I'm not sure I would apply the term 'cynical' to this action (though I'm in favour of the tax) — it's more of a Greater Good calculus, at least I'd like to believe that. It's difficult not to see it as a purely political maneuver in light of the upcoming election, but if 1) there are alternative substitute actions that take its place and 2) it helps Carney win the election, then I'm ok with it. Time will tell.
Well in a battle between Right of Center Policies and Progressive policies, the Right has an easier row to hoe. Cut Taxes, an individual with at least 1 functioning brain cell gets it, it will benefit me. Progressive policies are a harder sell because there maybe little or no direct benefit however the indirect benefits can be huge. i.e. Education. Having a well educated citizenry is a huge indirect benefit from a high quality Public Education system. Progressives have to be out there selling the indirect benefits day in & day out, every week, every month year after year. MARKETING
I think the greater good at this point is protection Canada’s democratic institutions and sovereignty. A good dose of pragmatism is necessary. Eg. alliance with Stalin to end WWII. Moral rigidity can be counterproductive when the alternative is the conservatives who care even less about the greater good.
I'm in favour of climate action and am one of the 80% who came up on top through the policy, but I understand. It's become an albatross - albeit misunderstood and cynically misrepresented (it was, after all, an idea of the Conservatives who are now so vociferously opposed). Pushing it upstream may be the best option - while ironically cleaving to the very conservative concept of "the polluter pays".
But Canada will always struggle with emissions. A lot of it is very hot or very cold, or alternately very hot and very cold, so heating and air-con will always be necessary. It's also massive, with widely spread habitations, so unless we never leave our homes and never ship anything across the country, transport will always be an issue. Of course, we can mitigate those issues: things like heat-pumps and hyper-local solar for the former, and improved (dare I say, for much of the country "actually existent") public transport for the latter. While the money for an Ottawa-Quebec high-speed train is (perhaps) on the table (again), there are several provincial capitals that are inaccessible by passenger rail of any description.
That will all need massive investment. Let's see what the next government (of whatever stripe) has to say on that. Carney has uttered the word, but politicians always do, and they always define it in the way most convenient to them. Disclosure: I voted for him.
Call me naive if you will, but I had no doubt the Liberals would stop the carbon tax. I also believe it is purely a response to the trump aggression.
Placing the pricing at the source of generating only makes sense. That way, we make a choice to purchase an item at its full price which includes our share of cleaning up carbon.
David, you're leaving out a vital factor in this argument: Mark Carney. This move is his, not the party's. I think that immediately cancelling the consumer (and farm and SME) carbon tax shows that, despite not having any direct experience as a politician, he has a good sense of what is effective. That action served both to distance him from the previous Trudeau government and to indicate that he's ready to listen to Canadians. Without the carbon tax, Poilievre and the Conservatives are left scrambling for something to attack the Liberals with. Carney is no fool.
I remain grateful to Justin Trudeau for delivering us from Stephen Harper, and now for moving over for Mark Carney who has a better chance of defeating Pierre Poilievre. It has been a very long time since Canadian elections have offered any option to the strategic. I will say, however, that Mark Carney’s wit is an enjoyable bonus!
Noting the antithesis in our current democracy between political parties 'leading' regardless of public sentiment (ie based instead on either flat-out ideology or at best an appeal to 'experts', though that's usually Milton Friedman) or 'responding' to the will of the people, whichever way the wind of manufactured consent is blowing that day. I wish one of these lemmata would allow for education to be funded again.
I think the history of the carbon tax shows that a significant portion of the population does not think in marginal terms, and can't get their head around how the consumer carbon tax works.
The carbon tax only works if it drives consumer behavior, espcially for them to make up front higher cost choices that have long term savings.
Yes, this misunderstanding is partially driven by conservative messaging, but at this point the consumer carbon tax is ineffective for its purpose due to those factors, and the lack of confidence of its permanance.
I hate this, but it's the facts on the ground *now*, and Carney has recoginse that the reduced impact is not worth the pain.
