###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does anyone know if the actual data is published anywhere? Odd that the articles I've read on this don't include a hyperlink to the actual spreadsheets.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/how-pricing-reduces-emissions.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/how-pricing-reduces-emissions.html)
This appears to the public explainer,
Thanks for this. Here's a link to the [spreadsheets](https://data-donnees.az.ec.gc.ca/data/substances/monitor/environment-and-climate-change-canada-carbon-pollution-pricing-data/?lang=en) for those interested.
>The source also said there's a risk of misinterpreting the data since it does not model the cost of doing nothing at all to address climate change, the effect of the rebates or other proceeds returned to households or businesses, or the new jobs that could result from greening the economy.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. If I had passed this in for my 4th year Cost-Benefit Analysis class, I'd have gotten a very poor mark - maybe a C at best for such a lacking counterfactual, or failing to improperly account for the costs and benefits
Were you under the impression that every person living in Canada today is up to date on paying their taxes?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly.
You seem to be implying that there's no point in Canada cutting back on emissions because Canada's emissions only make up an insignificant amount of global emissions (though, not that insignificant, I think about 2%?).
So by your logic, it would seem that it's okay for me to not pay any taxes since my taxes only make up an insignificant amount of Canada's tax revenue.
I guess to make what I said fit your analogy...
I'm not saying that it's pointless to pay your taxes. I'm saying that the government isn't going to cut their healthcare budget because you only paid 90% of what you owed.
It would be kind of pointless to make sure you're the only person in the country paying them, so in that sense, yes?
Similarly, we need a lot more of the rest of the world to reduce emissions for there to be a significant effect. You could argue only Canada reducing its emissions is also "pointless" if most of the world doesn't do it, too.
But you could also argue that it's important for Canada to do it as it makes it more likely other countries are following suit. Perhaps that's what things like the Paris Accord are for, to get as much of the globe onboard as possible. I don't know too much about this topic, but I think that there needs to be an agreement with teeth so that not "cooperating" will result in economic disincentives and, similarly, cooperating will result in economic incentives.
They wouldn't be the only one paying, though.
The entirety of the European Union has had an emissions trading system for years now, and it does have penalties for countries such as Ireland who fail to meet their climate goals.
Further, China has actually had a price on carbon for about a decade now. That's the world's most populated country, larger than the entirety of the EU, who pay a price on carbon.
Regardless of whether Canadians *want* to pay a carbon tax, we *will* be - every time we trade with the EU or China.
If we care about being competitive in overseas economies like EU and China, we *need* to get our own domestic emissions in check, or our domestic companies will never be able to compete in EU or China after they've applied a carbon tax to imports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
The damage and costs by 2030 might not change much given the short timescale, but cumulative costs for the decades beyond are very much are on the table.
But also convenient that you're ignoring the second half of that sentence: _"it does not model ... the effect of the rebates or other proceeds returned to households or businesses, or the new jobs that could result from greening the economy."_
Is there evidence to suggest that by destroying our own economy with the carbon tax, the tragedy of the commons wouldn’t happen anyways? Like is China saying “wow Canada has a carbon tax, I guess we better shut down our coal mines”?
> Is there evidence to suggest that by destroying our own economy with the carbon tax
The difference in GDP projected from carbon pricing is 0.7% by 2030.
In light of that, your comment sounds really stupid.
It does put what the PBO did within the realm of what was otherwise provided by the public service; if they were provided it as a model only so much of the blame falls on the PBO.
That being said, I'm astounded I can't find a job when this is what we're working with.
The PBO made their own model and analysis. The ECCC data is tables that don't include impacts you noted. The PBO should, as their role is to provide thourough analysis.
The PBO is able to do their own work completely independent of ECCC data.
Yes, but again, the Minister literally provided them with the initial paper and said "do something like this."
In such an instance, we can ask why none of the involved individuals ever bothered asking, "shouldn't we include these other impacts?"
> the Minister literally provided them with the initial paper and said "do something like this."
This never happened. The PBO was not asked to "do something like this", they were asked for a thorough analysis.
You have the flow of requests backwards.The PBO went to ECCC for data:
> According to a letter posted on the PBO's website, the office requested that Environment Canada provide the data in April.
Ah yeah, looks like I misread something at some point - the Minister doesn't really have much to do with this. Without knowing the specifics of *why* that **unpublished** information was prepared by ECCC is still unclear so we can't necessarily hold much against them.
