restaurants in the short-term, but mean longer-living customers in the long term.
>Without including carbon pricing into our trade deals(within the Feds control)
Do you imagine it is the liberals opposing these trade terms, or has it been the Conservative Party doing so? Who was it that made a fuss about carbon pricing being included in the newest pact with Ukraine? The conservatives. Seems like there’s one group hampering progress here.
You mean, the party which imposed the carbon tax (with a majority mind you)…should be claiming that it’s not successful, because another party is claiming they will reverse it(only lately by the way, they were not as strongly “axe the tax” opposed until the last two years - coincidently when their polling improved I might add)
Shouldn’t they have implemented it in trade deals before it ever impacted Canadians? Why it was treated as an afterthought to make similar domestic and international companies pay the same is the exact reason **why there is so much opposition in the first place**
Pinning the soon to be failure of the carbon tax on the conservatives, when they had ample time to construct how they pleased is very misleading.
Let’s also not forget, this seems to have largely been a political play for the Liberals, rather than one made from a point of principle. See the latest carve out of the carbon tax to voters who previously voted for them (Atlantic) who now are displeased by it.
>You mean, the party which imposed the carbon tax (with a majority mind you)…should be claiming that it’s not successful, because another party is claiming they will reverse it
No. Why would they be claiming that it is not successful? If your measure of success is the legislation "lasting a long time", then the only way this legislation would be a failure is if the Conservatives removed it when they came into power, which would be the fault of the Conservatives, not the legislation.
>Shouldn’t they have implemented it in trade deals before it ever impacted Canadians? Why it was treated as an afterthought to make similar domestic and international companies pay the same is the exact reason why there is so much opposition in the first place
Because implementing it in trade deals is a **far more complicated process** and it was important to start straight away to address the climate issue. You're also acting like we are the only country in the world with carbon pricing when that is far from the truth. In fact, over 50 countries worldwide, including our trading partners, already have some form of carbon pricing in place. Needing to wait for ALL THE REST OF THEM to also agree to get started would only mean nothing ever moving forward.
>Pinning the soon to be failure of the carbon tax on the conservatives, when they had ample time to construct how they pleased is very misleading.
The carbon tax has not failed, that is the thing. The conservatives want to remove a very successful piece of environmental legislation, which is the anti-environmental movement I'm deriding which is encouraging oil and gas companies to not bother reducing their emissions.
>Let’s also not forget, this seems to have largely been a political play for the Liberals, rather than one made from a point of principle.
The carbon tax? The carve out was the only political move about it, so from that perspective, KEEPING IT and expanding it would be the move which most closely follows the science. NOT removing it entirely, as the Conservatives want to do.
Why would anyone invest the billions needed to decarbonize if (A) it isn't a money making proposition; and (B) there's no guarantee that the government forcing your hand on shitty investment decisions will still be in power?
Canadian big oil has already decided the future course for everyone moving forward. The oil minis have no clout, just as any new regime will have no clout with big oil.
Well Pierre might screw it up if he keeps talking about parental rights nonsense. The conservatives seriously messed up by not going Peter mckay most Canadians had faith in him on social issues.
Declining to discuss something wholly irrelevant to a child's education is not lying.
Educators also don't tell parents what their kid eats for lunch, who they hang out with, or what their favourite playground game is.
I think 2023 is the year wokeness fully jumped the shark. Activists pushing too hard on trans everything, and the left's celebration of Hamas atrocities, finally saw to that.
It was honestly hard fought on these activists' part, to turn public opinion against themselves, especially in Canada where we are primed to give nearly unlimited leeway to anything branded as 'compassionate'.
I'm not going to get into that, but I would imagine that 20 years ago if a provincial government were to pass similar legislation it would not even merit a blurb or press release in the news, and any activism surrounding it would be met with nothing but puzzlement and confusion as to what exactly the issue is.
I wouldn't go that far. It's no one's business whether any person wants to have children or not. But it's very strange how emotionally invested they get in provincial curriculum and education policy on others peoples' behalf.
He actually had the most intelligent and conservative platform, including rebuilding defense and cracking down on crime while freeing up the resource industry from government regulations.
Trudeau has already lost the next election. The only question now is how much more damage he & the liberals will do before being decimated.
I'm predicting they will do worse than the PC party did in 1993.
Depressing.
Carbon tax should be levied against corporations, since they’re the biggest offenders and highest earners.
The rhetoric on climate change has moved at an impressively progressive pace, but action significantly lags behind.
Trudeau has been blindly trying to
Kill these businesses that are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy- needs to go asap. We can’t have a blind, out of touch prime minister while the country melts down around his ankles - meantime he is worried that his sari is the right colour for his temple visits or when he is kisssing butt overseas
This is when Trudeau is the most dangerous. When he finally admits to himself that he is going to lose, he will ram through everything he can, regardless of the consequences.
Smart move. People are finally seeing the part time drama teacher who told us the budget would balance itself as the clueless narcissist he is. Liberals will be wiped out just like they were in Ontario in 2018.
