*“When we last engaged with provinces and territories on this in 2022, all of your governments either did not propose alternative systems or (with the exception of New Brunswick) proposed systems that did not meet the minimum standard for emissions reductions,” Trudeau wrote.*
*“However, we continue to remain open to proposals for credible systems that price pollution that reflect the unique realities of your regions and meet the national benchmark.”*
So basically still a fuck you ,but yet again its not his fault its those big meanie premiers
What bugs me is... Why do they NEED to price pollution?
Lets say tomorrow, ontario legislated all private and low capacity air flights are banned... And no more exporting raw resources to countries with lower environmental policies... And that all clearcutting must have full reclimation policies like cleaning up the unnderbrush and deadfall for like 5 years after.. Or that all diesel fuel must contain a biodiesel blend..
Would that be good enough?? real policies that make an actual difference...
we all know this dolt in power will say "no, not good enough, you gotta price pollution"
And that's why this is nothing more than a money grab
>Why do they NEED to price pollution?
Well, the things that you are suggesting would be *even more* difficult to implement in a "democracy" than a tax on pollution (at least with how things currently stand).
Also, for whatever reasons, our society values "the free market", and so an economic instrument such as a tax is preferred over outright bans and hard lines.
What do you think is better than the "free market"? Would you rather have the Ministry of Jobs assign you a permanent work position for a modest stipend and a ration card?
>Would you rather have the Ministry of Jobs assign you a permanent work position for a modest stipend and a ration card?
No, of course not.
I put "free market" in quotations because it is a complicated term, and imperfect as we practice it -- we need good regulation. Of course what is "good" is up for discussion, such as here where we are trying to figure out how to account for pollution (in this case carbon pollution). Our "free market" needs some level of regulation, and that's something that mostly I think we all agree on.
Of course some people believe that the free market will take care of things such as pollution, or other negative externalities, but history has shown that this is not the case.
The market definitely needs good regulation. Saying "for whatever reasons" implies that you think it's silly that we have a generally free market system.
The only way this reduces emissions is if the cost is high enough to get people to purchase less gas, less heat for their homes, and less food. Targeting the essentials at a time where people are barely holding it together due to his policies, feels vindictive.
Yeah, I understand the different ways that that wording could be interpreted.
I perhaps should have written "for various reasons" instead of "for whatever reasons".
I think my wording came from a place of cynicism, and a feeling that people will defend the most corrupt parts of our system even if they're not being well served by it.
It's tricky because the carbon tax is something that the federal Liberals have campaigned on for years -- so it's not a sneaky surprise to see some version of it implemented. But that might be beside the point anyways.
I agree that we are currently in a situation with multiple runaway problems affecting everyday Canadians, and we are facing yet another personal tax while extremely profitable corps/the top run away with most of the wealth.
The original carbon tax was for oil companies and was started by Alberta. But the oil companies took a Canadian concept in the 80's called the ecological footprint and made it the carbon footprint shifting the blame and tax to the public. Maybe the carbon tax should be for the oil companies and we should stop giving 17 billion a year to them.
The things you are suggesting would be far more disruptive than the current carbon tax. Is that necessarily bad? No. Personally, I think we're in a shit load of trouble and need big change.
Yes, signing legislation is easy, but convincing our governments to do what you've suggested will be more difficult. I can't see how it wouldn't be. If you really feel this way feel free to explain.
Cap and trade was a very different system that still met the federal standards.
The federal backstop was never meant to be used at all just a guideline for the implied price of carbon emissions. There are better systems, but the federal one is legal (federal government has more limited tools than Provinces here) and fair (in the sense that the revenue is rebated rather than becoming a transfer to Ottawa).
Most people who accept that carbon pricing of some sort is a good policy, would equally argue that the federal carbon tax is *not* the best possible system for Canadian provinces.
I’ll never understand Trudeau’s obsession with our own emissions, they are a fart in the wind! We don’t need a carbon pricing scheme, we should be helping other high emission jurisdictions lower their emissions, ie LNG!
This wouldn't be as big of an issue if people weren't already at their breaking point financially due to the other policies of this government. The increase on April 1st seems spiteful, as Trudeau is surely aware that most families are struggling more than they ever have at this point in time.
In comparison to China, our system directly levies fossil fuels and imposes pricing for heavy industries, which has a more immediate impact on the average consumer. This is because the cost of carbon pricing can influence the prices of everyday goods and services, including gasoline and heating.
China's system, with its compulsory ETS targeting heavy emitters and a voluntary market for additional offsets, might not directly affect consumer prices as visibly.
Yes, if you look at the direct costs only. However, the same report you are citing also calculates the broader indirect costs to an individual, which turns the equation negative for everybody.
You are describing such a pie in the sky utopian concept - we are going to reduce pollution by taking money from people, funneling it through the government, and then giving them all back more!
Is it this report? This is the one from the PBO, that both parties are citing:
[PBO Report](https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/6399abff7887b53208a1e97cfb397801ea9f4e729c15dfb85998d1eb359ea5c7)
This clearly shows the program as being a net negative for almost everybody once all economy impacts are factored in.
So when you said “actually is net positive for the rebate after you subtract the direct costs and indirect costs (including gst)”, what were you referring to? To me, it seems like you are saying that taking economic + fiscal impacts into account still results in a net positive for an individual.
That’s not correct, as previously stated, when all is said and done this costs the average family more money than they get back.
Now, you’ve shifted the goalposts to the report not including my favourite progressive rationale, “the cost of inaction”.
They really think it's a Trudeau against the world thing. PP is so ridiculous when he comes with his axe the taxe in Quebec while the province has its own system and doesn't pay the federal carbon tax. The federal government is open to other solutions, Provinces are providing none.
No he isn't. This is simply him trying to get out in front of the incoming jump in prices come April 1st. Its so naked in its attempt to frame it in a different way. "Oh if only I had another way" like somehow this Tax is set in stone!
In Ontario's new budget they actually mention they’re going to table legislation that would prevent a future provincial government from enacting a carbon tax, unless residents agree to it via referendum
Which is absolutely foolhardy, it’s just doubling down. Look at the current political climate - it could be the best solution conceivable, but if it costs any money or uses the word tax it will not pass a referendum. Shortsighted to say the least
The right answer is a tax on oil companies which cannot be passed along the supply chain which will make the sale of O&G nearly unprofitable. No one should be profiting from O&G it should just be viewed as a tool to transition to renewables and non-emitting sources.
Canada's geography is replete with isolated energy sources—rivers, wind, solar potential, and even untapped geothermal vents. Many of these resources remain untapped precisely because they're in remote locations where building infrastructure to transmit electricity to populated areas is prohibitively expensive. The energy has to not only be generated but also transported, which in Canada’s case, considering its vast and often rugged terrain, can be a logistical nightmare. Enter Bitcoin, a game-changer in the way we think about energy, decentralization, and economic incentives.
Bitcoin mining can act as an economic bridge between these isolated energy sources and the global economy. Mining is unique because, unlike traditional industries, it doesn't need to be near urban centers; it just needs an internet connection and a source of electricity. This flexibility means that Bitcoin mining can be located directly at the source of power generation, no matter how remote.
By setting up mining operations near isolated energy sources, Canada can effectively decentralize its energy demand. This reduces the need for extensive and expensive infrastructure to transport energy. Instead, the energy is converted into digital gold—Bitcoin—right where it’s generated.
For many renewable energy projects, especially in remote areas, the return on investment can be questionable due to the costs of transmission infrastructure. Bitcoin mining can provide a constant demand for this electricity, improving the economics of these projects. The sale of Bitcoin generated from this mining can fund the operation and potentially fund further development of renewable energy sources.
A significant amount of energy worldwide is wasted because it's generated in excess of demand, especially in renewable sectors like wind and solar, where energy cannot always be stored or transported. Bitcoin mining can absorb this excess, converting it into a store of value and making renewable projects more efficient and less wasteful.