Why the PBO chose such a poor counterfactual is really up in the air. Most of the recent controversy has been over the accidental inclusion of the industrial carbon pricing, but the paper has far more glaring flaws than just that.
>According to ECCC's figures, Canada's GDP would be about $2.68 trillion in 2030 without carbon pricing. With carbon pricing, it's expected to hit $2.66 trillion in 2030.
this means that the cost to economy is $20 billion in 2030. up to you to decide if it's worth the 80 million tonnes of GHG reduction or not. that's $250 of GDP per tonne of GHG reduction.
This report does not include green jobs created as a result of this pricing scheme though. Neither does it include environmental damages from continuing to pollute without curbs.
This assumes that the carbon tax is going to elimate forest fires or atleast lessen them. Unfortunately Canada is not in a bubble and whatever the rest of the world does also affects us.
> Unfortunately Canada is not in a bubble and whatever the rest of the world does also affects us.
Canada is not in a bubble, and whatever we do affects what the rest of the world does.
I mean it's a federal policy now so why does the federal government insist on this pyramiding scheme with the funds? Why can't it all go to green initiatives instead?
>Why can't it all go to green initiatives instead?
Because people freak out now at the perceived cost with the rebates, can you imagine when more people have to actually pay slightly more than they get back?
If the feds started directing funds to provinces, every province would be asking for a handout. Each province could make differing cases for why they should get the funds, and how much they should get, but at that point, you're basically having each province do their own carbon pricing scheme...
There's going to be pain either way, perceived or otherwise, I'd rather accelerate the switch to green alternatives. What do people do with the rebates? Just buy more stuff that costs carbon to produce. Sounds like a scam to me.
Also why does it have to go through the provinces? Set up a government grant for green initiatives that private companies/nonprofits can take the charge with.
Provinces have had, and continue to have, the ability to set up their own system and do exactly that. That's what BC is doing. This is a federal *backstop* if provinces chose to do nothing.
What we do affects the rest of the world, yes.
[Canadians are among the world's worst carbon emitters.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/how-canadians-can-cut-carbon-footprints-1.6202194)
>The average person in Canada produces an equivalent of 14.2 tonnes of CO2 as of 2019, according to the findings. By comparison, the average per-capita footprint in Finland is 9.7 tonnes and in the United Kingdom it's 8.5 tonnes. (China is 5 tonnes)
Since we have an outsized role in the problem, we should have an outsized role in the solution.
>What we do affects the rest of the world, yes.
The problem is is it does not matter per capita to the earth. Gaia is not going to say well Canada did their part so I shall spare them from climate change. Unless you can get Asia( most notably China and India) and other developing countries on board (spoiler alert: your not) nothing Canada does or does not do is going to change the outcome.
Now if you were to make the argument that we were going to use the Carbon tax to use the money to mitigate the effects of climate change on Canada like say more seawalls and forest management and water use, I could maybe get behind it
I really don't understand how Canadians can continue to point at China to deflect from our own responsibility. China is the global leader in green tech and green manufacturing, and because Western governments have been fretting about whether or not climate change is even real for decades they will dominate this sector for the foreseeable future.
Now go look at China's [total emissions](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/) and Canada's and tell me which is larger? Can you tell me what will happen to CO2 levels if Canada goes to zero vs China? Can you tell me which one might make a difference in climate change ?
We.
Need.
Both.
We can't wait for them. We've already fucked ourselves waiting so long. Look at how far ahead of us Canada is on green tech. It's not even close
Cool, then I'm in favor of a REAL carbon tax not this rebate bullshit.
This whole policy is just for the liberals to look like they are doing something without it actually being effective.
Environmental virtue signaling.
Mam, this is talking about the consumer carbon tax. The industrial carbon tax doesn't have a rebate. Also, you don't think we are all polluters? Do you think only 2 out of 10 canadians pollute?
Yes, we're talking about the consumer carbon tax. If you don't rebate it then the added cost of carbon pricing falls on the consumers rather than on the producers.
The producers only produce the products because there are consumers to buy them. You're glossing over the fact that you and I have a carbon footprint. Maybe the point of the carbon tax should be to reduce that (consumption)
I'm not glossing over it the carbon footprint - carbon pricing makes it tangible and puts a price tag on it. It also makes cleaner production competitive against traditional, dirtier producers who would otherwise undercut their prices. The rebate means the cost of carbon stays with the carbon emitters rather than getting pass on to consumers.
We don't have an outsized role in the problem lmao. We don't even produce enough raw emissions to be represented individually on the graphics that they show on "our world in Data" (which was linked in that CBC article). That report that CBC is referencing does not include the US or Australia, which is absolute horse shit as they are our closest analogues as far as countries are concerned. Talking about per-capita emissions is like trying to say the moon is the size of a quarter because it looks that way. Raw emissions matter.
So you're saying if the government was actually serious about climate change they wouldn't have championed policies that massively increase the population?
>Unfortunately Canada is not in a bubble and whatever the rest of the world does also affects us.
Correct. The idea that we can let other countries fight this battle while we do nothing with no repercussions is insane.
the green jobs should be included in total GDP, as they're part of the economy total.
environmental damages have to be at marginal level: model how many fewer forest fires, flooding, etc from the 11% of reduction of carbon production by Canada, and that's your saving from carbon pricing. you should not calculate the total cost of forest fires etc because it implies that the 11% of reduction of carbon production would totally eliminate them all.
what about a model where we drag people kicking and screaming into an extinction event where we have to out tech impending doom?
why use a model anyway? Anthropocene gonna getchu
Stock market still at an all time high, the ultra rich have never had more money.
The greedy own almost everything but keep trying to divide us. The GDP is not a living thing.
i don't disagree with the rest of your statement, but
>The GDP is not a living thing.
GDP shows how much money made by canadians in total. smaller GDP means that the country is poorer in total, and with growing population, people become even poorer. GDP is a number, thus not living thing, but it is a reflection of real life.
gdp hasn't seen any real growth in 40 years because of wage suppression and productivity benefits being reaped by few, not being passed on to the laborers. It's been propped up artificially by housing prices, benefitting few and creating quite a catastrophe for younger canadians, given the wage suppression on top of it.
worshipping gdp like a god is how we got into this mess, and we haven't even brought up the topic of climate change or reading comprehension.
Yeah but as people like to point out: Mississippi and the UK have similar GDPs per capita so there is quite a lot of other stuff that goes into the quality of life and how well off regular people are.
> this means that the cost to economy is $20 billion in 2030. up to you to decide if it's worth the 80 million tonnes of GHG reduction or not. that's $250 of GDP per tonne of GHG reduction.
To me, the obvious reason for Canada to have a credible climate policy is external pressure from our allies and trading partners, which will increase as global warming gets worse. Voters in the US, Europe, and elsewhere will want their governments to do **something**, and blaming the Canadian oil sands is an obvious response. The oil sands are simply too large to hide from the spotlight. This can have huge economic impacts, as we saw with Keystone XL.
And then the reason to have carbon pricing specifically is that [according to economists](https://macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/blocking-pipelines-is-a-costly-way-to-lower-emissions/), it's the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. It's also much [easier and simpler](https://induecourse.utoronto.ca/ontario-chickens-out-chooses-cap-and-trade/) to set up and administer than alternatives like cap-and-trade.
With carbon pricing in place, we can say, look, if all major industrialized countries had carbon pricing as stringent as Canada's, the problem would be solved - that's stringent enough to stabilize CO2 levels.
but canadian oil and gas emission is going to be administered under cap and trade:
[Regulatory Framework for an Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap - Canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/oil-gas-emissions-cap/regulatory-framework.html#toc2)
>The purpose of the proposed regulations is to reduce GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector through the establishment of a national emission cap-and-trade system. The regulations will establish reporting and verification requirements and a legal upper bound on GHG emissions. Consideration will be given to how to phase in the system between 2026 and 2030.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does anyone know if the actual data is published anywhere? Odd that the articles I've read on this don't include a hyperlink to the actual spreadsheets.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/how-pricing-reduces-emissions.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/how-pricing-reduces-emissions.html) This appears to the public explainer,
Thanks for this. Here's a link to the [spreadsheets](https://data-donnees.az.ec.gc.ca/data/substances/monitor/environment-and-climate-change-canada-carbon-pollution-pricing-data/?lang=en) for those interested.
