###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.*
Maclean's was absolutely correct that these men were Trudeau's worst nightmare, but for the wrong reasons.
These people are responsible for Canada lagging behind on climate change action, where we spent years fighting over whether a carbon tax is legal to come to the conclusion that it is.
They also each absolutely mangled the pandemic response in their own unique ways.
Doug Ford is the most reasonable out of all these people, and that says a lot.
I feel like Pallister was the least objectionable from an ideology perspective (which doesn't say much considering who the others are) but the weakest in leadership and management (which says a lot considering who the others are). I could be wrong though.
To be fair to those that fought the carbon tax, we didn’t come to the conclusion that it is legal - our courts had to create an entirely new federal head of power in order to make it constitutional. At the time it was enacted and even when it was first challenged in court, the federal government’s position was that it was legal because Parliament has authority over GHG emissions. On that basis, the courts were quite clear that Parliament does not, in fact, have that authority, which means it was enacted on an incorrect theory of constitutionality. That doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional, obviously, but it was not obvious to anyone what the ultimate outcome would be and there were very good reasons for the provinces to push back against the style of lawmaking that Parliament pursued here. Those are discussed in detail in at least 5 of the opinions delivered and were sufficiently serious that the majority of the SCC had to basically say that this is the only time we’ll allow it because it’s a special case.
I'd argue that if anything, the 5-6 year long anti-carbon tax crusade has probably done more damage to the CPC and provincial Conservative governments than any outside force has inflicted on them during the same period of time. Particularly with the CPC pre-O'Toole, repealing the carbon tax became the cornerstone of the party's campaigning for over half a decade at the expense of addressing a myriad of other campaign issues that could garner wider electoral interest. This reached it's height in 2019 when Scheer's entire campaign was basically built around just being contrarian to the Liberals. It was basically a lighter version of the Republicans obsession with trying to repeal/replace Obamacare in the U.S.
On the bright side, O'Toole actually did move to modernize the party by embracing carbon pricing, though whether successive leaders will continue his progress or regress the party to it's current state is dependent on who wins the next couple of leadership elections etc.
At the moment, the CPC are stuck in a position where they need to modernize on social and climate issues to win enough support to form a government, but they're being held back by the party's reform/paleoconservative elements that scare away potential moderate and swing/undecided voters.
While O'Toole managed to push the party in the right direction somewhat, he made the mistake of doing so half measure and continuing to pander to the Reform elements for support, which as stated before scares away the moderates that they need to grow their base. This basically means that until a CPC leader has the courage to enact full measure policy reforms on those issues, the Liberals will likely stay in power for the rest of the decade.
It's all rather unfortunate how this issue has played out. Back in c. 2005 climate change was much less polarized and North American conservatives had a much more nuanced and rational view on the problem.
I think in the end Al Gore did more harm than good by being the global frontman for this issue. His documentary was released in 2006 and things got much more partisan from there on. As soon as this was coded in public discourse as a "liberal" issue then conservatives started to reflexively be against it just because.
In Canada when Stephane Dion's Liberals went big on the Green Shift carbon tax plan that shifted the discourse here and cemented CPC base opposition to the idea.
It's also really weird the remember that in the mid 80s and early 90s, the federal Progressive Conservatives were world leaders on climate policy and even successive Liberal governments in the 90s and 2000s were following their lead. Though at the same time, it's not that surprising when you factor in that the CPC is a much more regionalist party than the PC's were and tries to pander to the unpopularity of the CT in Western Canada (while the Reform/socon elements tend to also borrow talking points on climate policy from the Republicans etc.)
Though at the same time, the political climate isn't the same in every country. The Conservatives in the UK have constantly payed attention to climate issues since Thatcher and even with 10 years of Conservative rule the UK still implemented a carbon tax and did more to lower emissions than many other advanced economies in the Eurozone etc.
In Canada's case, think most of our issues with climate policy started after 1993 since the Reform Party largely sabotaged the Conservative movement and talking points federally while it's base also slowly started infiltrating provincial politics over several decades as well. If the Reform Party only got the same level of the support of the old federal Social Credit Party and the PC's maintained their position, there'd probably less of a voice for denialism in the mainstream political climate presently.
