There is no question that Canada faces a major crisis, one that in my view has been escalating since the Mulroney, Thatcher and Reagan governments repealed laws that placed restrictions on the power on the corporate sector. Laws that were put in place during and immediately after WW 11. Following WW11 and up to the repeal of those laws we suffered no major recessions and since their repeal we have faced two economic meltdowns and the pandemic. The Canadian taxpayer bailed out the corporations in all three of these events. The greatest internal threat facing Canada today, is the present day Conservative Party, which is really the Social Credit, Reform and Alliance Parties under a different name. Kim Campbell a former Progressive Prime Minister is so concerned that she has already indicated that she views federal Leader Pierre Poilievre a liar and a hate - monger, and states she has no intention of voting for the party under his leadership in the next election. We would do well to follow her courageous example. We should also ask ourselves, who are the present day donors to the Conservative Party? What is their motive for doing so? It most certainly not the advancement of democracy. We also need to convince the non - voter, who has become so disillusioned that they think that their vote doesn't count to run - not walk to the polls in the next election. We need to illustrate to them that they are indeed part of the problem. Most would not vote Conservative, and the Conservatives are well aware that they are unlikely to vote. Because that is so, they can cause that party no harm. If nothing else, voting means you did something, not doing so means you did nothing.
Not only Canada but our world economies and our society.
Neoliberalism's goal is to make a society of property owners meaning anything that is a production method or something one lives in, and renters, meaning you and I! Hence the comment that Canada’s housing has become a corporate asset as opposed to individuals in a community.
Every and any public asset or service is on its way to privatization as is happening in Alberta including health care. Then education. Laws have been passed to restrict unionization in Alberta! Why? Because they are the only association sticking up and protecting workers. In BC, the 2 Conservative parties are fighting the the NDP bill to make union formation easier and backed by Big Business.
Reaganomics and Thatcherism are other names for this and most folks under 60 don't know any other system. But again inequality is the goal. Owners, and renters and a society plagued by inequality will lose democracy so yes this report, the Dwelling Report and CBC article and the RCMP observations are correct. If that's what you want, vote Conservatives cause they will continue eroding the role of government in our society. If I was to build a house today I would put a covenant on stating it cannot be purchased by a Real Estate Trust. Only a family. We are so brainwashed to look out for number 1 that we forget about our common good, whether social or economic
extreme attitudes and actions happen when people believe the current political structures offer them no hope. so we have two parties that swap power and are thoroughly in the grip of status quo monied interests. Trudeau had a mandate for proportional representation. it's far better than what we have now, gives more voices a chance , and forces comprise. But no, that simpleton missed his opportunity to put Canada on a better path.
Agree that a perfect storm of major crises is in the offing. Canadians voting against liars and hate-mongers will cushion some of the unpleasantness but my pessimism is deep and abiding, in part perhaps because I am currently reading "Checkpoint Capitalism" (Rebecca Gilpin and Cory Doctorow). The geopolitical and economic organization of the world having become a rapacious self-relicating machine to such an extent that I can see no way out. The Canadian home ownership portion of the equation is insurmountable as the population stats are currently weighted. I personally am an aging, house owning, pension-receiving boomer, the citizen David loves to hate. I would love to get the hell out of his way but he would need to find me an apartment or even a room in a flat. There are no easy nor even obvious solutions to any of the issues, large and small, that Canada and indeed the larger world are experiencing in this awful fraught moment.
Why the impacts of climate change may make us less likely to reduce emissions
Abstract
Non-technical summary
A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope.
Technical summary
There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself.
Social media summary
As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.
I don't have a lot of confidence that the incoming Conservative government will fix these problems. Nor the Liberal one that will come after that. Etc.
Why the impacts of climate change may make us less likely to reduce emissions
Abstract
Non-technical summary
A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope.
Technical summary
There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself.
Social media summary
As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.
These articles appear to reflect reality even during times when Cdns state in other polls that the economy is strong, or headed in the right direction, etc. At the same time, it certainly does seem that our general fear for our future situation is greater than ever. Experiencing inflation for perhaps the first time and living with the poor housing affordability level should undoubtedly have an impact on those worst off or starting their adult journey.
There is no question that Canada faces a major crisis, one that in my view has been escalating since the Mulroney, Thatcher and Reagan governments repealed laws that placed restrictions on the power on the corporate sector. Laws that were put in place during and immediately after WW 11. Following WW11 and up to the repeal of those laws we suffered no major recessions and since their repeal we have faced two economic meltdowns and the pandemic. The Canadian taxpayer bailed out the corporations in all three of these events. The greatest internal threat facing Canada today, is the present day Conservative Party, which is really the Social Credit, Reform and Alliance Parties under a different name. Kim Campbell a former Progressive Prime Minister is so concerned that she has already indicated that she views federal Leader Pierre Poilievre a liar and a hate - monger, and states she has no intention of voting for the party under his leadership in the next election. We would do well to follow her courageous example. We should also ask ourselves, who are the present day donors to the Conservative Party? What is their motive for doing so? It most certainly not the advancement of democracy. We also need to convince the non - voter, who has become so disillusioned that they think that their vote doesn't count to run - not walk to the polls in the next election. We need to illustrate to them that they are indeed part of the problem. Most would not vote Conservative, and the Conservatives are well aware that they are unlikely to vote. Because that is so, they can cause that party no harm. If nothing else, voting means you did something, not doing so means you did nothing.
