You believe in markets but you want to tax one industry more because it's more efficient and better than the industry you happen to like? Are arguing that green energy hasn't over taken fossil fuels yet because not enough money is being invested in green energy? Ultimately the less barrels of oil we pump out of the ground the worse off humans beings are. This is pretty basic stuff.

SC Run ???

It wasn't a pivot it was a point that if the government feels morality requires them to act on climate change no matter how much money it generates than they should be consistent morally on other industries.

Well, in the same sense that you are better off if you drink seawater if you are dying of thirst. Meaning, it'll feel marginally better for a short while, and then you die quicker as your kidneys actively kill you.

Presumably the best option is to avoid a position where it is even a choice, which to move away from the analogy means you make sure dependency on fossil fuels is lessened and that you work to replace them with other options.

History is filled with ruins of civilizations which made the wrong ecological choices. It's arrogant to think that we are immune to this.

Cool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism bro

Ok let's see where we can bounce to next. Start at climate change. Then go to political donations when running to a security council seat. I vote for jumping next to enchanted leprechauns.

Nope. An industry that doesn't accurately account for costs such in a tragedy of the commons isn't "efficient" or "better".

Yeah Yaeh I know about Whataboutism. What is SC abbreviated for

Let me ask you this. What do you think led me to go from someone who was excited to vote for Justin Trudeau the first time to were I am now?

I wrote "running for a security council seat" right in there for you in my reply.

But yes, by all means, pivot back to why you hate Justin Trudeau. That's going to really alleviate my criticism of you that you just.can't.help taking any and every topic and quickly pivoting to extremely unrelated whataboutisms attacking trudeau.

Climate change is just a boogieman to rationalize tax increases and expanding government power. But if the Liberals really wanted to do something, they could scale back on their cushy taxpayer funded junkets overseas and stop jetting around the country; take the Greyhound instead. Did you know when Chrystia Freeland flies to Montreal, she has her limo driven there and back, just so it can chauffeur her around town while she is there? I mean, god forbid the lady take a cab right?

OK I missed that running for a security council seat.

No my question is honest. You always seem to go an attack on a person either implying they are racist, trans phobic or anti vaxers, climate change deniers. When I debate or discuss things I always try and see how they came to their thought process.

That is why I asked that question. From the way you discuss things I see the Green Party or the NDP would better represent your value on the importance of climate change.

Yet you can never come to an understanding of why I hate Justin Trudeau? Its not like there is not a long list of valid reasons for it. Also hate is a strong word. I do not hate him personally just his actions

Ok, then be honest. I haven't attacked you for being any of those things. Why do you think I have?



Yes, I think the green party is better on climate change. It's their raison d'etre. I've previously voted for them, because of climate change. The NDP is a little less clear. For instance, the Ontario government starting with McGuinty had a best-in-class feed in tarrif program that really moved the needle on solar power contributions to the power grid. The NDP was vehemently opposed, and wanted things like lowering power bills because they were worried more about the pocket books of the lower classes. Ok, that's a fine position, but I thought the liberal position was better in that case. Similarly, I think the liberal position of a carbon tax is a bit economically better than a cap-and-trade position supported by the NDP. But sure, both care far more about this than the conservatives and definitely than the laughable wexiters.

This entire thread could be relabelled as lozen's personal diatribe against Justin Trudeau. Do we really need to discuss, even more, the "long list of valid reasons" why you hate or ..err...hate the actions....or whatever....of him? We get it. Not EVERYTHING needs to be a pivot back to this.

So your solution is to increase taxes on campanies and give that money to someone/government to invent a brand new technology that has zero negative effects on anything but is still able to supply with world with ~85% of it's energy? Sounds logical.

Sure. You are phrasing it pretty poorly, but yes the goal is tax industries whose pollution causes negative externalities not reflected in their price, and incentives for those that don't. A simple example of this is a small fee on internal combustion engine vehicles and a small subsidy on hybrid and electric ones.

More excellent work from Justin Trudeau, turning his laudable words about anti-racism into actual actions with dollar figures.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...medium=twitter

But isn't it racist to take money from non blacks and give to blacks? I mean, surely if we taxed people of colour to fund programs for whites only, that would be racist right?

Do we not also have https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/csbfp-pfpec.nsf/eng/home

Is this department being systemically racist to black businesses? Lets be honest this is to buy votes and really does nothing to combat racism which lets be clear does exist but not or near any level of what occurs in the USA

Your posts just reek of privilege. Most people cant afford an increase in energy costs or buy a brand new EV vehicle.

You realize there are over 6000 fossil fuel derivatives that basically make up everything we use. An EV car is pretty much entirely made up of them, what charges the batteries in an EV? How are the minerals mined for the batteries? Do they get charged a carbon tax?

A lot of Canadians are legitimately struggling. High cost of living and confiscatory tax rates leave too many people struggling just to get by. And yet leftist are always advocating for more government spending and higher costs to consumers. It just doesn't make sense.

No.
Yes.

Can you identify any differences between your two question that might be relevant here?

Probably it is. There is a large amount of research on how ostensibly "colour-blind" institutions end up having significant racial divisions. I don't know anything specific about csbfp, but it is quite easy to imagine how it might magnify existing divisions, for instance marginalized groups might find it harder to meet eligibility criteria and so forth. The null hypothesis is "yes" not "no" here.

Anything any politician does can be written off as trying to buy votes, so it's a rather useless thing to say, especially when it trudeau has very clearly shown that he is far more atuned to equity issues than any previous PM and cares about them quite genuinely. But regardless, the bolded is silly. The program gives money to black businesses. That is a benefit. It helps. It doesn't need to magically cure racism completely to be lauded.

Indeed, you highlight very well the importance of the income from carbon taxes should be distributes very progressively, with the majority of the benefits going to lower and middle classes. Indeed, the BC carbon tax does a somewhat decent job of this and is a model I broadly support. Subsidies on new EV vehicles are a good idea, and I like the idea of that primarily funded from taxes on new gas cars, the point being to equalize for exactly what you suggest. A nice attempt though...

Ah yes, you appear to have gotten yourself quite confused. Nobody is suggesting reverting to exactly zero fossil fuels over night you silly billy!! If you are unclear what could and could not be included in a carbon tax, there are a lot of existing jurisdictions where you can get a sense for he types of things included. This is not a trivial issue, but not a particularly complicated one either.

It is racist to take money from non blacks and give it to blacks. Government policy that benefits one ethnic group and punishes other is racist policy. I get that you think it is okay when it is your favoured ethnic group getting the money, but every advocate of racist government policy thinks that.

You must be right. Let's abolish the racist Canada Small Business Financing Program.

You should have tried to answer my question, you'd have looked less silly.

The difference between a program that disproportionately advantages blacks and one that disproportionately advantages whites is obvious: whites have a dominant advantage in society compared to blacks. That is, if these policies existed in a vacuum I might agree with you, but they don't exist in a vacuum. Because of the power asymmetry, the way we interpret systemic racism is similarly asymmetric.

Your framing of "take money from non-blacks" is also wrong for this program, and just about any I can imagine. The money comes from taxations where everyone contributes.

I of course didn't suggest anything of the sort. Acknowledging the existing of systemic racism in our institutions isn't remotely the same as calling to abolish them. Conflating these just makes you look silly.

Why would leftish been only the cause of this....
You think dropping tax with less social services will help the poor even more ?
Poor and lower middle class struggle from lack of income, not because they pay high taxes...