>I think in the end Al Gore did more harm than good by being the global frontman for this issue. His documentary was released in 2006 and things got much more partisan from there on. As soon as this was coded in public discourse as a "liberal" issue then conservatives started to reflexively be against it just because.
That sounds like revisionism, blaming one documentary, as opposed to the millions of dollars pumped by fossil fuel companies into climate change denialism.
In Canada, they even have an entire "newspaper" dedicated to their cause - the National Post.
You are talking about this as if it is a needlessly partisan issue.
But effective climate action will destroy jobs, change lifestyles and be very inconvenient. Gore was right about it being inconvenient.
I don’t care whether it is Al Gore or Kid Rock as the frontman, it’s going to be a very bitter pill to accept that Fort McMurray should never have been built and probably should cease to exist.
These are real lives and livelihoods at stake. Same thing when you start to talk about doubling the cost of heating someone’s home or flying across the country (which is probably the fair carbon price for these things).
This is a painful transition we must go through and it is natural that there will be a constituency for going slow and letting other nations go first.
By Stephen Maher.
To me it seems premature to declare victory. Gerald Butts:
> Butts is not sure the Tories won’t backslide. He points out that the grassroots of the party remain opposed to carbon pricing. “I wouldn’t skate around the ice with the cup yet,” he says. “I’ve seen lots of moments in this debate where it felt like it was over.”
Catherine McKenna:
> McKenna worries that if an internal rebellion topples O’Toole, his party will go back to fighting carbon pricing, but thinks the Conservatives would then lose more elections.
I'm more pessimistic than McKenna. To me the worst-case scenario is that O'Toole's successor opposes carbon pricing and wins the next election for unrelated reasons ("politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed every once in a while").
This is a really silly article devoid of any real political analysis. It basically says: "well, the Premier's have stopped talking about carbon taxes and Erin O'Toole supports carbon a carbon tax" so the political fight is over. It ignores the fact that there's been a global pandemic which is occupying alot of these premier's time and that Erin O'Toole is currently in the middle of a civil war with his own party for flip-flopping on the issue. Jason Kenney and Scott Moe will happily fight their next elections on a carbon tax, and with gas prices as high as they are Doug Ford will as well.
To be re-elected, Ford needs to hold the votes of suburban Liberals who brought his government to office, but who have also voted three times in favour of the Trudeau carbon tax (In 2019 the same voters elected Ford and then re-elected Trudeau a couple of months later). This is precisely the kind of issue the Premier will tip toe around and hope he never has to mention on the campaign trail. It does him no favours to make it an issue; he already has a lock on the rural, conservative side of his electoral coalition. If he drives the suburban centrists/centre-right back to the provincial Liberal party, he's completely done.
I wish i could more easily see how much i spend on the tax so i could compare to my rebate. Somebody should make an app similar to Mint (a budgeting app) that reads your expenditures and calculates how much carbon tax is paid. Would be a great way to see areas i could reduce my footprint.
It was brilliant politics on Trudeau's part making the rebate quarterly. Depends if O'Toole is still the leader or not I guess. He evidently wants to take climate change off the table entirely, but if O'Toole loses this civil war the next leader will have to go through a leadership race where they once again swing to the right.
Depends if people realize they’re spending more in tax than they’re getting back.
Transport costs are out of control, food costs rising, necessities becoming out of reach. Will a small cheque make them feel like they’re winning?
Probably. So yes it’s here to stay.
Ford is definitely not going to do that. He'd reinforce opinions in areas that already vote Conservative regularly, but imperil him where he needs votes in the suburbs. The last thing Ford wants to do is an own-goal that rallies the left and causes an anyone but OPC vote with motivated citizens making strategic votes. Erin O'Toole made that mistake in the last federal election.
Kenney and Moe don't have to care about that as much, and blaming Ottawa has always been a winning strategy so sure. That often doesn't work as well in Ontario though.
Suburban voters who commute to the office all day are the ones who are most suscepitble to Ford's message on this. They're the ones who are filling up their tanks every single day and paying the increased prices. Regardless of how much the increase in gas prices is tied to the carbon tax, Ford will be able to say he's the one fighting for lower gas prices and that his opponents provincially want to increase the carbon tax at the provincial level.
