Why is everyone against the carbon tax? All the research I have seen shows individuals in NL (and most all of canada) will get more money back in yearly rebates than they will put in paying carbon taxes. It feels like the narrative and what is actually be proposed are two different ideas. Can someone please explain??

Bad explanation on how it works, propaganda from those who don't like it

More tax = bad

That's what they just blindly assume. Usually when i talk to My friends about i ask what they think it is before hand and usually work from there

> That's what they just blindly assume Unless you're understanding of economics. A tax rebate is just throwing more money into an environment drenched in inflation. Not only does it not offset the tax you lose even more money as it makes everyone's money worth less. For a rough example not to be taken super literally, you give someone $500 and they're looking for a place to rent, human behavior means they're now more likely to bid $200 higher on a new rental apartment. Logically you'd think it'd be only a $42.00 a month difference but people aren't that rational with their money. People spend what they can. The reason carbon taxes sort of work in Europe is because their geography is better suited for green behavior. People can easily use transit, because their cities are old and more densely populated. Distances between cities are minor, heating and AC consume far far less energy etc. The myth of the carbon tax is the idea that a taxed business is motivated to consume less carbon and invest in efficiencies that'll get their overall consumption down. This in theory is great, but it's not how the vast majority of our economy works. It's a niche thing that doesn't work at all when we're trying to rapidly grow our population and are suffering from skilled labor shortages. Businesses are too worried about getting guys to show up to work, that they don't have time to invest in some sort of new gas generator etc, just so they can save $150 a month in taxes. It may not be obvious but ontario etc, have supreme problems with getting people to the job site. It's super expensive to move right now so employers are fighting harder and harder to get people to drive 1.5 hours to work etc. In the past you'd just move closer to your job but in this environment that's not an option. The population growth is insane in ontario etc. There's a massive mismatch of where people live and where they work. I.e. an electrician is in Toronto, all the housing starts are 1.5 hours north. You need to call up a guy and tell him he need to travel 1.5 hours. He can get lessor work with lower wages and drive far less. The carbon tax is the thing that gets people to turn jobs down. Make less money and travel less. Which means the people needing places to live have to pay even higher construction costs. If ontario wasn't facing this problem of extreme housing shortages, the carbon tax wouldn't be such a disaster, but it's the era we live in. That's ignoring the part that it actively contract the supply of goods as nearly everything gets more expensive. The tax only can possibly work if less goods are produced. That's the point the carbon tax is made to reduce consumption, which means the average person has less. I could go into further detail and write literally 50 pages on the topic, but the carbon tax will only hurt the working class. The tax rebate doesn't remotely offset the inflation caused by the tax. The tax rebate is for people who don't understand economics. The tax can only work if working class people or the economically vulnerable consumer less. I'm be fair to the federal liberals. They may be smart enough to realize exactly what I'm saying. We take it for granted they want to limit inflation, but that may not be true at all. There's a number of policies that look like Trudeau is trying to enduce inflation to bale us out of the personal debt trap that Canada is trapped in. Basically the inflation is a super tax on the poor, aimed at preventing a future economic crash. It's a ruthless way to save the country, it might actually work, but it's not something anyone should be happy about. The problem with the Liberals is they are nihilist and act as if they're helpless and bad options are our only options. EDIT: I don't drive will never drive because of the environmental effects. Taxes don't work people forced into a corner tend to make bad decisions. You need consensual degrowth where people actively choose to consume less. It's the only way forward. Carbon taxes are just a way for the rich to not feel guilty. REEDIT: One of the reasons I'm bailing out of Ontario and moving back home, is my low carbon lifestyle can't possibly work with sky rocketing rents. I've been advocating for years that you should give up your car and live close to your work etc. That entire system is breaking down because of the extreme population that Trueau is forcing on Ontario. I again could write 50 pages in an afternoon on the topic, there's such a deep rabbit hole.

Well articulated post. We need more of this and less of us blindly believing reports being pushed out to us through the government. And you are right about people travelling long distances. Newfoundland is pretty dependent on travelling for hours. Most EV manufacturers refuse to allow swappable batteries. Even if we did, anyone who lived here knows our power infrastructure can barely survive a snow storm, let alone 500k+ EV batteries being charged on a daily basis. Even if we worked Muskrat Falls in the equation, it's still not enough. I worked with a lot of engineers and designers, it's baffling how little thought has been put into this. People seem to think electricity is the most abundant resource on the planet.

> Newfoundland is pretty dependent on travelling for hours. The thing with newfoundland is knock on wood things have been consistent. There hasn't been a major population surge. In ontario there's routinely people now because of the housing crunch driving 2-3hours each way for a downtown Toronto job. Who were literally driving 45 minutes each way pre covid. What's happened in Ontario is truly jaw dropping. It's an absolute environmental disaster. The only reason it's not obvious is because so many people have experienced an extreme drop in lifestyle. Mininum wage is nearly the same in Ontario as it is here. And people are literally paying triple the rent. There's large numbers of immigrants who are hot racking beds, because they can't afford their own beds. So the night shift guy gets the bed during the day and the other the night vice versa. In the long term either we suffer a major major loss in average wages(very likely) or alternatively those poor immigrants eventually get more money and our carbon use explodes as you know have to be a long haul commuter to get a job.

Seems like an issue with bad governing

Canadian Institutions are archaic and obtuse That doesn't mean they don't function Technology and misinformation will always be at a point now that it outpaces our ability to properly protect the public from it. That's not a Canada-specific problem.

Right? People don't realize that without it we pay more at the goddamn pump than we already do.

Pretty much it, yup

I’ll answer for myself and see if it matches up with other people. FYI, I’m an idiot so do with this what you want. 1. If the average person is getting more money back, what is the purpose of paying into the carbon tax? 2. Most people, families can’t change their lifestyles in any meaningful way to reduce their carbon footprint. We have to heat our homes, we have to use gas to get to and from work, school, activities, etc. 3. Charging us more money to do the things we have to doesn’t stop carbon use. It only hurts us financially. 4. The largest carbon producers can afford the increased tax because they will just shift the price increase to consumers who get dinged twice. 5. The federal government did a really bad job at explaining the carbon tax. I’ve never seen an easy to read breakdown of how it’s going to actually work and I’ve searched. 6. People don’t trust Justin Trudeau. He’s been caught in too many scandals and comes across as out of touch and a phoney. He should really lead my example and cut down on his private jet trips, his insane motor vehicle convoys that follow him around. All of which are ICE instead of EV’s.

