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

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sure if you only care about dollars that aren’t even yours.

And if it’s the most productive, why do they need my tax dollars too?

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world -1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Canada has a productivity emergency, and you're here wanting to remove our most productive sector.

Replace it first, show me some semblance of a replacement that isn't real estate, or our government buying mortgage bonds to artificially inflate GDP.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

The problem I have is with how productivity is measured. Either GDP or GNI are both negatively impacted by positive planning and bureaucracy, but are driven positively on paper by cheap, breakable goods requiring regular repairs and replacement.

For example, City/designers of a road take an additional 500 hours to do design work which provides an increase of 10 years in lifespan. Now that doesn't need to be repaired for longer, meaning less future costs (driving down the cost side), while at the same time increasing the hours spent. This has a negative impact on GNI, but is actually a GOOD thing by any rational persons view of the situation.

Or someone produces a set of clothes at a reasonable price that lasts twice as long. If people all move to that product, our GNI would drop despite that being a positive change.

Or thousands of frivolous or stupid lawsuits due to problems avoided by proper planning and/or bureaucracy show up as a benefit to GDP/GNI despite being a waste of time and money.

Using productivity as an end measure misses a lot of important points and measures that a modern society should be aiming for.

[–] RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oil & gas is highly productive per worker/hour, but it’s not “the whole economy,” and it’s not a magic lever that fixes Canada’s broad productivity slump. Diversification is about raising productivity across the rest of the economy and reducing concentrated risk. It takes time.

It sounds like you're saying "Don’t diversify until you've already diversified."

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Way to put words in my worth in my mouth. All I said is remove subsidies. Fuck off, troll.

Fucking losers will goon to the idea of a “free market” but don’t anyone dare suggest oil companies actually survive with their welfare.