this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
88 points (98.9% liked)

Canada

12117 readers
467 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

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


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 days ago

This guy is just garbage

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago (4 children)

He's not wrong. It also was not successful. The idea behind carbon tax (first proposed by Harper and Poilievre) is that a levy would incentivize people to burn less. Didn't work, large truck and pickup sales doubled, air travel increased. People just pay to burn.

We should have put in laws to limit vehicle size and fuel economy, not leave it up to consumer fashion. Just roll in a ban of ICE vehicles in large urban areas.

Taxing carbon doesn't work. We need to restrict activity.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We should have put in laws to limit vehicle size and fuel economy, not leave it up to consumer fashion.

Fixing emissions requirements! I drive a 2 seater compact pickup with a 4 cylinder engine, it gets 8-9L/100km depending on the season and conditions. That's as good as some modern sedans, and better than ANY pickup on the market. But no one makes a 4 cylinder compact pickup anymore because emissions limits are calculated partly by the footprint of the vehicle.

It's far too late now but this whole truckzilla problem could have been stomped over a decade ago with intelligent policy. I strongly suspect that we will not get any intelligent policy today, particularly when the intelligent solution is both expensive and counter to industry.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

this whole truckzilla problem could have been stomped over a decade ago with intelligent policy.

the problem is Canada does not have it's own policy, we use US laws. Because we make their stupid trucks here.

Outside of North America, these are real work trucks:

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

That's the truck I want, damnit. You can fill it with dirt, or knock it flat to carry sheet goods and lumber!

If you search "compact pickup" in Canada you get the godamned Jeep Gladiator, the Hyundai Santa Cruz, and the Chevrolet Colorado. All three are enormous and one of them just an SUV that's missing row of seats! And despite weighing 1300lbs more than my shitty old ranger they have the same payload capacity!

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

I will say that the carbon taxes made a pretty major difference to my workplace - it pushed up the replacement of our building boiler by a number of years, and switched it to natural gas instead of diesel. Not great objectively, but a marked improvement and the carbon tax was a major factor.

[–] CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Poilievre has never supported a carbon tax.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

The idea didn't fail because it's inherently flawed. Taxing carbon could easily work, so could restricting activity. Neither is going to meaningfully happen in a resource-based colonialist country.

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 25 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Canadian governance is basically a few resource companies, banks, and a couple of telecoms bundled together in a Roots trench coat with a maple leaf on it.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

Yes. That is what all settler-colonial states ever are, extractive enterprises. Everyone please remember that when you celebrate So-Called Canada Day.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Lulzagna@lemmy.world 53 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

It's only divisive for stupid people - carbon tax is the simplest solution to curbing carbon output. Also, it's not expensive when the money goes right back to the tax payers

[–] TBi@lemmy.world 20 points 5 days ago (9 children)

These stupid people vote though. So…

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] otter@lemmy.ca 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Should have called it the "polluter tax and rebate"

Or even "carbon tax and cash back" system

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 8 points 4 days ago

Some people just choose to be stupid, and other people abuse that. I've heard someone complain that 15-minute cities are cities where you aren't allowed to go more than 15 minutes from your home. She saw it on YouTube, so it had to be right.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Whereas abandoning climate targets is apparently unifying?

Not to me, any of you all feel that way?

Apparently "unity" means we just do what the O&G industry wants.

[–] Bristlecone@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago

It was two divisive for the capitalists he means, he just forgot to finish his sentence

[–] CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca 36 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yeah, can't we save the planet on the cheap? I mean how clean do your water and air need to be??

"Divisive" as in morons and corporate shills don't care while the rest of normal people are saying its obviously urgent to do something? lol

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 22 points 4 days ago (7 children)

A climate plan can be divisive if it saves the climate.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] glibg@lemmy.ca 28 points 5 days ago

Wait til you find out how much climate change is going to cost to live through!

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I agree, it was divisive and costly. The Trudeau climate plan forced a pipeline expansion through a province that didn't want it, after other provinces rejected alternative pipelines, at a cost of $34 billion for that single expansion, a whopping 459% over budget. Divisive and costly.

Good thing Carny isn't trying to do that again, right? /s

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Holy crap, it is literally a do-over. What in the world... Alberta to propose southern route for new West Coast pipeline, sources say

That opposition, as well as numerous environmental challenges, prompted the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to try to persuade Alberta to change tack and consider building a pipeline that largely follows the right-of-way for the Trans Mountain Pipeline from Edmonton to southern B.C.

[–] BurgerBaron@quokk.au 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Let's check back in 50-100 years and see what's more expensive.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

You mean 5-10 years. What's the value of >1000 deaths in Europe so far this summer?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

"I shouldn't have to make personal decisions! Corporations should be forced to change so I don't have to."

"NOT LIKE THAT!"

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί