95
Canada’s ruling Liberals sweep special elections in boost to Mark Carney | Canada (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/world@quokk.au
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.")

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent