Wow than Trump must be a true climate activist as he reduced emissions and coal fired power plants were reduced under his administration .

Im voting for a person that cares about Canada and CDN jobs .

Can you answer the question? You agreed Canada has a moral responsibility to do it's part, can you state - if not a carbon tax - which of the main three primary mechanisms (or a fourth I didn't mention?) you think the government should pursue?

I think perhaps the confusion in your flawed comparison with trump is the different between absolute and relative changes. The electrical coal industry is going down in both countries. Trump actively fought against this spending money and promising to stop coal plant closures. He failed in that, they still closed. Conversely, Trudeau would like Albertan coal to end faster than it is, but has limited jurisdictional powers to make it happen. So in both cases you can't just look at the absolute change because that involves market and government factors. You are the one bringing up coal as a way to try and make it a mark against Trudeau, but it is just objectively the case that the party you are supporting is worse on this metric. By a lot. Poilievre hasn't promised to EVER close the american passthrough you complain about so much - doesn't that bother you?

https://youtube.com/shorts/86Z-kt1itm0?feature=share

this is even more hilarious than Washington.

You claim the carbon tax is "neutral" because of rebates. This paper talks about how much it could cost and companies passing these costs on to customers.

Do you think Canada has a moral responsibility to provide its citizens and the world cheap, plentiful and reliable energy?

Sure, that sounds great. But unfortunately burning fossil fuels also has that unaccounted for climate change factor that you can't just not leave out.

That's a pretty bad summary of the paper you didn't read, but sure. The carbon tax is indeed 90% revenue netural, which means that 90% of the revenues the government acquires are returned to Canadians via rebates. That doesn't dismiss that carbon intensive industries might try to pass on additional costs to consumers, that's part of the mechanism that makes high carbon intensive industries cost more and be disincentized. Instead, consumers will shift to spending the extra money from the rebates on lower carbon intensive industries that don't have those higher costs to pass on. This is what makes it work. It's a feature, not a bug. The specific paper you didn't read was talking about credit of high carbon intensive industries and how they may face for instance higher interest rates given their exposure to the carbon tax which is....again....how it is supposed to work. The carbon tax is a market based mechanism to distribute those additional costs through market forces and a paper that goes into specific details of that isn't upending the basic structure.

Did you notice how the author of the paper SUPPORTS the carbon tax?

for canadian sure why not.
for the rest of the world ?
absolutely not lol.
you are a socialist now ?

The climate change alarmist and/or people that want to end fossil fuels always leave out that climate related deaths are at an all time low and that 3.3 Billion people in the world use less energy than your refrigerator. Why is it more moral to lower emissions than supply those unfortunate people with cheap, reliable, plentiful energy?

Lol, is this one of those funny stats where like as human civilization and technology has progressed over the last century or whatever we are vastly better at dealing with disasters than before....uh....ergo....climate change won't be a problem?

Oh lmao, the same twitter dude you are citing about savanah fires the other day was just tweeting about this. So now we know where you got that one from. Good follow, shifty.

Yet we export some of the dirtiest energy coal and we don't even produce it .

Nice to see another minister lying in saying he had no clue Paul Bernado was being transferred.
This government never knows what's going on or fails to read emails

I doubt anyone in the world living in a snowy area with less then a refrigerator.

There is zero evidence he was lying about not knowing. Whether a criminal is in maximum security or medium security has absolutely nothing to do his his portfolio. This SHOULD be totally non-partisan and up to correctional services. I know poilievre has a rather tenuous grasp on jurisdictional issues, but they are important and just because he wants to manufacture a controversy over this doens't mean you have to rush to the forum to agree with it.

By now you should realize and accept that he most certainly needs to rush to the forum to post it and agree with it. That is what passive full time alt right consumers of content do. That is their function, and to their credit they tend tend to know their role and behave accordingly as they are instructed. I just hope Trudeau wears a tan suit to cause some real turmoil to that reporting cycle!

I'm surprised you commented on this as the ladies on the view rarely talk about Canada . It so unlike you to have an actual opinion

and so many more...

Dude, this is weird stuff even for you. Just saying. I mean if posting misogynistic attitudes about as you OK, Boomer style put it "the ladies" from a show you must watch (as literally you are the only one on this forum that watches and talks about it) then I suppose keep going. Much like most of the posters on this dusty forum, I have never seen the show, and I doubt it merits your bizarre vitriol, as is it even pretending to be a news show like how you pretend your derpy opinion piece source material are news articles?

Anyway, you have work to do obsessively consuming alt right opinions and then posting it here as "news." Get back to it and try to be more entertaining. Watch some of Whoopi's comedy if that helps since she is apparently in your mind quite a bit.

All the best.

It's not a "funny stat" at all. There is direct correlation between fossil fuel use and lower climate related deaths. We have better infrastructure, technology and are better at dealing with disasters because of fossil fuel use.

Is that an argument? You brought up the moral question. Morally it's obviously better to embrace cheap, plentiful and reliable energy than worrying about emission targets.

No, not an argument, just pretty funny how quickly I was able to figure out the exact source you were cribbing from. I’ll uh go and debate your dude on Twitter if all you are going to do regurgitate his stuff uncredited here.

Not that it matters at all. But I can almost guarantee that you don't know the exact source.

Ya, you got nothing. Probably best to not bring up moral arguments with your point of view.

Uke should love this

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bria...evre-1.6448422

I really doubt it uke would love it .
Just probably acknowledging it as finally a conservative speak normally .

Mulroney just know what’s important in politics and what kind of discourse its needed to win a majority .

What Mulroney speak of is just common sense .
Nothing to fall in love with ….

I'm no fan of Mulroney, but it is a sign of the times that the current leaders of conservatives are far more interested in these ridiculous political games than the substantive policy issues - right or wrong - that Trudeau has focused on in his tenure. Some conservatives recognize this.

And Mulroney is not wrong that the NAFTA renegotiations were a massive risk to Canada and one of the more uncelebrated things Trudeau did was manage to carefully navigate those water and come out largely unscathed.

This was such a tragedy again after the Humboldt tragedy . It looks like from all reports the driver of the bus was in the wrong . I am not sure how injured he/she was but looking at prison time as well you would think

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...0f6c93d5&ei=36