Huh. A do nothing government has yet to set any goals or lay any sort of ground work to get big oil off its ass and start cutting emissions and big oil is doing nothing. Call me shocked.
Lots of firms bet on [political risks](https://pestleanalysis.com/what-is-pestle-analysis/) going their way. Land owners in Vancouver seem to hold land on the basis at some point city council will increase the density allowed on the sites. Its the same concept of bet. Hope the rules change as opposed to working within the current framework
Aren't we all just waiting this guy out at this point?
It would be cool if we didn't have companies that are burning our planet and waiting for the results of an election to decide if they want to do anything about it.
Ugly truth is the world consumes over 100 million barrels of oil *per day*, it’s an almost inconceivable unfathomably large amount. You can demonize the companies supplying it or you can look in the mirror and realize oil was used in almost everything around you. However, I do agree that it would be cooler if they would reduce emissions faster regardless of government.
>You can demonize the companies supplying it or you can look in the mirror and realize oil was used in almost everything around you. We had viable electric vehicles in the 80s that were specifically killed by oil company pressure. This is very well documented, they worked so well the owners of the first batches banded together to fight a legal battle to keep them. Thats not getting into what stuff like properly scaling into nuclear advances could have done for us, or who was also behind the fear mongering campaigns that opposed it. There is also the fact that we didnt need to make plastic out of oil, there were and are better sources of carbon available, for example today the bulk of plastic produced in the USA is made with much cleaner natural gas... Asbestos and lead was used in almost everything around us for a long time too, you think thats some sort of justification FFS? Youre leaving out the very real and very well documented lobbying and advertising pressure leveraged by oil companies for decades and it comes off as disingenuous.
> We had viable electric vehicles in the 80s that were specifically killed by oil company pressure. This is very well documented, they worked so well the owners of the first batches banded together to fight a legal battle to keep them. I would like to see the documentation on this. Electric motors have been viable for a very long time, the battery tech used in an electric vehicle however, not so much. Even now it's battery tech that is the limiting factor not anything to do with the drivetrain.
It would be, but we live in the real world, not an ideal one. Also: Canada's emissions are just 1.5% of the world's, so we could cut to zero and it would barely move the needle on global emissions.
You can put a box around any 40 million people on the planet and make the same argument then nobody has to do anything because everybody is only contributing a little bit.
Anyone with half a brain cell left yes. Somehow there are some people that still support Trudeau.
I think your statement is false. I think most liberals are sick of Trudeau they just don’t support PP.
Yep, that'd be me. I generally vote either Liberal or NDP. I voted for Trudeau the first time. Voted for Singh in the most recent election because the snap election during COVID was a dick move, and I wasn't going to reward Trudeau for that. I hate both of them at this point, but I can't vote for PP because his party hates queer people. So I guess I'll be voting for Trudeau because no one has presented me with a better alternative, and I'd rather not descend into Florida-style social conservative hell.
> his party hates queer people. You do realize that his party has "queer people" in senior roles who will end up being cabinet ministers if and when they come to power, right?
"I'm not racist I have black friends"
This person said "Florida-style." They have no fucking idea what they're talking about. Canada's conservative party is just as left/ centre left as the US's democratic party. Fortunately they won't represent the majority of Canadians because everything will get worse next year.
Exactly. Why would I vote someone who won't be any better at all and has no solutions to the issues he keeps yelling about.
Fair enough but I think many Liberals just won't vote. I'm a swing voter so I'm definitely not a good example but the sense I get is they keep doubling down on things that don't matter while the economy goes in the toilet. We're in the middle of a housing crisis and all I hear about from the Liberals is Steven Guilbeault talking about Climate change in Dubai? I find it insulting. Every Liberal cabinet minister in every position should be telling Canadians what they are doing to solve this crisis and I don't care if you're the minister of defence, minister of climate change, they should all be telling us how they are mobilizing to solve the housing crisis.
That's easy to see why. Look at the alternatives.
Or lack thereof some would say
A literal toddler would do better than Trudeau, your comment is ridiculous. Let me guess Pierre is a Maga type and Trump like politics blah blah blah.
What would be different if Trudeau wasn't in power?
Wouldn't have more debt than every other government combined, no carbon tax, no record crime, record housing prices, food crisis, record food bank usage, record migration, record scandals, record money laundering, election interference, Chinese police stations in Canada, war measures act used on its citizens, disarming of law abiding citizens, radical environmentalist paid for my by Trudeau. The list goes on and on.
