you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 1 month ago (29 children)

This is tragic. He’s such a regressive character in the face of what the world needs today.

Though for a country that is breaking so many treaties with First Nations, while denying institutional racism, I should probably keep my expectations low.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    What the world needs has nothing to do with whatever leader is in charge of Canada. And against the backdrop of that existential problem, people rightly chose what stability they have available. Now is not the time to enable Convervative parliamentary games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    You have a low opinion of Canadians and humanity if you thing this is the only option for stability.

    He has done nothing spectacular, in that I think it’s only common sense to stand up to USA in this way and seek partners elsewhere, etc.

    Surely you can have this without rolling back environmental laws and all the other neoliberal silliness that comes with him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago

    You can't have that level of change with a byelection. With the current elections there were only two possible outcomes: Liberal majority or Liberal minority.

    And my opinion of humanity is extremely low. There's absolutely nothing in history that shows people will ever do the ideal thing. The best you can do is try to work around our self destructive tendencies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    What the world needs has nothing to do with whatever leader is in charge of Canada.

    Except the world includes Canada. Carney is essentially furnishing the oppressive apparatus that a Poilievre or similar government will run wild with while wasting precious time to solve the fundamental problems propelling far-right politics (particularly thinking of the housing crisis here). For now the Conservatives seem to be held off by the rally around the flag effect, but that won't last forever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    The housing crisis was decades in the making and will take decades to solve. Something like 60% of voters are property owners, so no party is ever going to purposely crash prices.

    From people I've spoken to, a lot of what's driving Conservative support (especially amongst younger people) is simply the length of time that the Liberals have held power. For anyone under 30, the Liberals have been in office for their entire adult lives. Every difficulty in their lives is coloured by the fact that the Liberals were in charge, whether or not it was something the federal government could control.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    The housing crisis was decades in the making and will take decades to solve.

    Uh... no? At least, there's no reason to think so, and places that actually tried have seen more immediate success than that. And in any case, those decades of work need to start happening now and they're not.

    so no party is ever going to purposely crash prices.

    Then there's no escaping the far-right. By definition you can either have affordable housing or high prices, and the lack of the former translates directly into free votes for the far-right ("kick the immigrants out so we can have houses" being the obvious pipeline).

    For anyone under 30, the Liberals have been in office for their entire adult lives. Every difficulty in their lives is coloured by the fact that the Liberals were in charge, whether or not it was something the federal government could control.

    Given the vast power of the modern administrative state, the lack of a serious attempt to solve problems says more about the person doing the solving than the problems being solved. The point being: A good majority of the difficulties in their lives ought to be coloured by the fact that the Liberals were in charge, because clearly they weren't and aren't doing a terrific job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    A good majority of the difficulties in their lives ought to be coloured by the fact that the Liberals were in charge, because clearly they weren't and aren't doing a terrific job.

    And here we have a perfect demonstration of that problem. Tell me, which level of government in Canada is responsible for property, zoning, infrastructure, and housing in general?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    I mean, provincial government as a rule, but that doesn't mean the federal government can't do anything about it. If the Liberals couldn't have solved people's problems then they shouldn't have promised they would.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Exactly. It's a provincial problem. The things that the federal government can do are indirect and slow moving.

    Also, if you are going to post links as if they are proof of what you are saying, the website of their political opponents is beyond useless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The things that the federal government can do are indirect and slow moving.

    Or they can just build houses. Housing is ultimately the purview of the provinces, but the federal government can still do a lot of non-direct and slow moving stuff. Besides, it's not like provincial Liberals are doing a much better job.

    Also, if you are going to post links as if they are proof of what you are saying, the website of their political opponents is beyond useless.

    Feel free to tell me which of the claimed promises weren't actually promised by the Liberals. The one about affordable housing did happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    He has done more to accelerate Canada's green transition in under a year than Trudeau did in a decade.

    Yes, there is a new pipeline. But there's also a gigantic investment in carbon capture attached to it.

    The resources needed for the green transition? We're working on getting them. Someone to spearhead and articulate a resistance to hegemonic bullying? We on that. Starting a massive new rail line, opening/accelerating huge wind farms, serious electrification and opening the market to more EV'S? We got all that coming.

    The reality is we live in a pluralistic society. There's going to be things I dislike and conversely, things Conservatives dislike. Demanding a leader in a polarized times only bows to my side and none other is just silliness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    But there’s also a gigantic investment in carbon capture attached to it.

    Maybe that bullshit flies at Queens polisci.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    you're right comrade. Let's get comrade polivierre into power, he will surely help the planet and the first nations people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Carbon capture isn't economical yet which is why it had to be forced as part of the deal. However, silly Billy, it does capture carbon, our ostensible climate goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Again. Bullshit. Pure political theatre, no different than Clean Coal. Liberal Arts major love the idea of carbon capture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the difference between technically viable and commercially viable.

    You are welcome to share a reputable source that says carbon capture does not prevent carbon from entering the system...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    LoL, that's a typical liberal response. Someone mentions human rights breaches and the response is "but look at these things that they've done for the environment!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I take it your clothes and the cobalt in your phone are also completely ethical?

    Or, like Carney, are you maybe also caught in a complex, less moral than we'd prefer system?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    What is this, the good place?

    Unlike Carney (and as much as I try to be an ethical consumer), I'm not signing off or actively pushing for those policies.

    And to add - purposefully asking federal courts to strike down environment protections isn't "hard choices", it's actively making the choice

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-federal-court-lawsuit-motion-to-strike-9.7324601

    Carney government asks court to strike down climate litigation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    Just like Carney, you have reasonable limits on your commitments. You would likely be broke and unhappy if you tried to be a purely ethical person. Similarly, Canada also has realistic constraints.

    You might also actually read the article to which you linked? Unless you feel that no government can update another's goals, it's a pretty silly lawsuit. (Imagine Harper had passed legislation saying that government policy could never again consider carbon emissions, would all future governments be bound by that too? If not, what's the difference other than you liking one and not the other?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    You would likely be broke and unhappy if you tried to be a purely ethical person.

    No, not really because it costs nothing to not purchase a product that you deem unethical.

    I think you've incredibly misunderstood the article - citizens are taking the government to court for not abiding by their climate targets by actively eliminating key measures.

    Since the plan was first launched in 2022, the Liberal government has eliminated key measures needed for Canada to achieve the 2030 target. 

    Unless you feel that no government can update another's goals

    I mean, Trump's doing that too if that's what you're defending.

    All I've seen is the same liberal strawman argument. Again, someone mentions human rights, you bring up an individual's consumer ethics (as if that's not dictated by government policy either), and then another strawman defense of a government flipping the book on their environmental agreements (like Trump does, but it's ok because it's Mark).

    Some people and their cognitive dissonance is just as blinding as Maga

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    No, not really because it costs nothing to not purchase a product that you deem unethical.

    Oh, so your phone is completely ethical?

    citizens are taking the government to court for not abiding by their climate targets by actively eliminating key measures.

    Yes. So, are governments should be legally bound by their predecessors' commitments? (Despite the act in question explicitly stating "the Minister may amend an emissions target … or an emissions reduction plan.")

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Strawmans and logical fallacies are not the same as government policy. This is like that meme "you criticize society yet you partake in society", it's not the gotcha you think it is.

    The government is saying that the courts don't have jurisdiction because of an amendment clause in the act.

    11 The Minister may amend an emissions target set under section 7 or an emissions reduction plan in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of this Act.

    This is the purpose:

    The purpose of this Act is to require the setting of national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions based on the best scientific information available and to promote transparency, accountability and immediate and ambitious action in relation to achieving those targets, in support of achieving net-zero emissions in Canada by 2050 and Canada’s international commitments in respect of mitigating climate change.

    https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-19.3/fulltext.html#h-1305641

    So if they are slashing their targets and quotas, that's in contradiction to the purpose of the Act, and the clause definitely doesn't fit. But, again, your bias is blinding you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    This is like that meme “you criticize society yet you partake in society”, it’s not the gotcha you think it is.

    Ahhhh, I see! You're completely misunderstanding the point of the comparison. I will spell it out more clearly:

    Just as you are constrained by systems and realities which prevent you from being as ethical as you would like, so too is the Canadian government. The original climate change plan was written before trump 2.0 and a global trade war, multiple energy crises, the serious global resurgence of Right wing populism, historic and sustained inflation as well as almost every nation on Earth moving back existing climate change goals.

    Despite all that, the current government's stated goal is:

    The Government of Canada is committed to fighting climate change and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

    Which, you might recognise from the part of the act you quoted:

    in support of achieving net-zero emissions in Canada by 2050

    I also enjoy how you started by dismissing me for noting all the environment stuff that Carney has done but are simultaneously outraged that Carney might not be hitting the lofty,more optimistic goals despite having made more progress towards net zero than Trudeau. The cognitive dissonance is hilarious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Point of comparison is a false equivalence (a logical fallacy). There is no comparison between an individual citizen and a government, especially when it's the governments policies that also effect the citizens availability of choices.

    That's not the definition of cognitive dissonance.

    We can bring up the carbon capture - which is a future project that is already facing disagreement and less likelihood of implementation due to push back from big oil (they want to maximize profits, CCS costs a lot to do) and the project has been pushed to 2040.

    That's a single project, not a policy.

    On the policy side, Carney has gone the opposite direction, like:

    • Cutting funding to Environment and Climate Change Canada

    • Passed the Building Canada Act (which is great! But we've only seen subsidies for developers so far) which exempts major projects from environmental laws

    • Ended the Greener Homes loan program, which provided homeowners with up to $40,000 in zero-interest financing for green renovations (small gains but better than subsidizing already rich developers)

    • Scrapped the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, which would have required all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emissions by 2035

    • Cutting $5 billion for the Canada Public Transit Fund (CPTF) (which is weird because he just earmarked 4.7 billion for VIA Rail to get new trains, but that money basically goes to Canadian companies rather than municipalities where citizens would benefit more from and cut emissions).

    • Weakened the Pest Control Products Act in direct opposition to Health Canada's labelling and requirements (which means that your foods will now have pesticides which Health Canada deems unsafe).

    If you want a caveat, I think Carney does great for "invest in Canada". But the whole world is experiencing climate change (very much including Canada). And he's scrapping every environmental protection that put Canada at the forefront of environmental protection globally (including our own health).

  • source
  • parent