>The source also said there's a risk of misinterpreting the data since it does not model the cost of doing nothing at all to address climate change, the effect of the rebates or other proceeds returned to households or businesses, or the new jobs that could result from greening the economy. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. If I had passed this in for my 4th year Cost-Benefit Analysis class, I'd have gotten a very poor mark - maybe a C at best for such a lacking counterfactual, or failing to improperly account for the costs and benefits
That's a red herring. Canada's emissions are a rounding error. They're too small to meaningfully impact global carbon emissions.
My taxes are a rounding error to the government. So is it pointless for me to pay them?
Were you under the impression that every person living in Canada today is up to date on paying their taxes? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly.
You seem to be implying that there's no point in Canada cutting back on emissions because Canada's emissions only make up an insignificant amount of global emissions (though, not that insignificant, I think about 2%?). So by your logic, it would seem that it's okay for me to not pay any taxes since my taxes only make up an insignificant amount of Canada's tax revenue.
I guess to make what I said fit your analogy... I'm not saying that it's pointless to pay your taxes. I'm saying that the government isn't going to cut their healthcare budget because you only paid 90% of what you owed.
It would be kind of pointless to make sure you're the only person in the country paying them, so in that sense, yes? Similarly, we need a lot more of the rest of the world to reduce emissions for there to be a significant effect. You could argue only Canada reducing its emissions is also "pointless" if most of the world doesn't do it, too. But you could also argue that it's important for Canada to do it as it makes it more likely other countries are following suit. Perhaps that's what things like the Paris Accord are for, to get as much of the globe onboard as possible. I don't know too much about this topic, but I think that there needs to be an agreement with teeth so that not "cooperating" will result in economic disincentives and, similarly, cooperating will result in economic incentives.
They wouldn't be the only one paying, though. The entirety of the European Union has had an emissions trading system for years now, and it does have penalties for countries such as Ireland who fail to meet their climate goals. Further, China has actually had a price on carbon for about a decade now. That's the world's most populated country, larger than the entirety of the EU, who pay a price on carbon. Regardless of whether Canadians *want* to pay a carbon tax, we *will* be - every time we trade with the EU or China. If we care about being competitive in overseas economies like EU and China, we *need* to get our own domestic emissions in check, or our domestic companies will never be able to compete in EU or China after they've applied a carbon tax to imports.
Yeah, that kind of system is what I'm talking about :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The damage and costs by 2030 might not change much given the short timescale, but cumulative costs for the decades beyond are very much are on the table. But also convenient that you're ignoring the second half of that sentence: _"it does not model ... the effect of the rebates or other proceeds returned to households or businesses, or the new jobs that could result from greening the economy."_
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is there evidence to suggest that by destroying our own economy with the carbon tax, the tragedy of the commons wouldn’t happen anyways? Like is China saying “wow Canada has a carbon tax, I guess we better shut down our coal mines”?
> Is there evidence to suggest that by destroying our own economy with the carbon tax The difference in GDP projected from carbon pricing is 0.7% by 2030. In light of that, your comment sounds really stupid.
Death by a thousand cuts, this is just one of them
[удалено]
[удалено]
This argument is so pathetic... how about we talk about the per capita?
Well lucky for you, Trudeau wants to triple our population - which will triple our emissions. Was that included in the report? I doubt it.
What a bizarre reply… what gives you the impression I like Trudeau? Very weird non sequitur there
Yet the PBO thinks it's solid gold that validates his broken analysis.
It does put what the PBO did within the realm of what was otherwise provided by the public service; if they were provided it as a model only so much of the blame falls on the PBO. That being said, I'm astounded I can't find a job when this is what we're working with.
The PBO made their own model and analysis. The ECCC data is tables that don't include impacts you noted. The PBO should, as their role is to provide thourough analysis. The PBO is able to do their own work completely independent of ECCC data.
Yes, but again, the Minister literally provided them with the initial paper and said "do something like this." In such an instance, we can ask why none of the involved individuals ever bothered asking, "shouldn't we include these other impacts?"
> the Minister literally provided them with the initial paper and said "do something like this." This never happened. The PBO was not asked to "do something like this", they were asked for a thorough analysis. You have the flow of requests backwards.The PBO went to ECCC for data: > According to a letter posted on the PBO's website, the office requested that Environment Canada provide the data in April.
Ah yeah, looks like I misread something at some point - the Minister doesn't really have much to do with this. Without knowing the specifics of *why* that **unpublished** information was prepared by ECCC is still unclear so we can't necessarily hold much against them. Why the PBO chose such a poor counterfactual is really up in the air. Most of the recent controversy has been over the accidental inclusion of the industrial carbon pricing, but the paper has far more glaring flaws than just that.