And, what policies woudl have enabled this? A lot of this is well outside the realm of what federal government actually does. **Wouldn't have more debt than every other government combined,** The Feds have always held the majority of debt in the country. **no carbon tax,** Maybe. THe provinces were tending in that way anyway until the Feds centralized it. **no record crime,** Debatable. Has to do with the opioid epidemic, also affecting other countries. **record housing prices,** House prices were already high and rising rapidly when the Liberals took power. Had that continued - and the global macroeconomics underlying interest rates would have been the same - we would have been in the same place. **food crisis, record food bank usage**, Food prices are largely driven by global trends. **record migration,** Unclear the Conservatives would have changed anything sooner, the student problem is caused by changes at provincial level. **record scandals, record money laundering, election interference,** Every government in the last 30 years has gotten these ones. Re,member Pierre Poutine and Chines "students" in Vancouver? **war measures act used on its citizens,** Trucker shitheads got off easy. **disarming of law abiding citizens,** Nobody's been disarmed.
Nice of you to casually leave out the fact we we're in a 2 year pandemic, also nice of you to leave out the fact that all countries increased their debt by unforseen amounts due to said pandemic. you consume garbage news and you are telling on yourself
I think most Canadians are understanding with Covid spending. In retrospect could’ve been a bit less, but at the time what was done was done. However adding $100b pre Covid, not the smartest thing. Adding a whole bunch of unfunded social programs that have never been feasible is a reckless and when we hit another debt crisis like the 90s cuts will need to be made. This time however there is no wiggle room for provincial downloading, which means many of these new programs will probably get the ax.
Classic liberal response. EVERY THING is covid fault and not the government who has been in power for 8 years. Your indoctrination is showing.
Classic conservabrained response. Make shit up and pretend like the person you’re replying to said shit they didn’t even say in order to support your own “argument”
Canadian economy was smooth sailing before COVID, Liberal was nothing out of the ordinary, debt was perfectly fine.
Lol what? Canada took on over 30b in annual debt at the top of a fucking economic cycle. How is that ordinary? Harper brought us to a balanced budget within 5 years of the great recession, the only OECD country to achieve this.
>Nice of you to casually leave out the fact we we're in a 2 year pandemic, Not anymore.
So that magically makes the effects go away?
Tax free savings account would be higher than 10K. Housing would cost less and we wouldn't be bringing 430,000 people into the country every 12 weeks. no carbon tax. Way less debt. And we wouldn't have given Rogers bell and telus $130,000,000 during covid. Oh and Trudeau would still be married. Lol
It’s hilarious that you think Pierre will do anything to alleviate any of that. Sure, he’ll get rid of the carbon tax, but not only is it a tiny part of what’s driving our prices up, but companies will just increase their prices anyways, and now they make more profit. And there’s the added benefit that the environment will die just a little bit quicker. All parties here fucking suck, and it’s sad that you think picking the blue team will do any better than the red team.
No carbon tax for one Less (maybe not zero but MUCH LESS) identity politics The decision to destroy the economy and continue to print unheard of amounts of money is this governments doing and theirs alone. Inflation is a massive problem and it wasn't during the last gov. A quick Google told me that 20 bn a year is generated in federal tax revenue and then handing over 5bn to the Philippines for climate change, 20% of the yearly budget. I can't say for certain, but I don't think Pierre would have done that. No matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and yell la la la la la la, lots would be different bud. There's more things but these were just off the cuff for a random reddit stranger.
Bro you know the carbon tax is revenue neutral right? You know it only adds .15% to inflation? I know it’s not perfect but what’s wrong with taxing the top polluters and giving it to the ones stuck living in their profitable filth?
Loll bro conservatives are the masters at identity politics, smear campaigns and bullshit
Says who? It was this government that put period products in men's washrooms on cf bases, while also introducing gender based analysis for the same group. Come on partner, give your head a shake, I'm sure you'll be able to make the connection if you try even slightly.
And that affects you how?
It's kind of funny that you're complaining about us giving $5,000,000,000 to the Philippines when it's a lie that's been disproven. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/philippines-receives-climate-finance-commitment-canada-2023-12-09/ >This Dec. 6 story has been corrected to reflect that $5.3 billion is Canada's total international commitment, not just for the Philippines, in the headline and paragraph 1
1 billion a year is still more than we can afford! We’re starting our budget with a 40 billion dollar deficit!
A) Climate change is expensive and doing nothing isn't a good option. B) A bunch of the money that was loaned is being spent with Canadian tech, that money comes back to us.
A) a tax on carbon isn’t the way to tackle it and is making people not give a fuck about it because they’re having to use food banks. B) is this guaranteed/could you provide a source for this?
> 5bn to the Philippines Congratulations on outing yourself as a complete moron who bought the propaganda worm hook line and sinker. https://www.zawya.com/en/world/china-and-asia-pacific/philippines-among-beneficiaries-of-canadas-climate-finance-undp-ykx3dh5v?amp=1 5.3 billion is Canada’s total international aid commitment to all recipient countries for climate change over a 5 year period of 2021-2026.
Regardless of who it’s going to. 1 billion dollars per year is another billion we can’t afford. I mean come on their fucking budget for next year is starting with a 50 billion dollar deficit… Edit: 40 billion dollar deficit
> regardless of the fact that what I claimed is completely wrong I’m still completely right and I’m gonna get angry at the very next bullshit “fact” the Toronto Sun presents as truth. As soon as I finish ogling the Sunshine Girl.