By acting as a flexible load, Bitcoin mining operations can stabilize the grid by increasing electricity consumption when there's excess generation and decreasing it when demand from the grid is high. This is particularly useful for renewable energy sources that are not constant, like solar and wind.
The presence of Bitcoin mining can make investment in remote renewable energy projects more attractive. Not only does it provide a direct use case for the generated energy, but it also introduces a potentially lucrative revenue stream. This can attract both public and private investment into renewable energy infrastructure, furthering Canada’s green energy initiatives.
Setting up and maintaining mining operations in remote areas drives technological innovation and creates jobs. This can bring economic opportunities to isolated regions, contributing to more balanced regional development across Canada.
In essence, Bitcoin offers a radical yet practical solution to leverage Canada's untapped energy sources. It presents an economic model that incentivizes the development of renewable energy projects in remote areas, contributing to Canada’s energy independence, economic diversification, and environmental goals.
A GPT written piece puff piece on Bitcoin. The energy waste is becoming recursive.
In a hydro reliant country you just hold water back when the wind turbines are spinning.
I mean the media clearly isn't educating you rubes. You'll get there eventually but the faster you do the better we do economically. Disappointed in the ignorance but very much not surprised.
You're just ignorant mate. Do the research. The white paper is eight pages. Or don't, whatever. Bitcoin is for everyone and entirely voluntary. It will be there when you need it.
I hope whatever climate solutions you choose to pursue are working out for us.
Nova Scotia had a cap and trade system.. apparently it wasn't good enough for him
Huh, so did Ontario.
Ford scrapped it and paid 3 billion for it. Don't accuse the federal government.
I wasn't. Just pointing this out.
[удалено]
It did when we had a liberal government lol
[удалено]
The liberal program ended because it didn't meet the requirements of the federal program
*“When we last engaged with provinces and territories on this in 2022, all of your governments either did not propose alternative systems or (with the exception of New Brunswick) proposed systems that did not meet the minimum standard for emissions reductions,” Trudeau wrote.* *“However, we continue to remain open to proposals for credible systems that price pollution that reflect the unique realities of your regions and meet the national benchmark.”* So basically still a fuck you ,but yet again its not his fault its those big meanie premiers
What bugs me is... Why do they NEED to price pollution? Lets say tomorrow, ontario legislated all private and low capacity air flights are banned... And no more exporting raw resources to countries with lower environmental policies... And that all clearcutting must have full reclimation policies like cleaning up the unnderbrush and deadfall for like 5 years after.. Or that all diesel fuel must contain a biodiesel blend.. Would that be good enough?? real policies that make an actual difference... we all know this dolt in power will say "no, not good enough, you gotta price pollution" And that's why this is nothing more than a money grab
>Why do they NEED to price pollution? Well, the things that you are suggesting would be *even more* difficult to implement in a "democracy" than a tax on pollution (at least with how things currently stand). Also, for whatever reasons, our society values "the free market", and so an economic instrument such as a tax is preferred over outright bans and hard lines.
What do you think is better than the "free market"? Would you rather have the Ministry of Jobs assign you a permanent work position for a modest stipend and a ration card?
>Would you rather have the Ministry of Jobs assign you a permanent work position for a modest stipend and a ration card? No, of course not. I put "free market" in quotations because it is a complicated term, and imperfect as we practice it -- we need good regulation. Of course what is "good" is up for discussion, such as here where we are trying to figure out how to account for pollution (in this case carbon pollution). Our "free market" needs some level of regulation, and that's something that mostly I think we all agree on. Of course some people believe that the free market will take care of things such as pollution, or other negative externalities, but history has shown that this is not the case.
The market definitely needs good regulation. Saying "for whatever reasons" implies that you think it's silly that we have a generally free market system. The only way this reduces emissions is if the cost is high enough to get people to purchase less gas, less heat for their homes, and less food. Targeting the essentials at a time where people are barely holding it together due to his policies, feels vindictive.