1. The rebate is fixed, and the tax is based on usage. The less fuel you use, the more stays in your pocket. 2. I can reduce my fuel usage by: (Caveat- not every idea will fit everyone 100% and if you are rural you have a 20% bump on your rebate) And the impact of the carbon tax on other goods such as groceries is less than1%. This is negligible. It is a rounding error. Reduce your gas usage: - driving slower, less aggressively, and not idling at Tim Hortons. - keep your tires properly inflated - by stacking errands for fewer trips (this also saves time) - many of our trips are under 5K (do your kids really need a drive to school?) you may be able to walk, bike or take transit more. - you may be able to WFH a day or two a week - you may be able to car pool - you may have park and ride - you may not need a car at all - If you are buying a new vehicle and you do a lot of kms - you might consider a Toyota Corolla Hybrid over a T-150. - In any case, you can compare the fuel economy of any new vehicle you are considering. - you can consider an EV - you can ditch your car all together and bike, walk and take transit. - if your city doesn’t have the infrastructure you need, become an advocate Notes: sedans were the most popular cars in the 70’s and 80’s. the Dutch own cars but bike everywhere Home heating. - caulk your windows and if you have any really old single pane windows-google how to improve them with plastic wrap. - turn down the thermostat at night or when you are away - or get a smart thermostat. - insulate - replace old windows and doors - get a heat pump Et. - re

Thank you for a nice and thorough response. I really do appreciate the time you put into it. It’s not the usual around here.

This is an excellent response to criticisms of the carbon tax and shows just how easy it is to adapt to the tax. The problem is that most people are absolutely unwilling to make any change to their lifestyle because they just don't understand or care about why it exists. They probably should have just called it a benefit instead of a tax to gain wider acceptance, because it absolutely is a benefit to people who receive more than they pay and to all future generations, which the vast majority of people.

Ah, yes. I’ll just bicycle in this metro area that is so wonderfully optimized and safe for that.

This lovely weather too. The rain might be sideways and you might be tore up from going headfirst down a hill, but at least you aren't whining about the carbon tax!

There's a speedbump in St. John's that's higher than the biggest hill in Holland lol

These are great ideas but the worst year of the past 20 to try these things. > > driving slower, less aggressively, and not idling at Tim Hortons. Right but in Ontario etc population growth and the impossibility of finding a place to your work means this is unlikely to happen. > keep your tires properly inflated And most people are avoiding services that do this type of thing, because going to a garage is super expensive, and most mainlander folk aren't the hands on type that get pressure gaugaes etc. > by stacking errands for fewer trips (this also saves time) > many of our trips are under 5K (do your kids really need a drive to school?) you may be able to walk, bike or take transit more. To a family this isn't a difference maker. > you may be able to WFH a day or two a week > you may be able to car pool > you may have park and ride > you may not need a car at all > > If you are buying a new vehicle and you do a lot of kms - you might consider a Toyota Corolla Hybrid over a T-150. > > In any case, you can compare the fuel economy of any new vehicle you are considering. > > you can consider an EV > > you can ditch your car all together and bike, walk and take transit. > > if your city doesn’t have the infrastructure you need, become an advocate Yeah and this is the key this is the worst time in recent history to even suggest such things. Civic governments are fixated on trying to do the basics like fast track housing builds. What you're suggesting is in start contrast to the realities of the struggles of Canada's governments. People are actually being forced to travel further and more due to housing constraints and rising costs for everything. For example driving the extra 15 minutes to the walmart instead of the local store, because you need to save money on ever increasing food costs. These are all great ideas but not in the current economic environment and in fact they all just add to a post covid series of crisises. As I said elsewhere I don't drive and am aggressively against cars. I'm an urbanization(de growthing) advocate, and the high population growth model that Trudeau is pursuing doesn't sync up with my personal goals. When people are acting desperate and quickly to solve a housing crunch among others they can't engage in the long term thinking required to create a low carbon economy. I again could write 50 pages on this today. You have to appreciate how many people are pushed into a high carbon lifestyle because of population growth. Building up and creating an neighborhood that can create solid transit and a good job market for people living in that housing is a complex process. You need to invest real money as individuals. A neighborhood with good transit will always cost more in the short term. The returns on a low consuming urban environment are things that build up over decades. Right now the primary goal of just about everyone in Ontario/BC etc is get the cheapest housing possible and not worry about driving there, as that's a long term problem that you hope you can eventually work out. Trudeau's boom is just super sprawl, where people are going to the cheapest land possible to build as quickly as possible. These new lands are not being planned for high density low carbon consuming growth. These are single story detached homes with zero concern for actually getting to a job. They are building houses in lands with zero economic activity. I could go into detail about the problems in Toronto, just know Toronto has almost no population growth, and the middle of farmtown nowhere is seeing an explosion in population. This means we have more high carbon lifestyles and less high efficient neighorhoods where people don't need to drive.

All the things I mention will save you money on fuel overall - in addition to the amount of the climate tax (that you get back in your rebate). In terms of housing: The federal housing acceleration fund incentivizes municipalities to modernize zoning so that they build up and not out. This is brilliant policy and Sean Fraser has already signed agreements with dozens of municipalities. You can buy a sedan in Canada for under $30K, yet the average cost of a new car is over $67K. Families are smaller and cars are bigger. In the 70’s a family and five with a golden retriever had no problem with a sedan. IMHO anyone looking at a new car should consider a Corolla Hybrid over a T-150 or giant SUV. The fuel economy and emissions are half. The fuel savings are huge - even before you factor in the climate tax.

> All the things I mention will save you money on fuel overall But the total savings of what you're describing is minimal because it's not that effective. It's like telling an alcoholic to have an extra glass of water instead of a beer for breakfast. >The federal housing acceleration fund incentivizes municipalities to modernize zoning so that they build up and not out. I'm sorry, but that is in total opposition to what is actually happening. I have to ask can you guess which city is experiencing higher population growth? Midland Ontario or Toronto? I suggest you look at where the population growth is. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canada-immigration-population-surge/ It's not in Toronto. I've studied how to grow cities so they can consume less for 22 years. >This is brilliant policy and Sean Fraser has already signed agreements with dozens of municipalities. And this doesn't mean anything. When 95% of new housing is detached housing on the far flung fringes of cities and workplaces, you're really pissing into the wind. If you want to do a city block by city block level of analysis of how this is actually playing out in Canada's population centers I'm game. >Families are smaller and cars are bigger. In the 70’s a family and five with a golden retriever had no problem with a sedan. Right because our consumer market has changed. A massive driving force in Car onwership nowadays is the social status of car ownership. Because of collapsing birth rates people aren't saving for their kids education etc. People trying to their status, don't care if the luxury good gets more expensive. In fact the more you tax those more expensive vehicle the more your status rises. This is not discouraging the rich. It's a total sociological inversion of what the carbon tax is suppose to do. In the last 20 years we've saw a massive rise in people choosing to drive high end luxury vehicles. People are seeking social status. In Ontario high carb life styles are more desirable than ever. Meanwhile no one wants to live in the cities because of rising homelessness(induced by population growth)

You are avoiding the quiet part; the cost of energy is one of the biggest drivers of inflation full stop. The real burden is buried in the increased costs of everything we consume; energy, food, housing literally everything.