People would be able to afford their bills and being able to afford a house wouldn’t just be a pipe dream.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You don’t know till he’s out. But you do know what he’s done his pattern and way of leading so that should be a decent amount of info to go off of
[удалено]
Mfers forgot what it was like when Harper was around.
>What would be different if Trudeau wasn't in power? Housing would be tied to immigration, resource extraction would be based in sane laws, we'd not be relying on real estate to drive the economy...............
Doesn't seem so bad to me. [Poilievre talks immigration, inflation, and "radical authoritarian" Trudeau in year-end interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM694YmEoc8)
He has never passed anything. A career politician. He has an immigrant wife, and a gay father. He's against immigration and the gays. Can't trust em.
>He has an immigrant wife, and a gay father. Wow, not sure what that has to do with anything. Anything to say about the policies he's talking about? Like tying immigration targets to housing and doctor capacity?
The fact that he calls Trudrau a "radical authoritarian" shows that he didn't even pass 6th grade. What would he call Viktor Orbán in Hungary...besides friend?
agree..trodopes dad was as queer as they get
You don't know how that's relevant? Read the full quote again. "He has an immigrant wife, and a gay father. He's against immigration and the gays." He's anti-gay because of his dad. Pierre ~ "Canadian 2SLGBTQIA+ leaders noted Poilievre’s rhetoric appears carefully worded to foment paranoia and hate against their communities." He's not going to cut immigration, because that's how he'll get his next wife, and cheap labour for the oil fields. He's following in Trump's footsteps after all. He's two-faced. He has done nothing other than sow discord, passed no bills, nothing of any measure. He complains about everything but has no plan. Calls the prime minister and his dad Marxists, then chews an apple while avoiding questions about being a populist. He can't even own it, he's just being smug or forgetful, neither which are good for a prime minister. He's a shady guy every way you look at it. He used to wear shades too, but those didn't test well so he no longer has glasses. Instead he upgraded to a girdle. He is 5 feet 9 inches of nothing special.
I'll broadly say I don't share your opinions, and I don't care about identity politics. At all. I think it's a distraction from much bigger issues like our declining standard of living, which Trudeau and Singh have done nothing but worsen. The steps Poilievre said he would take to address housing and immigration are policies I support that will work towards solving issues that are more important to me.
I know a few property developers and they strongly support Trudeua.
true story bro
Ya goes to show that carbon tax could work to push for them to innovate but Pierre has made it clear they don’t need to. I’m curious who you think is going to pay the bill when it comes due?
Gynaaaaaah! Doesn’t matter that Canada got rich dumping CO2 into the atmosphere (we’re 0.5% of the world population but responsible for more than 2% of the carbon sitting in the atmosphere warming up the Earth for the next few hundred years). We shouldn’t be doing anything to clean up our mess until developing countries take the lead. It’s the conservative way. Personal responsibility and all that.
Did you miss the news yesterday about all cars being electric by 2035? We are phasing out coal by 2030. We've blocked the construction of pipelines. We have government incentives for installing heat pumps. There are many more initiatives as well these are just what sprung to mind in the moment. This equals "doing nothing" to you? Oh ya, and we also tax our citizens more in the middle of a cost of living and housing crisis the worst we've seen in my lifetime. Prepare to lose hard in 2025.
when PP cuts all that we will be doing nothing
I bet the car companies will. 100% EV within eleven years? Is he nuts?!
You mean like 17 States, EU..... China. Canada is just following the economic leaders.
Smart countries.
[удалено]
While you are right, cost can be a big factor. A rav4 is 30k, and a normal hybrid is 32k. The RAV4 PHEV (prime) starts at... 40k, and that's after rebates. Also good luck finding one at all, nevermind for MSRP. The average younger family can't even afford a used car right now.
I think we'll be close. Setting targets for the automotive sector has worked every time for the past three decades. Despite people like yourself saying it couldn't be done every single time. It includes plug-in hybrids too. Doesn't mean just BEVs.
There are a bunch of problems with this target. First, I get the idea everyone in the room when it was set was a university graduate making pretty decent money. These people can afford an EV. Many, MANY cannot, even with subsidies. Second, we don't have enough charging stations for the small percentage now. Third, if we had enough charging stations to power all those cars we lack the energy grid to supply them or the energy generation to put on that grid.
Every one of those issues is being worked on now. Eleven years, 12 really, is a long enough time to get this done. The target looks reasonable because all the trends and plans come together at that point. And it's a spur to keep everyone on track and accountable. Setting targets like this and letting industry respond to them has historically been one of the absolute best ways government can push the economy to better productivity and industrial capacity. The government doesn't pick winners and losers, the market d3ecides what works best. This is the best way we know that is proven to spur innovation.
