Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said the Carney government is not serious about climate change. May, who supported Carney's budget in December, has since questioned the prime minister's word after accusing him of a climate policy flip-flop.

"If we're serious about emissions reduction, then we have to actually revisit some of the measures that have been eliminated since (Carney) took over," May told The Canadian Press.

"They're miles from hitting any of the Paris Agreement targets, and the prime minister did recommit to me on the floor of the House on Nov. 17 that this government is committed to the Paris Agreement and achieving its targets. So the emissions reduction update, the so-called climate competitiveness strategy — there's lots of highfalutin titles for what boils down to...(no) climate plan.""

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

In what way would ending imports from China reduce emissions? Giving up buying from the most efficient manufacturing ecosystem in the world that also happens to be electrifying and moving to nuclear and renewables at an unmatched pace is not going to increaseefficiency. What more efficient alternative would we switch to? Canada will not be more likely to hit goals by moving currently outsourced industrial manufacturing from an extremely effecient ecosystem with economies of scale to somewhere like here that has no comparable efficiencies of scale, grid development, or ecosystem development. We would need massive industrial expansion here, including with our grid. Dramatically expanding hydro is going to require huge new projects in places that are harder to develop than our existing hydro. Trying to build out solar while not buying from China? Let's see how efficient that is. We should be taking advantage of China's efficiencies to complement and build out our own systems, not cutting them off. It's one planet we share, and efficiencies and harm reduction in the global manufacturing ecosystem is what we should aim for, which requires leveraging complimentarities, not reducing them.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/China-electricity-prod-source-stacked.svg/1920px-China-electricity-prod-source-stacked.svg.png

I think its a lot more coal. I am also unsure why we would carbon tax ourselves, making our own production more expensive, but maintain free trade with the largest coal user on the planet with little to no environmental laws. If you saw and smelt the rivers in China I think you'd realize what a dirty place it is.

Heres a nice looking documentary on it that I found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN0AVXZ_RrQ

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 weeks ago

Chinese emissions have plateaued and started falling. They actually dropped in 2025, including a 1% drop in Q4.

Cutting off Chinese manufacturing and bringing it all here, including cutting out Chinese inputs to Canadian manufacturing, would not be more efficient at all. It would not be better for the environment. This is a fantasy. We would need massive industrial expansion. We would be making the global situation less efficient and more harmful by reducing complementary systems, increasing redundancies, and increasing industrial inefficiencies.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 3 points 4 weeks ago

Without adding coal to the mix, China doesn't have a reliable and independent way of increasing its energy generation to the necessary levels. However, China is also essentially the producer of all solar photovoltaics on Earth, the biggest producer of wind turbines and nuclear reactors, and it's currently building the largest hydro plant on Earth. China is also the main supplier of electric batteries enabling electrification of buses and cars, and pioneers the installation of ultra high voltage electric transmission.

I've been to China and visited the yellow river, I don't know what you mean by the smell. I live in Spain, you should visit the Tajo river going through Toledo and smell it before you judge China. If you're from the US you could visit Flint.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Shipping. The reason is shipping.

Oh. Also mistrust of any comms gear built under influence of One Belt people.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It seems to me that you're mistaken, the pagers blowing up and maiming children was an Israeli intelligence operation, not Chinese.