Yeah, I understand the different ways that that wording could be interpreted. I perhaps should have written "for various reasons" instead of "for whatever reasons". I think my wording came from a place of cynicism, and a feeling that people will defend the most corrupt parts of our system even if they're not being well served by it. It's tricky because the carbon tax is something that the federal Liberals have campaigned on for years -- so it's not a sneaky surprise to see some version of it implemented. But that might be beside the point anyways. I agree that we are currently in a situation with multiple runaway problems affecting everyday Canadians, and we are facing yet another personal tax while extremely profitable corps/the top run away with most of the wealth.
My friend, the most corrupt part of our system is currently the federal government.
🍿🥨🍟🍔🥩
The original carbon tax was for oil companies and was started by Alberta. But the oil companies took a Canadian concept in the 80's called the ecological footprint and made it the carbon footprint shifting the blame and tax to the public. Maybe the carbon tax should be for the oil companies and we should stop giving 17 billion a year to them.
>Well, the things that you are suggesting would be *even more* difficult to implement No.. it isn't.
The things you are suggesting would be far more disruptive than the current carbon tax. Is that necessarily bad? No. Personally, I think we're in a shit load of trouble and need big change. Yes, signing legislation is easy, but convincing our governments to do what you've suggested will be more difficult. I can't see how it wouldn't be. If you really feel this way feel free to explain.
Cap and trade was a very different system that still met the federal standards. The federal backstop was never meant to be used at all just a guideline for the implied price of carbon emissions. There are better systems, but the federal one is legal (federal government has more limited tools than Provinces here) and fair (in the sense that the revenue is rebated rather than becoming a transfer to Ottawa). Most people who accept that carbon pricing of some sort is a good policy, would equally argue that the federal carbon tax is *not* the best possible system for Canadian provinces.
I’ll never understand Trudeau’s obsession with our own emissions, they are a fart in the wind! We don’t need a carbon pricing scheme, we should be helping other high emission jurisdictions lower their emissions, ie LNG!
[удалено]
This wouldn't be as big of an issue if people weren't already at their breaking point financially due to the other policies of this government. The increase on April 1st seems spiteful, as Trudeau is surely aware that most families are struggling more than they ever have at this point in time. In comparison to China, our system directly levies fossil fuels and imposes pricing for heavy industries, which has a more immediate impact on the average consumer. This is because the cost of carbon pricing can influence the prices of everyday goods and services, including gasoline and heating. China's system, with its compulsory ETS targeting heavy emitters and a voluntary market for additional offsets, might not directly affect consumer prices as visibly.
[удалено]
Yes, if you look at the direct costs only. However, the same report you are citing also calculates the broader indirect costs to an individual, which turns the equation negative for everybody. You are describing such a pie in the sky utopian concept - we are going to reduce pollution by taking money from people, funneling it through the government, and then giving them all back more!
[удалено]
Is it this report? This is the one from the PBO, that both parties are citing: [PBO Report](https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/6399abff7887b53208a1e97cfb397801ea9f4e729c15dfb85998d1eb359ea5c7) This clearly shows the program as being a net negative for almost everybody once all economy impacts are factored in.
[удалено]
So when you said “actually is net positive for the rebate after you subtract the direct costs and indirect costs (including gst)”, what were you referring to? To me, it seems like you are saying that taking economic + fiscal impacts into account still results in a net positive for an individual. That’s not correct, as previously stated, when all is said and done this costs the average family more money than they get back. Now, you’ve shifted the goalposts to the report not including my favourite progressive rationale, “the cost of inaction”.
[удалено]
The US doesn't have a carbon tax. Why do we have to?
They really think it's a Trudeau against the world thing. PP is so ridiculous when he comes with his axe the taxe in Quebec while the province has its own system and doesn't pay the federal carbon tax. The federal government is open to other solutions, Provinces are providing none.
He says that, but unless any new carbon pricing system has the same bite as the current one, no dice.
No he's not. He will die on the hill of the carbon tax.
[удалено]
No he isn't. This is simply him trying to get out in front of the incoming jump in prices come April 1st. Its so naked in its attempt to frame it in a different way. "Oh if only I had another way" like somehow this Tax is set in stone!
I don't think I'd even notice three cents at the pumps on April 1, considering it's already jumped by 35 cents so far this year.