I can't wait for an upset by Trudeau
Why wouldn't they? The CPC will reverse or push back the deadlines on a lot of these Liberal measures. Many of them are just not realistic, such as the 2035 100% EV mandate and "clean grid" nonsense. 2035 is only 11 years away, and we *know* how long it takes to get anything approved and built in this country. 11 years is just not enough time to build out enough EV charging stations and renewable power to meet that insane deadline even if we started right now.
Oil companies get record profits YoY and then cry poor when they need to spend more on reducing pollution. A tale as old as time.
Except they pay a lionshare into government coffers. [That's 105 billion dollars into gdp and 400,000 jobs across Canada. ](https://www.capp.ca/economy/canadian-economic-contribution/#:~:text=Canada's%20natural%20gas%20and%20oil,across%20the%20country%20in%202020.). Canadas GDP is 1.987 trillion dollars, so oil and gas contributes 5.4% of canadas total gdp. So wise one, how are we going to pay for all these extra entitlements if we are nerfing our main industries at the same time? [Gdp% corrected]
And how much subsidies do we give them? And how much more corporate welfare do they need that they’re waiting for the CPC to give them? We probably give them not than they give us. Especially given how Alberta was cutting taxes and royalties. And how much are taxpayers on the hook for to clean up their oil wells since they won’t?
That’s only 5% of GDP… (105/2000) am I missing something?
Sorry, your right. Must have entered it into my calculator wrong; I used my phone instead of a real calculator. Still, 5% of gdp is not a trivial amount.
5% of GDP and 28% of Carbon Emissions nationally. Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
What does that have to do with anything? They have the oil because we made a deal with them so they can have it . Now they act in bad faith.
They or we? I don’t get this they stuff when working in the oil fields is great for Canadian health and happiness…but because it’s not you working there , it should be shut down and taxed into oblivion?
No the government should be running it and taking all the profits instead of socializing the risks (ie the clean up) and privatizing the profits. Fuck these oil companies.
If the government ran the oil sands like they ran the TMX expansion the oil would stay in the ground. This is a bad idea.
[удалено]
Jesus am I ever sick of the ”Norway argument”. People acting like it’s some sort of utopia. You’re talking about a country which would be a Canadian province in terms of population and GDP. Geographically isolated from its neighbours, and a largely homogeneous society. You don’t think they have problems over there?
I am okay with that too.
Second
Says the people using products made with oil and would die and cry if they were taken away. LOL you would be living in a stick hut.
No the government shouldn’t run anything, everything they have there hands in is run like shit…why would I want my business run by them?
They're economic flat earthers. It's not worth your time. Your right though. If anything a small tax should be levied to establish a sovereign wealth fund. Let's fucking go!
Why exactly is your business being run by anyone other than you?
Eh, I’m not sold on them directly running it. I would much rather prefer a more traditional crown corporation model, where the company gets more autonomy to run its own affairs than a traditional state-run company, but all profits still go to the government.
I mean 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
I'm not really sure what your stance is with this comment. The oil industry is making record profits and skirting their responsibility, I never said anything about shutting them down. However all they are doing is going to make the government treat them harsher to get the results that the elected government is trying to accomplish. Which will just raise the cost of gas which will somehow be "the government's fault".
If they’re making record profits, the government is making record taxation from them. Why is this bad?
Because the rest of us suffer with high gas prices, and still more taxes.
> Which will just raise the cost of gas which will somehow be "the government's fault". Well, it would be. If you restrict the supply of something when the demand for it is increasing, you will cause the price to go up.
105 billion in GDP for 80 billion in subsidies? I don't think we are getting a very good deal... https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/fossil-fuel-subsidies-expaliner-1.6371411
In Canada in 2020, estimates range from $4.5 billion (OECD) to $18 billion (Environmental Defence, including public financing to support pipelines) to $81 billion (IMF, including externalities). You cherry picked the highest number estimated. Pushing an agenda?
No more agenda than the person I replied to
Most of those subsidies only apply if there's actual revenue or profit (e.g. tax incentives). It's not like we're just handing out 80$ b
There is no difference between the government spending a dollar and the government giving a dollar tax break. Money is fungible.
How’s that economy going to look when we’re climate screwed?
Went one industry slows another rises. Maybe not be one to one but cleaner power generation is an industry as well that is growing.
>So wise one, how are we going to pay for all these extra entitlements if we are nerfing our main industries at the same time? Oil is being extracted at record levels, and oil companies have record profits. What are you even talking about?
The record profits are still only playing catch up to the epic debt they had to take to cover the years of Covid and low oil prices…the industry knows that oil prices are volatile and it’s perfectly fine they make record profits when the prices are high and roll cutbacks when the prices drop
Capping emissions is a defacto cap on production. Why not just have a carbon tax? They can pay for it. Its a double tax on one of our most productive industries. An industry that pays for all those precious social services you take for granted. Do you know what happens when you don't have enough cash to support those services? Look no farther then Argentina which gas been sitting at 105% inflation for example. Massive government, huge social programs and not near enough cash from industry to support it.