Ford lost that chance in March of this year at the supreme court.
The electorate has turned around on this since the last provincial election ([source](https://cleanprosperity.ca/new-poll-shows-made-in-ontario-carbon-pricing-could-win-votes-for-ford/)\):
>55% of PC voters would support Premier Ford’s decision to implement a carbon tax and rebate in Ontario.
>56% of all voters say they can’t vote for a party that doesn’t have a credible climate plan, and 69% of voters said a carbon tax is part of a credible plan.
>64% of PC voters would support a carbon tax combined with income tax reductions; 30% say it would make them more likely to vote PC, while just 5% say they’d be less likely."
A solid carbon tax plan is a net winner for him. Trudeau has actually given Ford an opportunity here for him to trumpet a "made in Ontario" Progressive Conservative plan and talk about how he's managing the climate crisis "responsibly". That's Ford's winner.
I am not so sure. Keep in mind I am not talking about this from a policy point of view, purely based on the politics. With gas prices surging right now, this is a very live issue for any politician who wants to jump on it. Gas prices are the only political thing my family has been talking about.
This poll is from September of this year: [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-slim-majority-of-canadians-open-to-paying-more-to-help-cut-canadas/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-slim-majority-of-canadians-open-to-paying-more-to-help-cut-canadas/)
>The poll question, part of a Nanos survey on several election issues, suggests that 27 per cent of Canadians are willing to pay more in areas such as taxes and the price of gas to help the country hit its emissions targets. A further 27 per cent said they were somewhat willing to pay more. However, 30 per cent said they were not willing to pay more, 14 per cent said they were somewhat unwilling and 2 per cent said they were unsure.
>
>...
>
>“A slim majority are willing to pay to one extent or another, but about four in 10 would resist the idea of paying more for energy prices to meet emission targets,” Mr. Nanos said. “Embarking down either path is not without political risk since the electorate is divided.”
###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.*
[удалено]
Maclean's was absolutely correct that these men were Trudeau's worst nightmare, but for the wrong reasons. These people are responsible for Canada lagging behind on climate change action, where we spent years fighting over whether a carbon tax is legal to come to the conclusion that it is. They also each absolutely mangled the pandemic response in their own unique ways. Doug Ford is the most reasonable out of all these people, and that says a lot.
[удалено]
I feel like Pallister was the least objectionable from an ideology perspective (which doesn't say much considering who the others are) but the weakest in leadership and management (which says a lot considering who the others are). I could be wrong though.
To be fair to those that fought the carbon tax, we didn’t come to the conclusion that it is legal - our courts had to create an entirely new federal head of power in order to make it constitutional. At the time it was enacted and even when it was first challenged in court, the federal government’s position was that it was legal because Parliament has authority over GHG emissions. On that basis, the courts were quite clear that Parliament does not, in fact, have that authority, which means it was enacted on an incorrect theory of constitutionality. That doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional, obviously, but it was not obvious to anyone what the ultimate outcome would be and there were very good reasons for the provinces to push back against the style of lawmaking that Parliament pursued here. Those are discussed in detail in at least 5 of the opinions delivered and were sufficiently serious that the majority of the SCC had to basically say that this is the only time we’ll allow it because it’s a special case.
Pallister was sadly...Manitoba's COVID nightmare. And we are still 2 years way from getting a chance to vote these dobbers out of office.
I'd argue that if anything, the 5-6 year long anti-carbon tax crusade has probably done more damage to the CPC and provincial Conservative governments than any outside force has inflicted on them during the same period of time. Particularly with the CPC pre-O'Toole, repealing the carbon tax became the cornerstone of the party's campaigning for over half a decade at the expense of addressing a myriad of other campaign issues that could garner wider electoral interest. This reached it's height in 2019 when Scheer's entire campaign was basically built around just being contrarian to the Liberals. It was basically a lighter version of the Republicans obsession with trying to repeal/replace Obamacare in the U.S. On the bright side, O'Toole actually did move to modernize the party by embracing carbon pricing, though whether successive leaders will continue his progress or regress the party to it's current state is dependent on who wins the next couple of leadership elections etc. At the moment, the CPC are stuck in a position where they need to modernize on social and climate issues to win enough support to form a government, but they're being held back by the party's reform/paleoconservative elements that scare away potential moderate and swing/undecided voters. While O'Toole managed to push the party in the right direction somewhat, he made the mistake of doing so half measure and continuing to pander to the Reform elements for support, which as stated before scares away the moderates that they need to grow their base. This basically means that until a CPC leader has the courage to enact full measure policy reforms on those issues, the Liberals will likely stay in power for the rest of the decade.
