There are better ways to improve affordability, such as policies to reduce housing, child care and other major costs of living
Whenever I hear politicians propose to cut the carbon price, I can’t help but think back to my childhood growing up with divorced parents.
On the rare occasions my dad took me for weekends, he would offer me candy and let me stay up late.
“Why can’t you be more like him?” I’d yell after returning home as my mom made me do my homework, eat vegetables and go to bed on time.
So it is with proponents of Axe the Tax. They offer us candy, when the federal government, like my mom, expects us to live responsibly.
…
But a politician’s promise that pollution can be free is no more realistic than my childish fantasy that I could live on candy alone.
We are all entangled in an energy system that helps and harms our children. While it enables us to taxi our kids around, and keep them warm, it also poisons the air they breathe, evaporates the water they need to drink and burns the forests in which they play.
…
To preserve summers without smoke, winters when our kids can ski, water they can drink and forests and wildlife with which they can live in awe.
That’s why we pay for our pollution.
This dude gets it. We need to do so much more, but walking back the carbon tax is a terrible idea.
If we end the practice of giving away billions in oil and gas subsidies in exchange for millions in royalties, we would increase our net taxes and fight climate change more than any other decision a Liberal or Conservative government could make. But they won’t ever make it.
There was a CBC article about that a bit ago. Apparently, the three sole sources of subsidies are EDC, the TransMountain and carbon capture projects at this point. TransMountain was very loudly announced and deliberate, and I actually agree with carbon capture subsidies, so that just leaves EDC loans as being possibly sneaky.
Not mine, reversing valve seized because I only used gas and I really don’t care to change it. I do agree that AC shouldn’t exist and all machines should be heat pumps but yeh, I have no use for it. Electricity cost here is absurd compared to gas.
Modern heat pumps continue to function down to -20C or below. If it gets colder than that where you live you can supplement with an auxiliary source for cold days.
We could be doing a lot more to fight climate change than the carbon tax. Canada extracts and exports A LOT of fossil fuels. We also have a car dependant nation which is a carbon intensive form of transportation compared to rail, transit, walking or cycling. We have a lot of rural areas that still depend on wood or heating oils which are both carbon intensive heat sources.
We need to do A LOT more than the carbon tax if we want smoke free summers and healthy ecosystems. The carbon tax is just a tax on life if we dont provide less carbon intensive options for people to use.
That’s but one story of industry putting the investments into greener technologies to save from having to pay the carbon levy. I wish the media spent more time talking about such projects, because the levy is working.
You know what I love most about the levy? It’s effectively optional. I can’t opt out of making an income (not being born rich and not wanting to live under a vow of poverty), but I can opt out of generating carbon. We’ve been having the carbon discussion for 30 years now (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came out in 1992!), and at least some of us were paying attention and made a plan to decarbonize our lifestyles during the last three decades. And for everyone who has, the Carbon Levy might as well not really exist. If you don’t burn, you don’t pay. Simple as that.
My friend tried to turn me against carbon tax by pointing out that I’m being taxed for keeping my home warm.
I told him, I don’t have to pay that tax if I upgrade to electric heating. And this is exactly what is good about it, it incentivizes someone like me to make an investment in electric heating.
The three most populous Provinces in Canada (Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia) each have over 90% green power generation, either via hydroelectricity or via nuclear power. Manitoba likewise produces 97% of its electricity from hydroelectric sources.
Those four Provinces have a population of roughly 31 million people. Canada has a total population of just over 39 million — meaning “most provinces actually” only accounts for 20% of Canadians. 80% of Canadians get their electricity from 85+% green sources. By total capacity, nearly 70% of all electrical generation in Canada is from green sources, and thus “electric heat” for the vast majority of Canadians is not from coal and natural gas.
BUT saying “we can do more” in no way means we should do it all or do nothing. I’m sure you agree with that, but this type of statement has the feel of “the carbon tax is pointless, let’s not do it”
The carbon tax is just a tax on life if we dont provide less carbon intensive options for people to use.
Again, I agree. I have few positive things to say about our current federal government, but they have introduced incentives that would move people off carbon intensive heating options. From what I’ve read, even the ridiculous heating oil carve out for maritime voters came with a generous and well designed package of incentives to get off heating oil.