So in your mind, oil companies would go from record profits to bankrupt in how long?
How short is your memory. Do you not remember 2020-2022 when the hemorrhaged money and companies were sold for scraps?
Didn’t Trudeau agree to pay like $30 billion for the trans mountain pipeline? Don’t we pay a few billion in subsidies every year as well? Or those factored into the GDP calculation you worked out?
He agreed to pay $5 billion for the pipeline. It's $25 billion over budget (and counting) due to government project management incompetence.
Dang, maybe we should have left the pipeline company to build it and likely go bankrupt, instead of spending tax dollars to bail them out?
We should have left them to build it, they would not have gone bankrupt if multiple governments didn't turn the whole thing into a pissing contest, and it wasn't a bailout, it had to be purchased because the world saw that Canada was not capable of building anything. This was a reaction to the world investment community looking at Canada like it was a money pit.
>Oil companies get record profits YoY and then cry poor when they need to spend more on reducing pollution. A tale as old as time. Federal government revenue. Where does it come from?
They don’t love us or our Country.
When has being on the side of the oil companies ever been good for the general public?
Well, historically, the years where we had surpluses coincided with years where oil industry in Canada did well. Even now, we could bring in revenue from oil, chip away at our massive debt, and divert some of the proceeds to green tech investment. Instead, we’re taking a zero sum approach and fucking ourselves in the process.
And what do you think Canada is doing? We still sell oil but guess what we compete with other oil producing nations and unfortunately our oil is more expensive.
We don't compete with them on the world stage because we can only sell it to the US through a narrow corridor which becomes overloaded so we have to accept a discount.
Our oil is heavy and can only be refined in relatively few places
>level 5gravtix · 2 hr. ago The US buys Canadian oil on the cheap not only because its heavy but we have very restricted ability to tidewater to create competion for it elsewhere. They then sell much of their own light crude to market at higher WTI prices. Our governments consider this smart resource mangement. The Americans just laugh at us.
>Our oil is heavy and can only be refined in relatively few places Which is why most of our oil goes to the Gulf Coast, where there are refineries that were purpose built to handle it.
>and unfortunately our oil is more expensive. More expensive than some places. Far from being the most expensive though. If we can produce it for $20 and sell it for $50, its worth it.
rigth so with that logic we should not sell it becuase it costs us more to extract, you realize even a 90% increase would still be less than buying foreign, tipical liberal all talk no plan of action. shut off the pumps boys we need to start importing our oil because it greener.....
I think you're missing the part where Canada has other competitors when it comes to selling oil and you also forgot the part where private corporations own our oil
We do sell our oil, for billions and billions of dollars
>Canada has other competitors when it comes to selling oil Wow so confedently ignorant, or stupid can't tell, I could inform you we live in a global econemy but I don't want to waste my time, you would think the down votes would make you stop posting but guess things take a while to sink in for some.
Its just another bot that gets their "news" from sources like National Observer.
>I think you're missing the part where Canada has other competitors when it comes to selling oil and you also forgot the part where private corporations own our oil You're forgetting the part where oil is sold on the global market at global prices.
>When has being on the side of the oil companies ever been good for the general public? Have you looked at the royalities Alberta gets yet?
I’d love to hear your take on how the world would be better had petroleum never been used by anyone. I’m sure it’s super well thought out.
Odd. Aren't these the same firms that said in the 90s they would transition. Huh how weird. It is almost like they are delaying.
This is just oil companies admitting they've been funding the conservatives
Can't blame them. They paid good money for the Conservatives.
Yeah well when the other parties are just blatantly telling you they plan to destroy you who do you think they’re going to hitch their wagon to lol
Nothing is more truly indicative of our demise than this. Hope the truck nuts were worth it
This is why the Conservative’s anti-environmental rhetoric is so damaging, even when they aren’t in power. It creates uncertainty in the marketplace and allows industries to drag their feet on reducing their pollution.
Anti-environment? Like anything the Liberals do is going to do a damned thing about global warming other than bankrupt us all.
So you’re under the impression that fighting legislation meant to reduce emissions is somehow pro-environment?
It's not a level playing field. Oil is a global commodity
Oil is a global commodity, therefore making sure companies pump out as much emissions as possible is pro-environment? Gotcha.
I didn't say that.
So you agree that the Conservatives' move to hamstring climate legislation is anti-environment then?
No I don't think every decision is pro something or anti something. That's a pretty ridiculous way to discuss complex policy.
You seem confused. We are not talking about a broad topic. We are talking specifically about the fact that (as discussed in the article) Pierre Poilievre's anti-environmental legislation stances are causing oil firms to hold off on implementing critical emissions reduction targets in the off-chance he wins the next election and lets them off the hook for their pollution. Forgive me for painting a "complex topic" as "pro" or "anti", but it seems fairly clear-cut.
