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

Canada

7185 readers
429 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
157
The Carbon Tax Is Good for Canadians. Why Axe It? (thewalrus.ca)
submitted 1 month ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

And yet we fiddle.

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I completely understand, but don't you see that the lack of self-evidence is an inherent weakness of the scheme which allows the cons to easily weaponize it? Unless we enact some form of censorship on what certain actors can say (factuality, etc), which I'm not opposed to, I don't see how you fix that. Perhaps the current carbon scheme is not sustainable, even if it works economically. If replacing this policy with something more self-evident is the magic bullet to curb Polinever's enthusiasm, I'd be 100% for it, because he'll also get rid of it and do worse in other fronts. "Axe The Tax" is leading by 19% and 27% points at the moment. Clearly this shit resonates. I'd be curious to see what would happen if we took away the axe. Perhaps you believe the knowledge gap can be filled instead. I'm skeptical.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

... the lack of self-evidence is an inherent weakness of the scheme which allows the cons to easily weaponize it

That is a weakness in Cons, not the carbon tax. Can you list 5 positive planks in the Con platform that promise universal benefits to all of us?

I can't. And that's because they don't know how to do that, except by removing benefits from the regular folk so the rich can get richer.

That's who they serve.

[–] TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's hardly a reason to get rid of it or replace it. Clearly people are benefitting from it and it's evident if you look at your tax return. If anything, the fact that people don't know about the return is a failure in marketing. So sure, there are maybe some improvements to make.

But really, no matter what carbon scheme you put in place, the cons will find a way to complain about it. That's not a failure of the carbon tax. That's just how the conservatives operate.

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

Oh they'll complain no doubt but I can much more easily sell to my average intelligent relatives that they'll be able to get to work without a car or go visit the extended family in Montreal without driving or flying. The cons line will be "too much spending" which only works if there's nothing to show for it. If most people are getting or expecting to get something (e.g. EVs for drivers, transit for the rest of us) that argument goes limp.

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

Clearly this shit resonates.

Simplistic slogans do tend to take less effort to understand that more complex and nuanced understanding of big issues.