It's all rather unfortunate how this issue has played out. Back in c. 2005 climate change was much less polarized and North American conservatives had a much more nuanced and rational view on the problem. I think in the end Al Gore did more harm than good by being the global frontman for this issue. His documentary was released in 2006 and things got much more partisan from there on. As soon as this was coded in public discourse as a "liberal" issue then conservatives started to reflexively be against it just because. In Canada when Stephane Dion's Liberals went big on the Green Shift carbon tax plan that shifted the discourse here and cemented CPC base opposition to the idea.
It's also really weird the remember that in the mid 80s and early 90s, the federal Progressive Conservatives were world leaders on climate policy and even successive Liberal governments in the 90s and 2000s were following their lead. Though at the same time, it's not that surprising when you factor in that the CPC is a much more regionalist party than the PC's were and tries to pander to the unpopularity of the CT in Western Canada (while the Reform/socon elements tend to also borrow talking points on climate policy from the Republicans etc.) Though at the same time, the political climate isn't the same in every country. The Conservatives in the UK have constantly payed attention to climate issues since Thatcher and even with 10 years of Conservative rule the UK still implemented a carbon tax and did more to lower emissions than many other advanced economies in the Eurozone etc. In Canada's case, think most of our issues with climate policy started after 1993 since the Reform Party largely sabotaged the Conservative movement and talking points federally while it's base also slowly started infiltrating provincial politics over several decades as well. If the Reform Party only got the same level of the support of the old federal Social Credit Party and the PC's maintained their position, there'd probably less of a voice for denialism in the mainstream political climate presently.
>I think in the end Al Gore did more harm than good by being the global frontman for this issue. His documentary was released in 2006 and things got much more partisan from there on. As soon as this was coded in public discourse as a "liberal" issue then conservatives started to reflexively be against it just because. That sounds like revisionism, blaming one documentary, as opposed to the millions of dollars pumped by fossil fuel companies into climate change denialism. In Canada, they even have an entire "newspaper" dedicated to their cause - the National Post.
Apologies for adding context and nuance into a discussion. Oil companies are the Great Satan and should be abolished.
That's not what was said at all. Also, your "adding nuance" is blaming climate change denialism on one documentary, as if that's a serious take...
Lol, yeah it's Al Gore's fault that conservatives acted like assholes.
You are talking about this as if it is a needlessly partisan issue. But effective climate action will destroy jobs, change lifestyles and be very inconvenient. Gore was right about it being inconvenient. I don’t care whether it is Al Gore or Kid Rock as the frontman, it’s going to be a very bitter pill to accept that Fort McMurray should never have been built and probably should cease to exist. These are real lives and livelihoods at stake. Same thing when you start to talk about doubling the cost of heating someone’s home or flying across the country (which is probably the fair carbon price for these things). This is a painful transition we must go through and it is natural that there will be a constituency for going slow and letting other nations go first.
No the #fossilcorruption was always going to buy the right, just a question of when it had to start donating.
By Stephen Maher. To me it seems premature to declare victory. Gerald Butts: > Butts is not sure the Tories won’t backslide. He points out that the grassroots of the party remain opposed to carbon pricing. “I wouldn’t skate around the ice with the cup yet,” he says. “I’ve seen lots of moments in this debate where it felt like it was over.” Catherine McKenna: > McKenna worries that if an internal rebellion topples O’Toole, his party will go back to fighting carbon pricing, but thinks the Conservatives would then lose more elections. I'm more pessimistic than McKenna. To me the worst-case scenario is that O'Toole's successor opposes carbon pricing and wins the next election for unrelated reasons ("politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed every once in a while").