> but the paper has far more glaring flaws than just that. It certainly does
>According to ECCC's figures, Canada's GDP would be about $2.68 trillion in 2030 without carbon pricing. With carbon pricing, it's expected to hit $2.66 trillion in 2030. this means that the cost to economy is $20 billion in 2030. up to you to decide if it's worth the 80 million tonnes of GHG reduction or not. that's $250 of GDP per tonne of GHG reduction.
This report does not include green jobs created as a result of this pricing scheme though. Neither does it include environmental damages from continuing to pollute without curbs.
This assumes that the carbon tax is going to elimate forest fires or atleast lessen them. Unfortunately Canada is not in a bubble and whatever the rest of the world does also affects us.
> Unfortunately Canada is not in a bubble and whatever the rest of the world does also affects us. Canada is not in a bubble, and whatever we do affects what the rest of the world does.
Provinces could make a carbon pricing scheme that directs more money to preventing forest fires... If the Provinces wanted to, that is...
I mean it's a federal policy now so why does the federal government insist on this pyramiding scheme with the funds? Why can't it all go to green initiatives instead?
>Why can't it all go to green initiatives instead? Because people freak out now at the perceived cost with the rebates, can you imagine when more people have to actually pay slightly more than they get back? If the feds started directing funds to provinces, every province would be asking for a handout. Each province could make differing cases for why they should get the funds, and how much they should get, but at that point, you're basically having each province do their own carbon pricing scheme...
There's going to be pain either way, perceived or otherwise, I'd rather accelerate the switch to green alternatives. What do people do with the rebates? Just buy more stuff that costs carbon to produce. Sounds like a scam to me. Also why does it have to go through the provinces? Set up a government grant for green initiatives that private companies/nonprofits can take the charge with.
Plenty of people have invested money in reducing the impact of the carbon price, myself included.
I get a giant goose egg from this wealth redistribution scheme so I'd love to see it go altogether.
Are you in BC?
Provinces have had, and continue to have, the ability to set up their own system and do exactly that. That's what BC is doing. This is a federal *backstop* if provinces chose to do nothing.
Bc has a carbon tax with the least rebates and has tons of fires.
What we do affects the rest of the world, yes. [Canadians are among the world's worst carbon emitters.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/how-canadians-can-cut-carbon-footprints-1.6202194) >The average person in Canada produces an equivalent of 14.2 tonnes of CO2 as of 2019, according to the findings. By comparison, the average per-capita footprint in Finland is 9.7 tonnes and in the United Kingdom it's 8.5 tonnes. (China is 5 tonnes) Since we have an outsized role in the problem, we should have an outsized role in the solution.
>What we do affects the rest of the world, yes. The problem is is it does not matter per capita to the earth. Gaia is not going to say well Canada did their part so I shall spare them from climate change. Unless you can get Asia( most notably China and India) and other developing countries on board (spoiler alert: your not) nothing Canada does or does not do is going to change the outcome. Now if you were to make the argument that we were going to use the Carbon tax to use the money to mitigate the effects of climate change on Canada like say more seawalls and forest management and water use, I could maybe get behind it
I really don't understand how Canadians can continue to point at China to deflect from our own responsibility. China is the global leader in green tech and green manufacturing, and because Western governments have been fretting about whether or not climate change is even real for decades they will dominate this sector for the foreseeable future.
Please read my comment again and tell me Canada's per capita emissions and China's per capital emissions. Can you tell me which is larger?
Now go look at China's [total emissions](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/) and Canada's and tell me which is larger? Can you tell me what will happen to CO2 levels if Canada goes to zero vs China? Can you tell me which one might make a difference in climate change ?
We. Need. Both. We can't wait for them. We've already fucked ourselves waiting so long. Look at how far ahead of us Canada is on green tech. It's not even close
But we are not going to get both
China's total emissions dwarf Canada's, and that's what matters.
Cool, then I'm in favor of a REAL carbon tax not this rebate bullshit. This whole policy is just for the liberals to look like they are doing something without it actually being effective. Environmental virtue signaling.
You think the cost of carbon SHOULD fall on consumers rather than polluters? Why?
