• brophy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    That’s. That’s the whole point. Things costing their true value.

    Business exist to make money (even non profits need to make enough money from either sales or donations to cover operating costs). If something costs them more, it’s going to cost their customers more. This way negative externalities aren’t swept away to become an unmanageable problem in the future. The true cost of consumption is reflected in the price we pay.

    What you’re describing as a bad thing is really the system working for good, as it was intended.

    • evranch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Unfortunately they are correct as the carbon tax in Canada is indeed a racket. It’s only on consumer consumption.

      • oil exports, our largest source of emissions, are exempt
      • agriculture and forestry, the next largest, also exempt
      • shipping and rail, oh look, exempt
      • heavy industry can buy phoney carbon credits for $5/ton instead of paying the $65/ton tax. Some of these are for forests that have already burned down
      • oh yeah the greatest emission source last year, dwarfing all others, 80% of our total emissions came from the massive forest fires for which our policy is just to LET THEM BURN

      So the only people who carry the burden of the Canadian carbon tax are the ordinary taxpayers. But hey, the optics are good! Looks very progressive. Despite the fact that Canadian consumer consumption is the definition of a drop in the bucket that is global emissions.

      If Canada wanted to make a difference they would nationalize the grid, build nuclear and renewables. Or forget it all for now and just put out the damn fires!

      Edit: I forgot one more, as imports are not taxed, the carbon tax actually encourages the import of goods made with coal power in China, over goods made with hydropower in Canada!

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Do you have a source of your wildfires cause 80% of our carbon emissions?

        Only thing I could find was about 25% which is much different then the number you showed.

        • evranch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I believe it was a CBC article last fall that mentioned it, talking about the massive rise in acres burned from previous years. But I can’t directly give you a link at this time unfortunately, am on mobile and can’t find it either.

            • evranch
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Not made up, but estimated. Rather than find the exact article, here are the numbers after all was said and done:

              https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions/sources-sinks-executive-summary-2023.html

              In 2021, Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 670 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (couldn’t find 2023 quickly on mobile but it will be close)

              https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-canada-produced-23-global-wildfire-carbon-emissions-2023

              The wildfires that Canada experienced during 2023 have generated the highest carbon emissions in record for this country by a wide margin. According to GFASv1.2 data, the wildfires that started to take place in early May emitted almost 480 megatonnes of carbon

              470 / 670 = 72%

              To be fair this is not 72% of total emissions including wildfire smoke, but wildfires emitted 72% as much as the Canadian economy did.

              So yes, it’s not 80% of total emissions - but it’s still a massive amount. Putting out these fires would have had nearly the same effect as shutting down our entire country and letting them burn.

              Or you could say letting them burn nearly doubled our emissions, and in the hand-wavey world of emissions accounting you would be pretty close.

                • evranch
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Man it’s been like 6 months since I read it, give me a break lol. “80% of Canada’s emissions” is correct, it can just be read either way, and I remembered it the wrong way (as % of combined, not % of emissions)