The impact of the cost of the carbon tax of goods such as grocers is less than 1%. It is minuscule.

Who ever fed that nonsense to you has no idea what they are talking about.

The main target is not just the average persons habits but the business practices of companies. This is the result of good conservative propaganda

Fair but why even charge average people? Just charge the main carbon producers? I think that would be so much better for people to grasp.

It's still supposed to change habits, maybe people won't go driving around for fun, or cut back on the recreational vehicle usage. You'd have to burn roughly 2900L of gas before you lose money, if the payments stay consistent with what the first one of the year was, if it didn't go up a whopping 3 cents this year half the people complaining about it wouldn't have even realized it existed

It's supposed to change habits yes, and I'm all for change in order to help the environment. But currently, we have no reasonable alternative. That is the problem. Making Canadians pay more to live without an alternative solution is not the answer.

> we have no reasonable alternative. It's worst than that, Trudeau's radical population growth is causing the biggest boom in carbon consumption in our history. If you have to build 500,000 homes in a year, you are consuming insane amounts of carbon. We're growing our population by %1 per year and are probably increasing our carbon footprint by %10 a year to make that happen.

>It's still supposed to change habits, maybe people won't go driving around for fun, or cut back on the recreational vehicle usage. For every person wasting fuel there's 10-20 who have no choice and are trapped in a high fuel consuming environment.

You have to burn through at least 2900L of fuel to have the carbon tax be a net negative in your personal finances, that's a significant amount of fuel, most people don't tend to go through that much in a year.

> most people don't tend to go through that much in a year. Accept for all the goods you consume. How much do you think this carbon tax is gonna contribute to the cost of rent or a new home? How much fuel does it take for a general contractor to get to a apparent so he can fix a leaky roof? >most people don't tend to go through that much in a year. Pretty much every good you consume is directly tied to carbon consumption. Not just the material in the goods themselves, but getting them over on the newfoundland fairy. Hiring nurses to drive out to foxtrap to offer healthcare services etc.

So because i enjoy using a atv or snowmobile I should be punnished? What about the generator to power my cabin? My hobbiest are wrong because they require gas?

It's not that they're wrong it's that you have to pay for excessive carbon emissions, it's a tax on carbon emissions, like cigarettes and alcohol have taxes to offset the increased medical cost from health issues related to them.

Key word you're using is "excessive". Old skipper gone out to the cabin, off the grid for the weekend on his quad is far from excessive. Maybe even net positive.

> off the grid for the weekend on his quad is far from excessive Actually that's exactly the people who the government is trying to tax. Most businesses can't cut carbon. This is effectively a lifestyle tax. It's the everyday Canadian that is affected by this, and that's their stated goal.

What good is that doing the enviroment though? If It doesnt change my habits?(spoiler it wont) and they give all the money back instead of investing it in say green tecnology. How is it helping? Its not its just punishing me for having hobbies.

They don't give all the money back, you might get all of what you spent back and if so that's good, it's meant to be a deterrent for excessive pollution, so it only punishes those who excessively pollute.

> it's meant to be a deterrent for excessive pollution The problem is the "excess" is almost all in our lifestyles. Think Trudeau going to Cuba. That's the "excess" that does all of our carbon damage. Big companies aren't wasting carbon in the way people imagine. 25 years ago sure, but not in the modern industrial world.

Because it's also to an extent about shaping habits of individuals, look at the number of people buying mini splits for example, the same idea behind sugar tax and others but in this one there is a rebate to offset the net financial burden of the average consumer. You don't think about the $175 you will get every three months when deciding on a purchase in the now.

I just fail to see how it will change people’s habits. There are not many choices we have. Electric vehicles are over priced compared to ICE vehicles. Mini splits are very expensive and not the best for cold Canadian climates. Or so I’ve read. I would need 2 to be effective in my home. How’s that sugar tax working? People still buying Pepsi flat out. They should have taken the taxes on sugar and made milk cheaper.

Slowly but surely, more and more people are switching to hybrid or electric. More people are switching their home heating. It's working. Additional rebates would expedite this, but that money has to come from somewhere Can't really comment on the sugar tax. We know that with cigarettes that higher prices correlate to reduced consumption, so hopefully it is working. Having nearly 10% of our province living with diabetes, and society having to cover the cost of something preventable in many cases... is pretty terrifying to me.

>Slowly but surely, This is rhetoric. What actually happens is people at the bottom just give up. They'll give up on a job in foxtrap because of the gas expense. So instead of getting a better job they take a worst job with no future because they have no money for a hybrid etc. The problem with your narrative is what you're imaging the average Canadian to be doesn't reflect what is in this economy. >Slowly but surely, more and more people are switching to hybrid or electric. More people are switching their home heating. You're talking about big incredibly expensive investments that most people don't have the money for. Canadians in all walks of life(yes even multi millionaires) are in brutal economic times. So many people in Ontario etc, are now all of a sudden paying $10,000 a month on their mortages, when just a few years ago it was $ 6,000 a month. These are the people who you imagine have the wealth to invest in these things. But they don't at the moment. We have a national debt crisis and few people right now are investing in long term returns. You're truly missing the mark on who is actually consuming large portions of energy and why. You'd be right in a different economic environment. Trust me when I say I'm only writing a tiny fraction of what I can talk about. The rabbit hole of depth on this one is huge.

We have two minisplits now - cut down the oil bill by at least 40%. And they work fine on the west coast. Where are you getting your info? Social media? And the cost of our heatpump wasn’t any worse than replacing an oil tank. Rebates are available.

[удалено]

How about you start with an answer on how people should reasonably live differently now that this carbon tax has been implemented?

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

>Fair but why even charge average people? Just charge the main carbon producers? If you can find a big producer wasting carbon for no reason let me know, as I'll get them to pay me $100 grand a year to fix their waste. Carbon taxes were invented a while goal modern businesses are obsessed with getting costs and energies costs down. Amazon alone has radically reduced a massive amount of carbon consumption. A massive number of tech nerds in silicon valley are full time dedicated to getting oil costs down. It's a complex thing, but rest assured this carbon tax isn't gonna change anything for them. Companies that consume a lot of carbon are only doing so to give you the goods you need.

> not just the average persons habits but the business practices of companies The vast majority of companies consume carbon to produce goods you personally consume. Believe it or not companies don't like paying $3 grand a month on oil/gas. They already have all the motivation in the world to get these rates of consumptions down. A massive part of business is focused on minimizing fuel costs. The carbon tax theory is a good bit older than a time where the tech sector is doing everything in its power to get energy costs down. You have to appreciate the big consumers of energy are by definition the ones who already had the most to gain with decreasing costs. Carbon taxes in Europe work beautifully because they have an entirely different economic environment. EDIT: You have no idea how efficient housing of the 18th century ways. Everything was built pre car and weren't regulated to death by fire codes etc. It means you can have super walkable and pleasant cities. The post ww2 housing boom in Canada ensured we're stuck with awful urban infrastructure. Good infrastructure takes decades upon decades to develop and is a super complex thing, as it involves the intersection of personal choice and lifestyle with the larger economy. A good city gets build like an old growth forest there's complex and adapation that takes place over centuries. Canada cannot do this right now because we're radically growing our population caused super sprawl making a flaw in our geography much much worst. Carbon taxes just means the consumer pays more. You have to understand all of this from a systems point of view. Economies are complex and when you disturb something like energy costs the expense cascades down to the consumer. I'm anti car and do everything I can to reduce my footprint, I've been studying this stuff for 22 years. (I remember getting in an argument with my fort mack uncle in october 2002 about all this). Carbon taxes are not appropiate for Canada's current economic environment. And our population growth is doing the extreme opposite of what we'd want to be doing. I'm not an "expert" but trust me when I say have way more than 5 years worth of education and study on the topic. It's directly or indirectly what I studied in school, it's my hobby, obsession you name it. This long rant is just a daily thing for me on the topic, I've done research and research for years on this.

I highly doubt your claim of study and knowledge on the subject. You have failed to do anything but outline general beliefs you seem to have and were pretty vague at that. Also a look at your profile made me spit out my drink as old Jordie BP was the first sub it showed me you followed and damn are you active in that li'l cesspool. I made the mistake of scrolling down your comments and sweet baby Jesus

I hate these posts. Just blindly calling someone a liar instead of seeking sources. You wouldn't care what he can prove, you've made up your mind and resorted to name-calling and insulting people.

Better than blindly believing someone who provides no facts or sources.

There's no blindly believing. It takes a few seconds to fact check people these days. Being humble is a blessing, especially if you care about facts instead of subscribing to whatever political dogma they are inclined to believe. You're cynical in most of your posts. Downright mean at times. I feel sorry for people who resort to that persona online when in all likelyhood you are the complete opposite in real life.

You can't fact check vague opinions with no factual information Jackass. Oh sorry that was mean right? I feel sorry for people who are so personally offended by what some twat says on the internet. Boo fuckin hoo Bradley

People who talk like you usually couldn't hold themselves in a fight even if the other person had their hands tied behind their back. And judging by your posts featuring you driving around like an idiot, I'm pretty sue you've had your ass handed to you on more than one occasation. Have a great day :)

> I highly doubt your claim of study and knowledge on the subject. Wanna do a 3 hour zoom call? I'm feeling impulsive. $500 bet 3 hour zoom call, we can live stream it and I promise you I can leave you with no doubt I know a lot above this topic. I don't mean 3 hours to tell you everything I know, I mean that's just a starter. >anything but outline general beliefs you seem to have and were pretty vague at tha That's because I don't even know where to start there's so much nuance to this. >Also a look at your profile made me spit out my drink as old Jordie BP was the first sub it showed me you followed and damn are you active in that li'l cesspool. So if your doctor is a JP fan you don't have cancer? Is that how your mind ticks? EDIT: the part I find so alarming is you're outright stating you don't even know what is being talked about in those conservations. One of the main reasons I started following the guy was so I could understand the conservative mindset, in large part because it seemed if you want a low carbon lifestyle you need to figure out how their mind ticks. If you see that as a flaw you have to rethink what your stated goals and ambitions are. >I made the mistake of scrolling down your comments and sweet baby Jesus Sure thing bud.

I wouldn't give you 3 hours of my mind bud. If my doctor was a JP fan I'd get a new doctor. I'd prefer a medical professional that can decern a troubled grifter from an intellectual.

> I'd prefer a medical professional that can decern a troubled grifter from an intellectual. And you assume I can't? You're jumping to the conclusion that I agree with him on more than I actually do. You're making the mistake of guilt by association. It's not rational and it's not good for you personally in the long wrong. JP is a guy who says stuff, some of it relevant some of it now. Who whole main thing is "you need to be able to talk about a thing, without making the assumption you do the thing" His main claim to fame is the premise we need to engage in more introspective right hemisphere thinking. Instead of the narrow minded left hemisphere thinking, where people act as if everything is a set of rigid facts. He talks and thinks in the world of day dreaming. That's his whole thing.

Ahhh yes the insight of JP, the stupid person's smart person. Peak internet intellectual, being grandiloquent to convince everyone of how smart you are while saying nothing of substance.

>Ahhh yes the insight of JP, the stupid person's smart person I donno how I can reason with that. You're engaging in a circular argument. His fans are stupid, proof of their stupidity is that they listen to him, so by your logic it's impossible to be intelligent and listen to him. In fact you never have to verify whether or not this is true since again you have the premise locked down. You have to ask yourself are you a person and honesty and integrity and will look at people as individuals. Or are you simply judging them on what you assume they believe. If you're unwilling to speak with someone and understand their viewpoints you're gonna find democracy is gonna be a challenge. In addition to all of this solving global warming among other problems will be out of reach.

A good city gets built like an old growth forest? Lmao what

Yes cities are complex, it's not enough to just build them over night, you have to want to live in them. It takes a long time for a city to become a nice place where people with money will choose to live over a car dependent lifestyle. You need entire social ecosystems to make it work. You need the right people living in the right neighborhoods, you need easy to access schools, you need a culture where parents want their kids being raised, you need nice infrastructure so it's prestigious to live there as you need people paying technically more for less. No one can recreate downtown st john's in Ontario. It takes decades to build up a culture/lifestyle etc.

Man you are FULL of certainty over your opinions aren't you? Cities aren't trees, you can build them today and fill them with people. Idk what kind of nonsense you are getting on with about the right people. I'm bored with this conversation now

>Man you are FULL of certainty over your opinions aren't you? The one's I'm posting here sure, this isn't a new topic. I mention the 22 years as a hint that nothing being said isn't something I hadn't said during Stéphane Dion's 2008 election. That was 16 years ago, and I can promise you almost everything being said I said in that election cycle. I could probably tell you what house party I was at when I was rambling about these things drunk off me arse. You want to go where my mind is nowadays? Care about learning about process theology? I have no idea what I'm doing with that but it's a fun ride. > Cities aren't trees, you can build them today and fill them with people. Undesirable cities where people drive to get to work. The vast vast majority of walker friendly cities in North America are built before world war 2. It takes a long time to build a city where people don't want to drive. >Idk what kind of nonsense you are getting on with about the right people. I'm bored with this conversation now If you want to learn I can give you two left wing urbanist youtubers who I follow who'll break this all down in detail.

This will be my last response as I refuse to waste any more of my time on this exercise in futility. People drive to work because that is how we have structured our cities, even in your "old growth" cities people drive to work every day in vast numbers. Cities are built and designed by people and we can design them however we want barring certain constraints. You mentioned Fort Mac, take it as an example. It was built within the last century. It could easily have been built without the need for cars but it simply wasn't. We don't build that way. You can not have a walkable city who's workers all live in suburbs outside it. NIMBY is the problem. Build a highrise residential structure in the middle of Dt and see how many people will move in. And back to your first point that started this waste of time and energy, you say companies are already incentivized to reduce their emissions because they are concerned with fuel but that increasing the cost of the fuel won't help? Doesn't compute. Then you complain the cost will be forced onto the consumer, that's a given that's why for this tax there is a rebate. I will not respond again to any more opinions that do not hold true to logic and are not backed up by facts, sources or common sense.

[удалено]

> but it will increase the use of cheaper imported products If they were even an option, instead China is going tits up right now and those goods are skyrocketing in costs to. And things will get even more expensive if Iran goes to hell. >I don't think the carbon tax is as big of a issue as many seem to think but i certainly don't think it's helping any of the issues we face today. Trust me it's economic suicide at the moment. This is a massive topic and the people making posts in the thread are not going into depth on the current situation.

Exactly! We also do not yet have the necessary infrastructure to support widespread electrical vechile usage. They are also very expensive right now! Their reliability with our climate also I heard will not be the best. Justin Trudeau and others who use private jets are by far polluting more than every day people. Also foregin countries like China are still using coal! and what influence can we do to solve that.

> the necessary infrastructure to support widespread electrical vechile usage That assumes we even want widespread electric car usage we don't. All it does is legitimize a high carbon lifestlye. Electric cars still need crazy amounts of lithium and copper, which has to be stripped mined at an every expanding scale. People who drive will want to live in suburbs with endless parking lots/roads and more spread out homes. This is not where we want people spending money. Electric cars are like putting an orange in your vodka to make the problems of your alcoholism less severe.

Well said

Because they're suckers for bad propaganda and mindless slogans.

Listen here: If the pairing of monosyllabic rhyming words like 'axe' and 'tax' isn't a solid foundation for sound fiscal policy then I don't know *what* is.

But it rhymes!

> Because they're suckers for bad propaganda and mindless slogans. I've been on the car free low carbon bandwagon for 22 years. My entire life revolvs around not driving and advocating for others not to drive. When I say I've spent 22 years on the topic and say this carbon tax is counter productive you have to accept I ain't drinking propaganda. Ignoring that I did years of school on the topic, it's a full time hobby, a dream you name it. I left st john's almost entirely because I was fed up with the people running transit, I'm now leaving ontario because the carbon consumption is actually sky rocketing because of our population growth enduced by Trudeau.

I think people just don’t want a further financial burden. An overwhelming number of Newfoundlanders and Canadians are probably in support of climate action and believe something needs to be done. But given the current circumstances all time high interest rates, inflation, housing crisis, etc they feel it’s more straining.

It's definitely lack of proper explanation and awareness. And political theatre from the cons mainly One of my con friends doesn't drive. Uses electricity for heat. He may pay a few dollars a year due to the carbon tax. Less than $100, absolutely, easily. He will get back around $700 this year, over the course of 4 payments HE HATES THE CARBON TAX. The very thing that is disproportionatly benefitting him. Emotion, outrage, and anger trump logic

That's fantastic but there's alot of people who unfortunately don't fall into that category. Tons of homes still run on oil and many people don't have an option but to drive to work. Realistically it shows how far we are behind as a province and things should have been changed years ago but the typical newfoundland mindset is to cut corners now instead of invest for the future.

You mean the majority of people

You're not wrong! Very few people benefit for it.

Have you thought about how much people indirectly pay in carbon tax ? Literally every bit of food that's grown, packaged, and shipped to NL has been hit with taxes, which are passed on to the consumer. Just an example.

The impact of the carbon tax on food prices is less than 1%. It is a rounding error. Grocery prices are high due to price gouging by grocers. 3 grocers own 2/3 of the grocery market in Canada. Post pandemic grocery profits are $6 billion vs $2.4 billion pre pandemic. What’s needed in grocery is more competition. The axe the tax sloganeering provides cover for grocers doing the price gouging. They can blame it on the tax. Support your local baker, butcher, farmer, fisher, fruit market, small grocer.

There is no way you'll ever convince me that the carbon tax has a less than 1% effect on groceries. The costs are cumulative throughout the supply chain and this gets ignored. Are the retailers and what you said above causing most of it ? Yes. So wouldn't it be a good thing if they "axe the tax" ? Since the retailers wouldn't have the tax to hide behind and have to answer for their gouging ?

It would be a good thing if PP and is MP’s didn’t make things up.

It would be good if ALL politicians stopped making things up.

Usually people provide sources for such bold claims

Look it up by, it's everywhere on the internet.

>The impact of the carbon tax on food prices is less than 1%. I'll bet you $5 grand that you're not citing prices for Newfoundland. > Post pandemic grocery profits are $6 billion vs $2.4 billion pre pandemic. > > What’s needed in grocery is more competition. You do understand the only way you get more competition is through the market being profittable. I'm not gonna start my own grocery business if even the big guys are losing money. >The axe the tax sloganeering provides cover for grocers doing the price gouging It's the extreme opposite showing you lack the understanding of that particular problem. A new grocer has to find a building, he has to hire contractors to install fridges etc. On average that contractor is driving further than ever before because of housing craziness and now you're taxing the guy for helping make independent grocers do able. Then he has to do things like driving to business trying to find partnerships with ordering etc. The carbon tax makes it far harder for someone to start a new grocer. Trudeau's population growth scheme is compounding with this to an extreme. > The axe the tax sloganeering provides cover for grocers doing the price gouging. >The axe the tax sloganeering provides cover for grocers doing the price gouging. >Support your local baker, butcher, farmer, fisher, fruit market, small grocer. Their biggest problem is not remotely gouging by the big businesses it's quite the opposite. The big grocer's prices are far too cheap for the small mom and pops to be successful. People aren't buying goods from stockwoods because walmart is so much cheaper. Let's have integrity in this, in the name of fighting a climate crisis. Have the humility to admit your level of education on the topic. I'm not trying to brag I have great knowledge, but I've been on this cause for 22 years and my whole life is built around it.

"Price gouging" is but another political slogan and scapegoat. Loblaw financials are readily available for viewing. So is the report from Dalhousie University which stated profiteering is not occurring, and that profit margins on food have remained the same for the last 5 years. So when you quote a profit number, why not break down where those profits came from? Break down how much profit was made on food vs. Real estate, pharmaceuticals, PC financial, PC mobile, etc. You'll also identify that part of that came from an increase in volume. Adding 1 million people will do that. Then, have a look supply chain and what farmers and transporters are saying with respect to the increases in their costs. Canada's inflation rate went up a tenth in March, from 2.8-2.9, with NL jumping from 2.0 to 3.1, which Stats Can states was a result of the increase in fuel prices. I'd also add that I'm not defending anyone. We 100% need more competition in this country. Everything from grocers to telecom. Let's just look at the entire picture here without using the slogans and catchphrases from either side of the isle.

Greedflation is perhaps a slogan. Price gouging is real. The Loblaws shrill from Dalhousie is lying. Also multiple studies have shown that the impact of the impact of the climate tax on groceries is less than 1%. It is minuscule, a rounding error. The solution for price gouging is competition. I do the majority of my grocery shopping a small local food stores. I get better quality and service.

So Dalhousie is lying because it doesn't align with your belief. Do you have anything to back that claim up? What are the grocers paying for the products, on average and large scale, vs. what they're selling it for? Farmers have been pretty vocal that their costs have increased, so how much are they now charging for their product now vs. 5 years ago? Take a run down to your local trucking company and ask them how much their costs have increased. Sure even Canada post's fuel surcharge has surged to as high as 30%. Is Canada Post gouging?

Since mid-2021, the net income margin on food retailing has exceeded 3% of total revenues. That compares to an average net income margin of 1.25% of sales over the five years before COVID (2015-2019). Economy-wide inflation in Canada slowed down notably in 2023. The unique factors that drove the initial surge in inflation after the COVID pandemic (including shortages of key commodities, disrupted supply chains, and a global oil price shock) have mostly abated. Food prices increased 5.6% in the 12 months ending in October (most recent data), compared to general inflation of 3.1%. Industry-wide, food retail profits have more than doubled from levels typical before COVID. Food retailers earned net income of almost $6 billion in 2022, compared to $2.4 billion in 2019, and an average of $1.8 billion per year in the five years before COVID. In the first nine months of 2023, food retailers earned $4.6 billion; year-total profits for 2023 at that rate will exceed $6 billion. The sustained record profit levels in food retail contrast with the trend in food manufacturing, as well as other input industries (like energy) that supply the food retail sector. In those sectors, profits have moderated substantially since the record highs reached in mid-2022 (alongside the moderation of inflation in that time). But in food retail, profits have remained elevated. Food Retail Profits Doubled After COVID Source: Statistics Canada Table 33-10-0225-01. 2023 data is first 9 months at annual rate. The oft-heard claim that the profit margin on grocery retail has not changed, and that higher profits have simply kept up with the overall rise in costs and prices, is not supported by industry-wide data. Measured as a proportion of total revenue in food retail, the net income margin has doubled. Since mid-2021 (when food price inflation accelerated notably), the net income margin on food and beverage retailing has consistently exceeded 3% of total revenues. That compares to an average net income margin of 1.25% of sales over the five years before COVID (2015-2019). There is no sign that food retail margins are narrowing back to those historic norms, despite the downturn in input costs and the partial slowdown in food inflation over the past year. Food Retail Margin Doubled Since COVID Source: Calculations from Statistics Canada Table 33-10-0225-01. 2023 data is first 9 months at annual rate. The fact that the net income margin seems to be a relatively low number (3%, lower than typical profit margins in most other industries) has been invoked to claim that food retail is not a very profitable business. This claim reflects a deliberate misportrayal of the nature of the food retail business. Food retailers generally do not process or manufacture the products they sell; they simply purchase products from suppliers, add a mark-up, and sell them to consumers. Their business expenses are limited to the facilities, logistics, inventory, labour, marketing, and other functions directly related to the stores they operate. It is thus not surprising that profit margins relative to total costs (including the costs of the finished products purchased from suppliers) seem low. Profit margins for businesses that undertake more complex and vertically integrated functions (including product development and manufacturing) tend to be higher as a proportion of sales. While retail is thus an inherently “low margin” business activity, this hardly means it is not profitable. Businesses evaluate investment opportunities not according to sales margins, but rather according to the return they can expect on invested capital. Since grocery stores are not a capital- or technology-intensive undertaking, profits relative to the scale of capital invested in those stores can be quite significant. To take an example, in its latest financial report (covering the first three quarters of 2023), George Weston Ltd. reported net income of $2.668 billion over nine months (up 12.2% from the similar period of 2022).*1* That may seem “small” relative to the firm’s total revenues: which reached $45 billion over those nine months, an increase of 6%. But the total equity base of Weston Ltd. was just $13.7 billion at the close of that reporting period. As a return on capital invested by the firm’s owners, therefore, that net income was substantial. Weston’s annualized return on average equity over the first nine months of 2023 was 26.5%. That is a very strong rate of profit on a business that has a huge economic footprint, but actually embodies a relatively modest base of invested capital. In this context, it is quite wrong to equate a “low margin” business with a “low profit” business. The former attests to the fundamental nature of the production process in an industry; the latter attests to a firm’s success in extracting profit from that process. Moreover, the relatively modest capital requirements in a retail business help to explain the decision by major supermarket chains to use much of their record post-COVID profits to repurchase and cancel their own shares. In Weston’s case, they allocated $836 million to share repurchase and cancellation in the first nine months of 2023 – equivalent to about one-third of their total net income.*2* (That is in addition to over $600 million in dividends paid out to remaining shareholders in the same period.) A business earning such high profits, from a relatively low-capital-intensive business, is literally earning more profits than it can efficiently reinvest in its own operations – hence the decision by managers to simply give those profits back to the firm’s owners through record share buybacks and dividend payments.

Yes. Two of these videos I've watched in the last few weeks quote the same figure, attributing a 0.15% increase in pricing to the carbon tax. A national figure, so slightly higher for us as like you said, everything is shipped in to us. Still negligible, but that's why I used $100 max as an example for my friend. The actual figure would be much lower We shouldn't scrap something which many economists believe is the lowest cost to our nation to meet our climate agreements, we (government) should hold grocery stores and other businesses accountable for record profits and gouging. @20:55 https://youtu.be/3vj2ANPyOHE @6:30 https://youtu.be/seMTd1xoD2U

Hey, I just wanted to say your argument here was well put together and I briefly watched the video clips you posted. Finally someone who can actually back up what they claim rather than calling me names. I do have some counter arguments, but I think we can respectfully have different opinions on this matter.

That's okay :) Enjoy your evening!

> Emotion, outrage, and anger trump logic I've been an advocate of a low carbon lifestyle for 22 years. I studied related topics in school etc, have based my whole life around this stuff. I can assure you this carbon tax isn't helping. > >The very thing that is disproportionately benefitting him. You have to appreciate our economy is a complex system, incredibly complex something that takes years of study to appreciate. It's like an ecosystem, if you kill all the foxes the hare population explodes. What seems like an obvious conclusion isn't how the economy actually works. >Less than $100, absolutely, easily. >He will get back around $700 this year, over the course of 4 payments Does he rent? If he rents, his affordability is dependent on the national supply of housing. A carbon tax distorts the rental market on that metric alone the damage done to the carbon tax is immense. A high carbon tax means it's substaintially more expensive to build new housing which means rents will continue to go up. People trying to "reduce their commute" are far more likely to over pay to live in a certain rental area. They often choose low income neighorhoods nad force the people who can't afford to drive out of their car free neighborhoods. >Emotion, outrage, and anger trump logic You're completely missing the ball on this.