He will need to propose a consumer level alternate, and I think he has talked about more focus on efficiency rebates. This approach may not be theoretical as efficient as a carbon tax, but it's at least in the right direction.
What isn't mentioned is the role of Trump's tariffs and the "51st state" threat has had in all this. The calculus had to change ... The stakes became too high for too many Canadians to stomach. Do we believe for one minute that if Poilievre were to win the election, he wouldn't cause far more harm to the environment than to simply "axe the tax"? Are we fools enough to think that Trump wouldn't have his way with Canada on many fronts including environmental protection if the CPC were to form government? Canadians are no fools. People want change; they don't want the country to be gutted. We see the American government's declaration of war for what it truly is!
Carney is smart and very politically astute.. getting rid of the consumer portion of the carbon tax was a great political move.. but Pierre will promise to eliminate the entire tax .. a good political move..the Conservatives will have to explain to the politically apathetic Canadian voter how the industrial portion of the tax is just as damaging as the consumer portion when it comes contributing to higher prices.. not an easy task.. in addition, the Conservatives have to tie the Liberals to the tax and not just Justin.. politics is a dirty game and the Liberals will do and say whatever is necessary (true or not) to win.. I personally admire the desire to win at any cost even if it they will say whatever they need to say to win and do the opposite once elected.. the Liberals playbook works.. the Conservatives should take more out of their playbook and they may win a few more elections.. are my comments 'cynical or strategic '.. Finally, what is ultimately important is simply that Canadians in the majority do not understand this tax and hate it at the same time.
I don’t feel cynical about what you’re calling “strategic” — to be responsive to pressure from constituents. However I am quite cynical of bowing to media pressure, as we’re seeing happen not just with the massive majority for the most Conservative leaning candidate in the Liberal leadership vote but this foolhardy mania to call another early unwarranted election at the worst possible time, when corporate America is threatening Canada with annexation.
I'm not sure I would apply the term 'cynical' to this action (though I'm in favour of the tax) — it's more of a Greater Good calculus, at least I'd like to believe that. It's difficult not to see it as a purely political maneuver in light of the upcoming election, but if 1) there are alternative substitute actions that take its place and 2) it helps Carney win the election, then I'm ok with it. Time will tell.
Well in a battle between Right of Center Policies and Progressive policies, the Right has an easier row to hoe. Cut Taxes, an individual with at least 1 functioning brain cell gets it, it will benefit me. Progressive policies are a harder sell because there maybe little or no direct benefit however the indirect benefits can be huge. i.e. Education. Having a well educated citizenry is a huge indirect benefit from a high quality Public Education system. Progressives have to be out there selling the indirect benefits day in & day out, every week, every month year after year. MARKETING
Absolutely, yes!
I think the greater good at this point is protection Canada’s democratic institutions and sovereignty. A good dose of pragmatism is necessary. Eg. alliance with Stalin to end WWII. Moral rigidity can be counterproductive when the alternative is the conservatives who care even less about the greater good.
I'm in favour of climate action and am one of the 80% who came up on top through the policy, but I understand. It's become an albatross - albeit misunderstood and cynically misrepresented (it was, after all, an idea of the Conservatives who are now so vociferously opposed). Pushing it upstream may be the best option - while ironically cleaving to the very conservative concept of "the polluter pays".
But Canada will always struggle with emissions. A lot of it is very hot or very cold, or alternately very hot and very cold, so heating and air-con will always be necessary. It's also massive, with widely spread habitations, so unless we never leave our homes and never ship anything across the country, transport will always be an issue. Of course, we can mitigate those issues: things like heat-pumps and hyper-local solar for the former, and improved (dare I say, for much of the country "actually existent") public transport for the latter. While the money for an Ottawa-Quebec high-speed train is (perhaps) on the table (again), there are several provincial capitals that are inaccessible by passenger rail of any description.
That will all need massive investment. Let's see what the next government (of whatever stripe) has to say on that. Carney has uttered the word, but politicians always do, and they always define it in the way most convenient to them. Disclosure: I voted for him.
