this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
75 points (98.7% liked)

Canada

12116 readers
275 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

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


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ 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 11 points 1 day ago

This guy is just garbage

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (6 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.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 19 hours 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.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day 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 8 points 1 day 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 1 day 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!

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 days ago (10 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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day 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 23 hours 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.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lulzagna@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (18 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

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 days ago

"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 20 points 2 days ago (7 children)

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

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›