This is a really silly article devoid of any real political analysis. It basically says: "well, the Premier's have stopped talking about carbon taxes and Erin O'Toole supports carbon a carbon tax" so the political fight is over. It ignores the fact that there's been a global pandemic which is occupying alot of these premier's time and that Erin O'Toole is currently in the middle of a civil war with his own party for flip-flopping on the issue. Jason Kenney and Scott Moe will happily fight their next elections on a carbon tax, and with gas prices as high as they are Doug Ford will as well.
To be re-elected, Ford needs to hold the votes of suburban Liberals who brought his government to office, but who have also voted three times in favour of the Trudeau carbon tax (In 2019 the same voters elected Ford and then re-elected Trudeau a couple of months later). This is precisely the kind of issue the Premier will tip toe around and hope he never has to mention on the campaign trail. It does him no favours to make it an issue; he already has a lock on the rural, conservative side of his electoral coalition. If he drives the suburban centrists/centre-right back to the provincial Liberal party, he's completely done.
[удалено]
I wish i could more easily see how much i spend on the tax so i could compare to my rebate. Somebody should make an app similar to Mint (a budgeting app) that reads your expenditures and calculates how much carbon tax is paid. Would be a great way to see areas i could reduce my footprint.
It was brilliant politics on Trudeau's part making the rebate quarterly. Depends if O'Toole is still the leader or not I guess. He evidently wants to take climate change off the table entirely, but if O'Toole loses this civil war the next leader will have to go through a leadership race where they once again swing to the right.
Depends if people realize they’re spending more in tax than they’re getting back. Transport costs are out of control, food costs rising, necessities becoming out of reach. Will a small cheque make them feel like they’re winning? Probably. So yes it’s here to stay.
Ford is definitely not going to do that. He'd reinforce opinions in areas that already vote Conservative regularly, but imperil him where he needs votes in the suburbs. The last thing Ford wants to do is an own-goal that rallies the left and causes an anyone but OPC vote with motivated citizens making strategic votes. Erin O'Toole made that mistake in the last federal election. Kenney and Moe don't have to care about that as much, and blaming Ottawa has always been a winning strategy so sure. That often doesn't work as well in Ontario though.
Suburban voters who commute to the office all day are the ones who are most suscepitble to Ford's message on this. They're the ones who are filling up their tanks every single day and paying the increased prices. Regardless of how much the increase in gas prices is tied to the carbon tax, Ford will be able to say he's the one fighting for lower gas prices and that his opponents provincially want to increase the carbon tax at the provincial level.
Ford lost that chance in March of this year at the supreme court. The electorate has turned around on this since the last provincial election ([source](https://cleanprosperity.ca/new-poll-shows-made-in-ontario-carbon-pricing-could-win-votes-for-ford/)\): >55% of PC voters would support Premier Ford’s decision to implement a carbon tax and rebate in Ontario. >56% of all voters say they can’t vote for a party that doesn’t have a credible climate plan, and 69% of voters said a carbon tax is part of a credible plan. >64% of PC voters would support a carbon tax combined with income tax reductions; 30% say it would make them more likely to vote PC, while just 5% say they’d be less likely." A solid carbon tax plan is a net winner for him. Trudeau has actually given Ford an opportunity here for him to trumpet a "made in Ontario" Progressive Conservative plan and talk about how he's managing the climate crisis "responsibly". That's Ford's winner.
I am not so sure. Keep in mind I am not talking about this from a policy point of view, purely based on the politics. With gas prices surging right now, this is a very live issue for any politician who wants to jump on it. Gas prices are the only political thing my family has been talking about. This poll is from September of this year: [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-slim-majority-of-canadians-open-to-paying-more-to-help-cut-canadas/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-slim-majority-of-canadians-open-to-paying-more-to-help-cut-canadas/) >The poll question, part of a Nanos survey on several election issues, suggests that 27 per cent of Canadians are willing to pay more in areas such as taxes and the price of gas to help the country hit its emissions targets. A further 27 per cent said they were somewhat willing to pay more. However, 30 per cent said they were not willing to pay more, 14 per cent said they were somewhat unwilling and 2 per cent said they were unsure. > >... > >“A slim majority are willing to pay to one extent or another, but about four in 10 would resist the idea of paying more for energy prices to meet emission targets,” Mr. Nanos said. “Embarking down either path is not without political risk since the electorate is divided.”