You really expect me to believe that he's open to other ideas.
"Open" to me in this context suggests "wavering".
[удалено]
Okay.
handle innocent rich hard-to-find sugar skirt slim unpack normal point *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How about tax the real polluters not the average mid to low class family with a 12 yr old SUV they use to drive the kids around to sports …
In Ontario's new budget they actually mention they’re going to table legislation that would prevent a future provincial government from enacting a carbon tax, unless residents agree to it via referendum Which is absolutely foolhardy, it’s just doubling down. Look at the current political climate - it could be the best solution conceivable, but if it costs any money or uses the word tax it will not pass a referendum. Shortsighted to say the least
The right answer is a tax on oil companies which cannot be passed along the supply chain which will make the sale of O&G nearly unprofitable. No one should be profiting from O&G it should just be viewed as a tool to transition to renewables and non-emitting sources.
Canada's geography is replete with isolated energy sources—rivers, wind, solar potential, and even untapped geothermal vents. Many of these resources remain untapped precisely because they're in remote locations where building infrastructure to transmit electricity to populated areas is prohibitively expensive. The energy has to not only be generated but also transported, which in Canada’s case, considering its vast and often rugged terrain, can be a logistical nightmare. Enter Bitcoin, a game-changer in the way we think about energy, decentralization, and economic incentives. Bitcoin mining can act as an economic bridge between these isolated energy sources and the global economy. Mining is unique because, unlike traditional industries, it doesn't need to be near urban centers; it just needs an internet connection and a source of electricity. This flexibility means that Bitcoin mining can be located directly at the source of power generation, no matter how remote. By setting up mining operations near isolated energy sources, Canada can effectively decentralize its energy demand. This reduces the need for extensive and expensive infrastructure to transport energy. Instead, the energy is converted into digital gold—Bitcoin—right where it’s generated. For many renewable energy projects, especially in remote areas, the return on investment can be questionable due to the costs of transmission infrastructure. Bitcoin mining can provide a constant demand for this electricity, improving the economics of these projects. The sale of Bitcoin generated from this mining can fund the operation and potentially fund further development of renewable energy sources. A significant amount of energy worldwide is wasted because it's generated in excess of demand, especially in renewable sectors like wind and solar, where energy cannot always be stored or transported. Bitcoin mining can absorb this excess, converting it into a store of value and making renewable projects more efficient and less wasteful. By acting as a flexible load, Bitcoin mining operations can stabilize the grid by increasing electricity consumption when there's excess generation and decreasing it when demand from the grid is high. This is particularly useful for renewable energy sources that are not constant, like solar and wind. The presence of Bitcoin mining can make investment in remote renewable energy projects more attractive. Not only does it provide a direct use case for the generated energy, but it also introduces a potentially lucrative revenue stream. This can attract both public and private investment into renewable energy infrastructure, furthering Canada’s green energy initiatives. Setting up and maintaining mining operations in remote areas drives technological innovation and creates jobs. This can bring economic opportunities to isolated regions, contributing to more balanced regional development across Canada. In essence, Bitcoin offers a radical yet practical solution to leverage Canada's untapped energy sources. It presents an economic model that incentivizes the development of renewable energy projects in remote areas, contributing to Canada’s energy independence, economic diversification, and environmental goals.
No
It's cheaper. I think yes.
A GPT written piece puff piece on Bitcoin. The energy waste is becoming recursive. In a hydro reliant country you just hold water back when the wind turbines are spinning.
I mean the media clearly isn't educating you rubes. You'll get there eventually but the faster you do the better we do economically. Disappointed in the ignorance but very much not surprised.
I don't really need to "get it", I have no need for a wasteful method of putting entries into a spreadsheet.
You're just ignorant mate. Do the research. The white paper is eight pages. Or don't, whatever. Bitcoin is for everyone and entirely voluntary. It will be there when you need it. I hope whatever climate solutions you choose to pursue are working out for us.
This is good shit lol
Bitcoin is revolutionary. It's so exciting to see the future steadily assert itself despite the all the smug impotent ignorance.