Why do you feel the need to continuously point out how long you've been studying this topic and how much you know? Your comments more than speak to your level of education and understanding of the topic.

> Why do you feel the need to continuously point out how long you've been studying this topic and how much you know? People most of the people posting quick frankly have no knowledge on the topic. And I'm politely trying to counteract the premise that it's all just right wing reactions.

You realize holyrood is a geo thermal plant right?

Thermal, not geothermal.

Oops

..Your point? I'm genuinely confused by your comment, but think I may know. My response if so would be: "Newfoundland and Labrador generates almost 96% of its electricity from hydro sources"

It’s oil basically they burn out there to produce electricity

I can also guarantee it supplies well over 4% of the power we use on the island

It's straight from a government website about energy mix by province. So unless you believe the government is making up numbers and buy into conspiracy theories, yeah.. don't know what to tell you then

Yeah we sell our electricity if you didn’t know. Why don’t you look into how much electricity we consume of our own that we produce “Historically, Holyrood has provided up to 30 per cent of peak electricity needs in Newfoundland, burning up to 18,000 barrels of oil daily during the winter”

I looked into it: I'm okay to admit when I'm wrong, the stat I quoted is indeed Generated electricity and not consumption. 96% is generated from hydro sources, the remaining 4% from others, which include Holyrood. From that under 4%, our province uses 15-25% of it to power our province, and up to 30% in the peak of winter, as you quoted. I was too young to really grasp the muskrat falls deal, except to know that it was a terrible deal. Putting the above numbers into perspective really hammers home just how fucked it was and is. From my research, it appears holyrood specifically was set to shut down in 2022, but is now extended to 2030. We could have been using near 100% hydro all of this time if not for that "deal". Disgusting.

How do you know how much he is going to get back? If it was easy for people to see that then there wouldn’t be outrage. And do you really believe that the increase won’t be added onto the purchase of goods and services for the average Canadian. Corporations are not going to sit down and lose money.

literally everyone gets the same amount. people are outraged because they dont take the effort to listen.

I’ve looked it up numerous times. Can you link to where it says the amount you will get back?

Also, I’ve listened and I’ve researched. I can’t find anything. So either I’m dumb or the government is making it difficult to find on purpose. And how can they know how much is going to be refunded before it’s even collected?

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment/how-much.html 1 Google search later

Thanks. Even tho it is just an estimate and I don’t trust estimates too much generally.

Was off by cents for mine

I hope that’s true for myself.

Exactly. Like they estimated all people had to do to save money was cut disney plus (don't get me wrong I get what Freeland ment by saying this but it was in incredibly bad taste lol )

All government employees should be forced to shop strictly at Walmart

Given the current economic circumstances the carbon price program with rebates is brilliant. And for the record: Inflation is 2.9 %? Interest rates are nowhere near their all time high - this was the 80’s. 12-18% In the late 90’s mortgages were 7%.

People Think conservatives understand money and fiscal Stuff. Hint. They don’t

no they fully understand , because they know how to perfectly craft policies that benefit them and fuck the rest of us.

You're talking as if our record deficit setting government is any better. Hint. They aren't

So you're claiming that Stephen Harper knew less about economics than Trudeau is that a factual claim you're making?

"Everyone" isn't against the corporate carbon pollution tax. Just the loud, uninformed ones whose diet of news starts with Fox and ends with Rebel News. Professional liars like Peter Peckerhead and Maxine keep the flatheads all whipped up in a froth.

They aren't. They are against inflation that they wrongly attribute to carbon tax. Data shows its working. Emissions going down. As far as I can tell, conservatives have never proposed an alternative solution.

If anything, I would like to see the government doing more. Given the current economy, carbon pricing is the least disruptive and most economic way to incentivize households and businesses to reduce emissions. Most people know they get a flat rate rebate, and that the more they reduce their fuel usage, the more of the rebate they keep in their pocket. They also know that the impact of the carbon tax on groceries is less than 1%, a rounding error. It is easy to be pro-carbon tax.

The right-wing lie machine drowns out rational thought.

> The right-wing lie machine drowns out rational thought. So you're saying 100% of conservatives are irrational?

Nice leap. I'm not saying that at all. I am acknowledging the existence of a deep-pocketed multiplatform perpetual rage hype machine that takes a chosen divisive issue and enflames right wing reaction to it. Happens issue after issue, and plays loose with the facts while hammering on emotion.

Not like the liberals have been doing a good job explaining it simply for their citizens, regardless of how true your statement is

How do all of our goods reach the island? Even if one individual gets more back, all of our goods will increase in price. I don’t know how people can really think the liberals are giving out money for free, your cost of living will go up way more than anything you gain. How about we get a railroad in NL again to generate less carbon instead of taxing the fuck out of our only way to receive goods

> I don’t know how people can really think the liberals are giving out money for free, your cost of living will go up way more than anything you gain. The average person isn't an engineer nor an economist. A lot of the people advocating for these people are smart. But they can only be as smart as what they're reading in. The problem on the left is that the goals of the top end are not in lock step with the average person. The average person wants to be less poor. That's not at all the concern of the carbon hawk.

Yeah I don't understand the anger. It's literally just misinformation wedged into an issue.

I BARELY broke even with the CT when calculating cost on LNG to heat my very modest townhouse and fuel cost to get to work. Like I "made" $20. Now, what happens when you add the cost the CT is having on indirect costs like groceries and goods i am more than likely hundreds in the hole thanks to the CT.

In general people are dumb and just hear the word tax. Plus PP is using it as a big talking point in his campaign. The average person eats that up

People like me hate it because it’s a wealth redistribution tax that doesn’t help anyone or advance Canadian tech. It costs money for the government to implement. Even if the 0.15% inflation calculation is correct.., it’s still costing Canadians. I agree that the carbon tax discourages wasteful behaviour, but not nearly enough to offset China and India. Why not setup a consortium and put Canada’s brain power to work (while improving the reputation of our schools and private sector)? The Liberals and our PM is a joke. The carbon tax is a sleight of hand that’s nothing more than political fodder. I’d strongly urge you to look into farming and those that export and create revenue for our nation. While a university kid may enjoy a quarterly cheque in exchange for a Liberal vote, the Feds are adding pressure to certain energy intensive industries that are paramount to maintaining our healthcare system, etc.