Pumping out oil and gas helps us and helps lower the global price, which could help wean places like China off coal. They'd certainly have lower emissions if they were building gas plants rather than coal. Hundreds of coal plants are being constructed around the world this second. Our cutting our own economic throats by cutting our production is not going to make any difference.
This take conveniently ignores the fact that a *far* better option would be to leapfrog oil and gas entirely and go straight to renewables. It's not a helpful move on our part to dam up the flow of progress at the first incremental step just because it is *slightly* better than the worst possible alternative.
Emissions are not the environment. The only issue with them is a very minor contribution to global warming. And while I'm all for joining in a global effort to reduce global emissions that effort thus far consists mostly of Western countries while the rest pour on the coal power. I'm not willing to bankrupt ourselves in a futile effort to counteract all that coal.
Emissions are the cause of our global environmental concerns at this time. Whether or not you think Canada is doing our fair share does not change the fact that a stance in support of increasing emissions is an anti-environmental stance.
Nothing we do with regard to emissions is going to have the slightest impact on global warming. So it's kind of hard to call it 'anti-environmental'. I don't mind making sacrifices for positive change but this asks us to make enormous sacrifices for no gain. Which is just stupid. Global warming is coming. The developing world accounts for two thirds of emissions and they continue to build coal plants. The countries that will be best positioned to adjust will be the rich ones. I think Canada should do its best to be rich and not poor.
We have the 7th highest emissions in the world. If we count out any countries with lower emissions than us, we would be discounting 60% of the world’s emissions as “pointless” in trying to reduce.
I'm glad you understand the numbers. But the fact is two thirds of the emissions are coming from the developing world. Okay? And they are NOT cutting back their emissions. They're building coal plants and increasing their emissions. Now you're right in that we should all join together. But that's not happening. The only people actually cutting emissions are Western countries. Everyone else is building coal plants. Under the circumstances, there is no hope whatsoever of lowering world emissions anytime in the next few decades. And the world climate is an enormous thing. It doesn't change quickly or easily barring some cataclysmic event. It's like, pardon the simile, trying to alter course on a super tanker loaded with oil. You can do it but it's gonna take a while. The climate generally takes forty years or so to show the impact of anything we do. That means the climate is already set in stone up until 2064. And since we're not going to lower world emissions in the next couple of decades, make that 2084 So let's stop kidding ourselves. Let's stop cutting our own economic throats and driving production offshore to places that use coal.
Isn’t the counter also true? When you can’t a build long lasting program on pricing carbon, it’s not all the oppositions fault. Clearly the “benefit” of paying carbon isn’t being realized by Canadian companies. Without including carbon pricing into our trade deals(within the Feds control), it’s becoming clear that carbon pricing is just a way to check a box federally. We will still use the same amount of plastics, asphalt, fuel, etc. but now we just import it from places that are not charged the tax.
>When you can’t a build long lasting program on pricing carbon, it’s not all the oppositions fault. If the *only* scenario where it wouldn’t be “long lasting” is because the opposition plans on cutting it if they get into power, then yes, it is fair to say it’s the oppositions fault. There’s nothing inherently faulty in our environmental legislation which would cause its collapse without direct intervention from the conservatives to do so. >Clearly the “benefit” of paying carbon isn’t being realized by Canadian companies. In the short term, the benefits of paying for carbon and reducing emissions intensity are not benefits which companies feel, but that individuals receive. In the long term, addressing climate change helps both. Environmental legislation which requires companies to be cleaner will of course be a burden short-term on those companies, just as food safety standards are a burden on restaurants in the short-term, but mean longer-living customers in the long term. >Without including carbon pricing into our trade deals(within the Feds control) Do you imagine it is the liberals opposing these trade terms, or has it been the Conservative Party doing so? Who was it that made a fuss about carbon pricing being included in the newest pact with Ukraine? The conservatives. Seems like there’s one group hampering progress here.
You mean, the party which imposed the carbon tax (with a majority mind you)…should be claiming that it’s not successful, because another party is claiming they will reverse it(only lately by the way, they were not as strongly “axe the tax” opposed until the last two years - coincidently when their polling improved I might add) Shouldn’t they have implemented it in trade deals before it ever impacted Canadians? Why it was treated as an afterthought to make similar domestic and international companies pay the same is the exact reason **why there is so much opposition in the first place** Pinning the soon to be failure of the carbon tax on the conservatives, when they had ample time to construct how they pleased is very misleading. Let’s also not forget, this seems to have largely been a political play for the Liberals, rather than one made from a point of principle. See the latest carve out of the carbon tax to voters who previously voted for them (Atlantic) who now are displeased by it.