Call me naive if you will, but I had no doubt the Liberals would stop the carbon tax. I also believe it is purely a response to the trump aggression.
Placing the pricing at the source of generating only makes sense. That way, we make a choice to purchase an item at its full price which includes our share of cleaning up carbon.
David, you're leaving out a vital factor in this argument: Mark Carney. This move is his, not the party's. I think that immediately cancelling the consumer (and farm and SME) carbon tax shows that, despite not having any direct experience as a politician, he has a good sense of what is effective. That action served both to distance him from the previous Trudeau government and to indicate that he's ready to listen to Canadians. Without the carbon tax, Poilievre and the Conservatives are left scrambling for something to attack the Liberals with. Carney is no fool.
Perhaps, but the analysis remains the same.
Freeland and Baylis would have done the same thing, so this idea is more than just Carney’s.
I remain grateful to Justin Trudeau for delivering us from Stephen Harper, and now for moving over for Mark Carney who has a better chance of defeating Pierre Poilievre. It has been a very long time since Canadian elections have offered any option to the strategic. I will say, however, that Mark Carney’s wit is an enjoyable bonus!
Noting the antithesis in our current democracy between political parties 'leading' regardless of public sentiment (ie based instead on either flat-out ideology or at best an appeal to 'experts', though that's usually Milton Friedman) or 'responding' to the will of the people, whichever way the wind of manufactured consent is blowing that day. I wish one of these lemmata would allow for education to be funded again.
I think the history of the carbon tax shows that a significant portion of the population does not think in marginal terms, and can't get their head around how the consumer carbon tax works.
The carbon tax only works if it drives consumer behavior, espcially for them to make up front higher cost choices that have long term savings.
Yes, this misunderstanding is partially driven by conservative messaging, but at this point the consumer carbon tax is ineffective for its purpose due to those factors, and the lack of confidence of its permanance.
I hate this, but it's the facts on the ground *now*, and Carney has recoginse that the reduced impact is not worth the pain.
He will need to propose a consumer level alternate, and I think he has talked about more focus on efficiency rebates. This approach may not be theoretical as efficient as a carbon tax, but it's at least in the right direction.
What isn't mentioned is the role of Trump's tariffs and the "51st state" threat has had in all this. The calculus had to change ... The stakes became too high for too many Canadians to stomach. Do we believe for one minute that if Poilievre were to win the election, he wouldn't cause far more harm to the environment than to simply "axe the tax"? Are we fools enough to think that Trump wouldn't have his way with Canada on many fronts including environmental protection if the CPC were to form government? Canadians are no fools. People want change; they don't want the country to be gutted. We see the American government's declaration of war for what it truly is!
I have a strange feeling based on zero evidence that the 2029 election will be won by a parry who promises to put in a consumer carbon tax.
Carney is smart and very politically astute.. getting rid of the consumer portion of the carbon tax was a great political move.. but Pierre will promise to eliminate the entire tax .. a good political move..the Conservatives will have to explain to the politically apathetic Canadian voter how the industrial portion of the tax is just as damaging as the consumer portion when it comes contributing to higher prices.. not an easy task.. in addition, the Conservatives have to tie the Liberals to the tax and not just Justin.. politics is a dirty game and the Liberals will do and say whatever is necessary (true or not) to win.. I personally admire the desire to win at any cost even if it they will say whatever they need to say to win and do the opposite once elected.. the Liberals playbook works.. the Conservatives should take more out of their playbook and they may win a few more elections.. are my comments 'cynical or strategic '.. Finally, what is ultimately important is simply that Canadians in the majority do not understand this tax and hate it at the same time.
“Those are my principles! If you don’t like them, I have others.” - Groucho Marx, inadvertently describing the LPC to a tee.
I don’t feel cynical about what you’re calling “strategic” — to be responsive to pressure from constituents. However I am quite cynical of bowing to media pressure, as we’re seeing happen not just with the massive majority for the most Conservative leaning candidate in the Liberal leadership vote but this foolhardy mania to call another early unwarranted election at the worst possible time, when corporate America is threatening Canada with annexation.