Not only Canada but our world economies and our society.
Neoliberalism's goal is to make a society of property owners meaning anything that is a production method or something one lives in, and renters, meaning you and I! Hence the comment that Canada’s housing has become a corporate asset as opposed to individuals in a community.
Every and any public asset or service is on its way to privatization as is happening in Alberta including health care. Then education. Laws have been passed to restrict unionization in Alberta! Why? Because they are the only association sticking up and protecting workers. In BC, the 2 Conservative parties are fighting the the NDP bill to make union formation easier and backed by Big Business.
Reaganomics and Thatcherism are other names for this and most folks under 60 don't know any other system. But again inequality is the goal. Owners, and renters and a society plagued by inequality will lose democracy so yes this report, the Dwelling Report and CBC article and the RCMP observations are correct. If that's what you want, vote Conservatives cause they will continue eroding the role of government in our society. If I was to build a house today I would put a covenant on stating it cannot be purchased by a Real Estate Trust. Only a family. We are so brainwashed to look out for number 1 that we forget about our common good, whether social or economic
extreme attitudes and actions happen when people believe the current political structures offer them no hope. so we have two parties that swap power and are thoroughly in the grip of status quo monied interests. Trudeau had a mandate for proportional representation. it's far better than what we have now, gives more voices a chance , and forces comprise. But no, that simpleton missed his opportunity to put Canada on a better path.
Agree that a perfect storm of major crises is in the offing. Canadians voting against liars and hate-mongers will cushion some of the unpleasantness but my pessimism is deep and abiding, in part perhaps because I am currently reading "Checkpoint Capitalism" (Rebecca Gilpin and Cory Doctorow). The geopolitical and economic organization of the world having become a rapacious self-relicating machine to such an extent that I can see no way out. The Canadian home ownership portion of the equation is insurmountable as the population stats are currently weighted. I personally am an aging, house owning, pension-receiving boomer, the citizen David loves to hate. I would love to get the hell out of his way but he would need to find me an apartment or even a room in a flat. There are no easy nor even obvious solutions to any of the issues, large and small, that Canada and indeed the larger world are experiencing in this awful fraught moment.
This recent article covers a lot of the same ground: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/why-the-impacts-of-climate-change-may-make-us-less-likely-to-reduce-emissions/EEB33A2E7ED25E621872DF39122D7A52
Why the impacts of climate change may make us less likely to reduce emissions
Abstract
Non-technical summary
A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope.
Technical summary
There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself.
Social media summary
As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.
I don't have a lot of confidence that the incoming Conservative government will fix these problems. Nor the Liberal one that will come after that. Etc.
You can thank our governments for roughly 99% of what were facing.
This has nothing to do with RCMP ! and nothing we did not already know.
Why should I care about anyone that isn't me?
Source? Link to RCMP report???
This recent article covers a lot of the same ground: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/why-the-impacts-of-climate-change-may-make-us-less-likely-to-reduce-emissions/EEB33A2E7ED25E621872DF39122D7A52
Why the impacts of climate change may make us less likely to reduce emissions
Abstract
Non-technical summary
A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope.
Technical summary
There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself.
Social media summary
As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.
Perceptions are certainly important but I am often struck by how frequently we are presented with the paycheque to paycheque article.
2010 - https://www.ctvnews.ca/most-canadians-living-paycheque-to-paycheque-1.552454
2012- https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/almost-half-of-canadians-still-live-paycheque-to-paycheque-1.944317?cache=yesclipId10406200text%2Fhtml%3Bcharset%3Dutf-80404%2F7.258454
2014- https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/more-canadians-say-they-re-living-paycheque-to-paycheque-1.2761708
2016 - https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/nearly-half-of-working-canadians-live-paycheque-to-paycheque-poll-1.3061363
2018 - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-wealth/article-why-the-rich-too-are-living-paycheque-to-paycheque/
2022 - https://www.wealthprofessional.ca/news/industry-news/more-canadians-living-paycheque-to-paycheque-with-growing-debt/370284
These articles appear to reflect reality even during times when Cdns state in other polls that the economy is strong, or headed in the right direction, etc. At the same time, it certainly does seem that our general fear for our future situation is greater than ever. Experiencing inflation for perhaps the first time and living with the poor housing affordability level should undoubtedly have an impact on those worst off or starting their adult journey.