There’s no question that we should be doing more, but doing less is a ridiculous suggestion.
Thanks to the Federal government and a provincial government being a good partner (PEI) I was able to move to an EV and heat pumps over the last few years.
Government debt and finances do have a solution and its easy … tax the hell out of the rich
It limits the runaway power and excesses of the rich and redistributes some of that wealth back to the people at the bottom. It stabilizes the economy because it distributes wealth and distributed wealth benefits everyone.
Otherwise, if you just build an economic system that only sends and accumulates money with a small group of people … it works great for a while but it isn’t sustainable and will eventually collapse.
But what do I know … I’m not rich … it’s the rich that benefit from the current system and its the rich that control the whole system … so I don’t see the system changing any time soon.
There is also the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure aspect to all this. The anti-carbon tax camp loves to blame rising costs on essentials like groceries on the tax (conveniently forgetting to mention that aside from it being a minor contributor, the rebates are specifically put in to address this).
But you know what else will raise the price of food? Climate change. I think it’s fair to say that it has already contributed to shortages of certain items and you can bet it’s only going to get worse to the point that we will be looking back on the prices today nostalgically before long.
The fact that the tax directly impacts billionaires is one of the reasons attacks on it are so thorougly funded.
The argument here is that taxes on carbon trickle down to the consumer, but that’s true of any tax you place on businesses and their owners. The costs are always passed on, or so goes the argument.
Plus, all the money from that particular tax comes right back. But the Liberals took the high road and implemented that quietly, so nobody believes it’s happening.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
If we end the practice of giving away billions in oil and gas subsidies in exchange for millions in royalties, we would increase our net taxes and fight climate change more than any other decision a Liberal or Conservative government could make. But they won’t ever make it.
There was a CBC article about that a bit ago. Apparently, the three sole sources of subsidies are EDC, the TransMountain and carbon capture projects at this point. TransMountain was very loudly announced and deliberate, and I actually agree with carbon capture subsidies, so that just leaves EDC loans as being possibly sneaky.
Edit: Here.
Yeah, carbon capture subsidies are important yet unsurprisingly the smallest federal expense in oil and gas subsidies.
Why not tax AC only heat pumps? It would incentivise people to get heat pumps that can heat and cool.
I have a heat pump…never ONCE used the heat pump on it because I like having heat when it’s really cold.
What happens now…
Your heat pump can still effeciently provide heat during spring and fall when it is cold but not cold enough to ruin the performance of the heat pump.
Not mine, reversing valve seized because I only used gas and I really don’t care to change it. I do agree that AC shouldn’t exist and all machines should be heat pumps but yeh, I have no use for it. Electricity cost here is absurd compared to gas.
Modern heat pumps continue to function down to -20C or below. If it gets colder than that where you live you can supplement with an auxiliary source for cold days.
You could, but it wouldn’t help with emissions from literally everything else. A carbon tax is nice in that it gives even coverage.
removed by mod
We could be doing a lot more to fight climate change than the carbon tax. Canada extracts and exports A LOT of fossil fuels. We also have a car dependant nation which is a carbon intensive form of transportation compared to rail, transit, walking or cycling. We have a lot of rural areas that still depend on wood or heating oils which are both carbon intensive heat sources.
We need to do A LOT more than the carbon tax if we want smoke free summers and healthy ecosystems. The carbon tax is just a tax on life if we dont provide less carbon intensive options for people to use.
There is always more that can be done, but the effects of the carbon tax go well beyond it being a “tax on life”.
Take for example Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie Ontario. They’ve been undergoing a major transformation from using constantly-burning coal to an Electric Arc Furnace — and they specifically call out carbon tax savings as one of the projects drivers.
That’s but one story of industry putting the investments into greener technologies to save from having to pay the carbon levy. I wish the media spent more time talking about such projects, because the levy is working.
