this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
101 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
20 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & 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
 

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
[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The first federal carbon tax was enacted in 2018, but a few provinces had started (and sometimes ended) their own versions as early as 2007.

The wikipedia page is pretty thorough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

On December 11, 2008, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said that a carbon tax is preferable to a cap-and-trade program which "inevitably introduces unnecessary cost and complexity". A carbon tax is "a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach". Tillerson added that he hoped that the revenues from a carbon tax would be used to lower other taxes so as to be revenue neutral.[13]

Wtf, how is this possible? If your carbon tax doesn't convince your biggest polluters to divest from fossil fuels, you're doing it wrong.

The whole point is that it is not revenue neutral

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The biggest polluters just pass the cost onto their customers by raising prices.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's fine. It encourages everyone to stop carbon

The point of the carbon tax is to stop carbon.

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But it doesnt work. Grocery stores raise their prices to cover the carbon tax on deliveries, and the consumers pay more. Its not like we can choose to buy only bananas that were delivered by an electric truck.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If it costs you $30 to buy a banana delivered by fossil fuels and $1 to buy a banana that was delivered by sail boat, which would you buy?

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I have neither option option. All bananas are delivered to my landlocked town via the same truck.

Bananas are probably a bad example because they are so perishable. They have to be transported in a very controlled environment. Theres no way youre getting bananas from Guatamala to Canada via sailboat and still having them be saleable.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How do you think you got bananas before oil?

[–] 4z01235@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I did a bit of googling. Turns out there were refrigerated sailing vessels in the late 1800s.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean, you can also dehydrate them. There's loads of ways to preserve bananas.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Uhh I dunno if there's any salvaging that hypothetical, lol... But if bananas start costing $1 each, we're in trouble.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 1 week ago

Things that arent local and are produced with unfair labor must go up in price when those systemic issues are resolved.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's why you get a big fat rebate in your chequing account every 3 months. It's meant to offset the rising costs of goods such that end consumers who don't pollute a ton themselves are in fact not carrying the burden.

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fat? Not enough to offset the increased cost of ... everything. As I said, the biggest polluters just increase their prices and the rest of us pay. There's no incentive for the big dogs to improve, and the rest of us dont have alternatives.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Sure, that happens in the short term. But it also incentivizes the biggest polluters to reduce polluting as there is now a cost associated with polluting. Maybe a competitor is able to come in with a greener process and thereby undercut the competition. This is like, capitalism 101. It boggles my mind that people can argue that a carbon tax doesn't work.

Also... News flash: the world is fucked and the cost of everything is going to rise no matter what. It's time to get uncomfortable

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And their customers (e.g. manufacturers, transportation providers) factor in both those price hikes and the carbon taxes that they themselves need to pay, and pass those costs on to their customers, and so forth until finally end consumers are paying for several rounds of carbon tax that's priced into more expensive goods and services.

In many cases, there's nowhere for market forces to displace the inefficiency, so things just get more expensive without changing supply chains much.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

If there's one thing you can count on, it's the greed of corporations. That means they will try to cut costs every means possible in order to maximise profit. If going green saves them a dime, they will do it. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

Will they reduce prices rather than pocket the change? Probably not.. But y'all are acting like the carbon tax is meant to reduce prices??? It's meant to save the fucking planet.