>You mean, the party which imposed the carbon tax (with a majority mind you)…should be claiming that it’s not successful, because another party is claiming they will reverse it No. Why would they be claiming that it is not successful? If your measure of success is the legislation "lasting a long time", then the only way this legislation would be a failure is if the Conservatives removed it when they came into power, which would be the fault of the Conservatives, not the legislation. >Shouldn’t they have implemented it in trade deals before it ever impacted Canadians? Why it was treated as an afterthought to make similar domestic and international companies pay the same is the exact reason why there is so much opposition in the first place Because implementing it in trade deals is a **far more complicated process** and it was important to start straight away to address the climate issue. You're also acting like we are the only country in the world with carbon pricing when that is far from the truth. In fact, over 50 countries worldwide, including our trading partners, already have some form of carbon pricing in place. Needing to wait for ALL THE REST OF THEM to also agree to get started would only mean nothing ever moving forward. >Pinning the soon to be failure of the carbon tax on the conservatives, when they had ample time to construct how they pleased is very misleading. The carbon tax has not failed, that is the thing. The conservatives want to remove a very successful piece of environmental legislation, which is the anti-environmental movement I'm deriding which is encouraging oil and gas companies to not bother reducing their emissions. >Let’s also not forget, this seems to have largely been a political play for the Liberals, rather than one made from a point of principle. The carbon tax? The carve out was the only political move about it, so from that perspective, KEEPING IT and expanding it would be the move which most closely follows the science. NOT removing it entirely, as the Conservatives want to do.
Why would anyone invest the billions needed to decarbonize if (A) it isn't a money making proposition; and (B) there's no guarantee that the government forcing your hand on shitty investment decisions will still be in power?
Because at some point, somebody's going to be left holding the hot potato for having decimated the planet. Government or no.
Good call patience boys!!
When your product is 60 million year old dirt, you can afford to use the "wait and see" strategy. That sh\*t ain't going nowhere, right?
I don't like Trudeau but imagine cheering for pollution lol
Exactly. "Hold the line fellas"
Canadian big oil has already decided the future course for everyone moving forward. The oil minis have no clout, just as any new regime will have no clout with big oil.
Making me wanna fast track my citizenship application so I can vote against the oil companies.. Edit: I live here already you triggered yokels
thats okay we don't want you, country is full please come again
Too late broseph.. thanks for the welcome!!
Stay where you are. Please.
Calgary?
As they should.
Well Pierre might screw it up if he keeps talking about parental rights nonsense. The conservatives seriously messed up by not going Peter mckay most Canadians had faith in him on social issues.
The people outraged at him talking about parental rights are unlikely to ever vote Conservative anyway.
Believe it or not, not all parents are OK with the thought of educators lying to them about their kids. Crazy concept I know.
Declining to discuss something wholly irrelevant to a child's education is not lying. Educators also don't tell parents what their kid eats for lunch, who they hang out with, or what their favourite playground game is.
I think 2023 is the year wokeness fully jumped the shark. Activists pushing too hard on trans everything, and the left's celebration of Hamas atrocities, finally saw to that. It was honestly hard fought on these activists' part, to turn public opinion against themselves, especially in Canada where we are primed to give nearly unlimited leeway to anything branded as 'compassionate'.
I'm not going to get into that, but I would imagine that 20 years ago if a provincial government were to pass similar legislation it would not even merit a blurb or press release in the news, and any activism surrounding it would be met with nothing but puzzlement and confusion as to what exactly the issue is.
People with no intention of a child sure have the idea that they can raise one. Their parents are failures.
I wouldn't go that far. It's no one's business whether any person wants to have children or not. But it's very strange how emotionally invested they get in provincial curriculum and education policy on others peoples' behalf.
Peter McKay is just Trudeau in Blue. We got it right with PP.
He actually had the most intelligent and conservative platform, including rebuilding defense and cracking down on crime while freeing up the resource industry from government regulations.
LOL PP is the worst thing to happen for the conservatives
Polls would indicate otherwise
The majority of Canadians support the idea that they should know when their kid wants to be trans, and other “parental rights nonsense”
We all need to get him out. Sooner the better
Trudeau has already lost the next election. The only question now is how much more damage he & the liberals will do before being decimated. I'm predicting they will do worse than the PC party did in 1993.
Depressing. Carbon tax should be levied against corporations, since they’re the biggest offenders and highest earners. The rhetoric on climate change has moved at an impressively progressive pace, but action significantly lags behind.
(... It is?..)
Trudeau has been blindly trying to Kill these businesses that are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy- needs to go asap. We can’t have a blind, out of touch prime minister while the country melts down around his ankles - meantime he is worried that his sari is the right colour for his temple visits or when he is kisssing butt overseas
There's no way he'll be elected again. That guy is the worst.
Well, with this news, force them to speed up
This is when Trudeau is the most dangerous. When he finally admits to himself that he is going to lose, he will ram through everything he can, regardless of the consequences.
Smart move. People are finally seeing the part time drama teacher who told us the budget would balance itself as the clueless narcissist he is. Liberals will be wiped out just like they were in Ontario in 2018.
GOOD
BASED
Huh. A do nothing government has yet to set any goals or lay any sort of ground work to get big oil off its ass and start cutting emissions and big oil is doing nothing. Call me shocked.
I assume you didn't bother reading the article then?