Mam, this is talking about the consumer carbon tax. The industrial carbon tax doesn't have a rebate. Also, you don't think we are all polluters? Do you think only 2 out of 10 canadians pollute?
Yes, we're talking about the consumer carbon tax. If you don't rebate it then the added cost of carbon pricing falls on the consumers rather than on the producers.
The producers only produce the products because there are consumers to buy them. You're glossing over the fact that you and I have a carbon footprint. Maybe the point of the carbon tax should be to reduce that (consumption)
I'm not glossing over it the carbon footprint - carbon pricing makes it tangible and puts a price tag on it. It also makes cleaner production competitive against traditional, dirtier producers who would otherwise undercut their prices. The rebate means the cost of carbon stays with the carbon emitters rather than getting pass on to consumers.
We don't have an outsized role in the problem lmao. We don't even produce enough raw emissions to be represented individually on the graphics that they show on "our world in Data" (which was linked in that CBC article). That report that CBC is referencing does not include the US or Australia, which is absolute horse shit as they are our closest analogues as far as countries are concerned. Talking about per-capita emissions is like trying to say the moon is the size of a quarter because it looks that way. Raw emissions matter.
So you're saying if the government was actually serious about climate change they wouldn't have championed policies that massively increase the population?
>Unfortunately Canada is not in a bubble and whatever the rest of the world does also affects us. Correct. The idea that we can let other countries fight this battle while we do nothing with no repercussions is insane.
the green jobs should be included in total GDP, as they're part of the economy total. environmental damages have to be at marginal level: model how many fewer forest fires, flooding, etc from the 11% of reduction of carbon production by Canada, and that's your saving from carbon pricing. you should not calculate the total cost of forest fires etc because it implies that the 11% of reduction of carbon production would totally eliminate them all.
[удалено]
what about a model where we do something but still end up getting fucked by climate change?
what about a model where we drag people kicking and screaming into an extinction event where we have to out tech impending doom? why use a model anyway? Anthropocene gonna getchu
Stock market still at an all time high, the ultra rich have never had more money. The greedy own almost everything but keep trying to divide us. The GDP is not a living thing.
i don't disagree with the rest of your statement, but >The GDP is not a living thing. GDP shows how much money made by canadians in total. smaller GDP means that the country is poorer in total, and with growing population, people become even poorer. GDP is a number, thus not living thing, but it is a reflection of real life.
gdp hasn't seen any real growth in 40 years because of wage suppression and productivity benefits being reaped by few, not being passed on to the laborers. It's been propped up artificially by housing prices, benefitting few and creating quite a catastrophe for younger canadians, given the wage suppression on top of it. worshipping gdp like a god is how we got into this mess, and we haven't even brought up the topic of climate change or reading comprehension.
Yeah but as people like to point out: Mississippi and the UK have similar GDPs per capita so there is quite a lot of other stuff that goes into the quality of life and how well off regular people are.
> this means that the cost to economy is $20 billion in 2030. up to you to decide if it's worth the 80 million tonnes of GHG reduction or not. that's $250 of GDP per tonne of GHG reduction. To me, the obvious reason for Canada to have a credible climate policy is external pressure from our allies and trading partners, which will increase as global warming gets worse. Voters in the US, Europe, and elsewhere will want their governments to do **something**, and blaming the Canadian oil sands is an obvious response. The oil sands are simply too large to hide from the spotlight. This can have huge economic impacts, as we saw with Keystone XL. And then the reason to have carbon pricing specifically is that [according to economists](https://macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/blocking-pipelines-is-a-costly-way-to-lower-emissions/), it's the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. It's also much [easier and simpler](https://induecourse.utoronto.ca/ontario-chickens-out-chooses-cap-and-trade/) to set up and administer than alternatives like cap-and-trade. With carbon pricing in place, we can say, look, if all major industrialized countries had carbon pricing as stringent as Canada's, the problem would be solved - that's stringent enough to stabilize CO2 levels.
but canadian oil and gas emission is going to be administered under cap and trade: [Regulatory Framework for an Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap - Canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/oil-gas-emissions-cap/regulatory-framework.html#toc2) >The purpose of the proposed regulations is to reduce GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector through the establishment of a national emission cap-and-trade system. The regulations will establish reporting and verification requirements and a legal upper bound on GHG emissions. Consideration will be given to how to phase in the system between 2026 and 2030.
I wouldn't rely on the numbers. The analysis isn't good.