You know what I love most about the levy? It’s effectively optional. I can’t opt out of making an income (not being born rich and not wanting to live under a vow of poverty), but I can opt out of generating carbon. We’ve been having the carbon discussion for 30 years now (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came out in 1992!), and at least some of us were paying attention and made a plan to decarbonize our lifestyles during the last three decades. And for everyone who has, the Carbon Levy might as well not really exist. If you don’t burn, you don’t pay. Simple as that.
I don’t get people’s criticism about this.
My friend tried to turn me against carbon tax by pointing out that I’m being taxed for keeping my home warm.
I told him, I don’t have to pay that tax if I upgrade to electric heating. And this is exactly what is good about it, it incentivizes someone like me to make an investment in electric heating.
The electric heat in this province comes from coal and natural gas. that’s most provinces, actually.
That stat borders on being somewhat dishonest.
The three most populous Provinces in Canada (Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia) each have over 90% green power generation, either via hydroelectricity or via nuclear power. Manitoba likewise produces 97% of its electricity from hydroelectric sources.
Those four Provinces have a population of roughly 31 million people. Canada has a total population of just over 39 million — meaning “most provinces actually” only accounts for 20% of Canadians. 80% of Canadians get their electricity from 85+% green sources. By total capacity, nearly 70% of all electrical generation in Canada is from green sources, and thus “electric heat” for the vast majority of Canadians is not from coal and natural gas.
86% of electricity in Ontario is renewable.
That’s a great example. Thank you for linking to it. I’m saving this for my next social media rant.
BUT saying “we can do more” in no way means we should do it all or do nothing. I’m sure you agree with that, but this type of statement has the feel of “the carbon tax is pointless, let’s not do it”
Agreed.
Again, I agree. I have few positive things to say about our current federal government, but they have introduced incentives that would move people off carbon intensive heating options. From what I’ve read, even the ridiculous heating oil carve out for maritime voters came with a generous and well designed package of incentives to get off heating oil.
There’s no question that we should be doing more, but doing less is a ridiculous suggestion.
Thanks to the Federal government and a provincial government being a good partner (PEI) I was able to move to an EV and heat pumps over the last few years.
Thanks for posting that. I agree with all the other commenters saying we need to do more, but we also need to support what is being done now.
I’m not endorsing the federal liberals with that statement, I’m saying all parties need to provide effective climate policy.
Government debt and finances do have a solution and its easy … tax the hell out of the rich
It limits the runaway power and excesses of the rich and redistributes some of that wealth back to the people at the bottom. It stabilizes the economy because it distributes wealth and distributed wealth benefits everyone.
Otherwise, if you just build an economic system that only sends and accumulates money with a small group of people … it works great for a while but it isn’t sustainable and will eventually collapse.
But what do I know … I’m not rich … it’s the rich that benefit from the current system and its the rich that control the whole system … so I don’t see the system changing any time soon.
There is also the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure aspect to all this. The anti-carbon tax camp loves to blame rising costs on essentials like groceries on the tax (conveniently forgetting to mention that aside from it being a minor contributor, the rebates are specifically put in to address this).
But you know what else will raise the price of food? Climate change. I think it’s fair to say that it has already contributed to shortages of certain items and you can bet it’s only going to get worse to the point that we will be looking back on the prices today nostalgically before long.
Because people hear “tax” and think “I don’t like being taxed”
There was a study on how pollution stops pollinators smelling the plants, which will lead to a feedback loop of less yield and less pollinators
Taxing. Billionaires.
The fact that the tax directly impacts billionaires is one of the reasons attacks on it are so thorougly funded.
The argument here is that taxes on carbon trickle down to the consumer, but that’s true of any tax you place on businesses and their owners. The costs are always passed on, or so goes the argument.
Plus, all the money from that particular tax comes right back. But the Liberals took the high road and implemented that quietly, so nobody believes it’s happening.
deleted by creator
Its well known to anyone who has been doing their taxes (or even just paying attention) since the beginning of the carbon pricing system.
The conservative lies about it have muddied the waters enough that people who don’t bother to fact check anything actually believe those lies.
Which is apparently very much a minority.
It does nothing of the sort. You think this tax did one single thing to Jimmy Pattison or Galen Weston?
I mean, we should do that too, yeah
“No. We’re gonna tax the fuck out of working class people instead” Justin.