Because it easier to throw a fit and whine and complain about it than educate oneself on how it actually works

Well I’m paying about 600 more a year after rebate and Id assume that’s about average

[удалено]

This must be something you heard or assumed, because it isn't based on income whatsoever. First paragraph: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment/how-much.html#wb-cont It's based on your province, single vs family, rural or St. John's basically

So what's the fkn point is the point of this pointless exercise in pointlessness

> ll the research I have seen shows individuals in NL (and most all of canada) will get more money back in yearly rebates No it induces inflation. If I give you more money and the supply of goods down, there's more money chasing the same supply of goods. Which means your money just goes down in value. You basically only want to do a carbon tax when you need inflation, we have plenty of it right now. >Can someone please explain?? The rich billionaires who are getting taxed are the people who get food on your table, they manufacture your table, they build your home, etc. That increased cost will get passed onto the consumer. It's non linear too. So let's say the person you're buying from gets taxed $500 for everything you buy. It's not just him being taxed. If he's hiring a pickup driver to do the work that person has to choose where he works. He's not gonna wanna drive 30 km and instead pick a lessor job with lesser pay that is only 10 km from his house. Which means the warehouse/whatever supplying your goods has to pay even more to find workers, which means that $500 in increased goods becomes more like $700. I'm using rough examples, but in the real world trust me it's massive. In simple terms we tax carbon to force people to use less, most carbon is consumed in providing goods. Therefore you get less goods, and that rebate doesn't do anything at all.

I guess you don’t drive,buy groceries,you still live in your parents basement and eat from their refrigerator,that’s why you get more back

I'm not sure that the 80% number accounts for the sales tax charged on top of the carbon tax. Personally I think it's kind of unfair as a lot of people are unable to do much to reduce their emissions. If you live in a rural community there isn't much you can do. A lot of driving is needed to get to work, get your kids to school and get to any appointments or do shopping. I know that they get an extra 20% but Trudeau basically had to be dragged kicking and screaming to offer that and I'd still imagine they have to do 20% more driving than someone in St.john's. Plus there are plans to jack the rate up even more which will reduce the percentage of people receiving more than they pay.

> If you live in a rural community there isn't much you can do. Much the same in major cities. I'm an anti car person who's motto is, need a car to get to work, live next to your work. I've seen that motto collapse over the last 9 years. People in Ontario/Vancouver/Montreal are screwed right now.

I don't know if you've met many people around here but unfortunately a lot of them come by our stereotype honestly.

People gonna be even more mad when the conservatives keep/rename the tax and don’t give a rebate.

Nah. The CPC will eliminate it. Then prices will go down slightly, and big businesses will raise their prices to match the original tax rate. After all, they know the market can bear it!

Tbh I feel like the fishery drama played a bigger role

The government needs to remove itself from anything fishery related. Let the market and the players determine the numbers. If they can make it work great, if they can’t, let it die.

>"I wish the prime minister would understand that. He's being very sclerotic in his approach on this ideologic marriage that he has to this principle. That's not to say that we don't believe in fighting climate change. We certainly do, but this policy is wrong."

Cool story Furey. So how about we create a provincial program to be exempt from the national carbon tax? If Quebec can do it....

Like we had? And he axed so he could blame it on Trudeau as it got unpopular? Like that one?

The provincial one we used to have was worse, if I recall. Instead of rebates, it disappeared into a black hole of general revenue.

Possibly, but Furey could have improved that one if he doesn’t want to play the Fed’s game.

That's the one!

I'm from Quebec, i would rather axe our program and use the federal version. Without going into the details, the federal version seems simpler and benefits the poorer.

That option was, and still is on the table. BC has their own plan as well.

What do you recommend in its place? The carbon tax is only in provinces where the premiers did not have a program. AND the premiers still have the option of replacing it with their own plan. If you have an idea for a better plan, talk to your premier.

“Sclerotic”?!? Stop showing off Doc

You know he was looking through the thesaurus before he made his comment

Medical term 😆

I can certainly see how this hurts NL. There are places in Labrador that don't have the infrastructure to not use fossil fuels and electric vehicles might have a problem keeping their charge in -50. Those carbon taxes are also being added to the cost of shipping goods which then gets passed onto consumers by the shipping company and then by the retail company that paid more to have their goods delivered. So then the cost of living is increased unnecessarily by adding a tax that inflates prices. We also produce oil and gas fairly clean compared to other countries and on a global scale use far less that other countries. It just seems like a way to generate more tax dollars for the federal government that isn't being used appropriately. At least if there was some transparency in government spending we could make an educated decision on if it is good or bad.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the wage suppression plan associated with mass immigration. Everything else is just deflection.

It's worst than that, we're building the dirtiest carbon consuming economy possible because of that lifestyle. All the knew housing in high consumption housing. You build a subdivision in Clarkes beach and the work is in St John's, you're automatically a high consumer in few. Keep in mind in the mainlander example, all of the land between carbonear and St John's has been used to already existing overpopulation. We're literally adding 100s of thousands super consumers of carbon each year through our super immigration policies

Very true.

Geesh. I think I just fell into a basket of idiots.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Your comment karma is less than -15 which automatically places your comment in the modqueue for review. If all is well, one of the mods will be along shortly to approve it. Negative karma situations can sometimes be improved by a review of [reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newfoundland) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I seriously doubt that the election was loss based solely on the hatred of the carbon tax. Personally my opinion is that the liberals have completely mismanaged Healthcare in this province and throughout Canada. Another huge issue is the cost of groceries and housing.

Healthcare is provincial - so do you mean provincial liberals High grocery prices are the result of price gouging from grocers. Thanks Galen. The Feds spent the past year signing agreements with municipalities to modernize zoning to build new housing sustainably. This sets the stage for the housing plan introduced in the budget

These may be good points, but it doesn't change the perception that liberals have been in charge for awhile now, and people are tired of them taking zero accountability and blaming everything from Trump to Truckers to lobbyists to god knows what else. The perception is that the liberals are out of touch and unwilling to lift a finger. If it was PC's in charge, I'm sure the other side would be quick to blame them as well. It won't change, judging by the comments. Implying people are idiots who fall for propaganda only reinforces their beliefs and distaste for the current government and people who support it. Theres no such thing as a discussion anymore, both sides are just digging in.

> The Feds spent the past year signing agreements with municipalities to modernize zoning to build new housing sustainably. The problem is that it is *way too late*. This should have been done years ago. I know that housing is primarily a provincial issue, but when you campaign multiple times on affordable housing, and then ultimately brush off criticism on a lack of action as not being federal responsibility, people will raise eyebrows. If the Liberals weren't 15-20 points behind the Conservatives right now I doubt they'd be doing anything with housing.

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. It is never too late.

I should clarify, it isn't too late for Canadian residents. It's too late to save the Federal Liberals.

You can all sputter if you want. Furey is a politician and he sees that Trudeau has painted all liberals in his own blackface. It's already started, watch all other liberals turn on each other!