People seem to be misunderstanding Carney's point here, which is that the plan gave someone like Polievre ammo and a damned good chance of burning down Canada.

It really is worth watching the video, or reading the transcript (I couldn't find one as of yet.) But he talks about the original plan which was entirely appropriate for the comparatively rosy pre trump era in which it was devised. These are different and bad times.

The Right, the radically anti climate right, is ascendent kind of across the globe. Had trump not been such a spectacular asshole, there's a good chance Poilievre would be running things. Canada in contrast is one where you could see the Liberals walk this tightrope between the Left and Right. So while the Trudeau era plan is the one I'd prefer personally, I see a Carney plan as actually happening, in the long term (which is what matters) rather than being undone shortly by Poilievre or whomever.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is my biggest fear with Carney and the Liberals: they refuse to do anything about the political NGOs in Alberta funded by US Foundations, nor do they require NFP organizations to be transparent about how they are funded. There are no socialist "think tanks" or "institutes" because there is no USA backdoor funding for them.

The fact that everyone is cool with Jamil Jirvani, once a US-based and educated fraudster, being a sitting MP and travelling to Washington to collude with long time friend JD Vance during USMCA and CUSMA talks is incredibly disturbing and really makes me wonder if we really have a multiparty system in Canada at all.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 0 points 1 day ago

everyone is cool with Jamil Jirvani

I think almost no one was cool with that. Heck, you might read a more Conservative take on the negative reactions he received: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/liberals-attack-jamil-jivani-help-trump-offer

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Funny how the government can do tlvery unpopular things it didn't campaign on like the surveillance bill C22, but when it comes to caring about the climate (which it did campaign on), it just isn't "viable". Just more neolib bullshit.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca -4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Would you prefer something bigger, more ambitious and cancelled in four years?

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

I want to see something where funding is allocated now with no way to claw back the funding.

Offer huge rebates for solar installations on residences or commercial buildings, with ties to maximum $/kw install costs so its not just more profit.

Offer more funding for clean energy projects with requirements they're under construction by the time they leave office.

Cancel tax breaks offered to o&g companies now, and force whoever comes in to justify adding the breaks back in.

Don't drop your ZEV policy, but state it will be in force. Make car companies do the r&d now so they'll be locked in anyway by the time you leave office.

Enshrine the right to the healthy environment for children in our charter, so any changes that damage that in the future will be challengeable legally.

To argue that he's doing what he can, and if he doesnt toe the line of moderate (ie way too little action) well lose and things will rebound is ridiculous. There's a non-zero chance things will rebound anyway. Take action that can't be undone NOW, and make it harder for pp to undo.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

More ambitious than nothing? Yes absolutely

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca -5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To call the current plan and actions "nothing" is either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way, it's an incredibly silly thing to say.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What are our currentnplans and actions then? Expanding oil and gas is a already a net negative when it comes to climate action and I honestly don't see the feds doing much else.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The largest thing, imo, is expanding the electrical grid. All of our talk about green transition is nonsense if we don't have a grid or system which can support the transition. None of the Trudeau era plans really grappled with this fairly obvious problem, because in my humble opinion, Trudeau was more concerned with sounding good than doing good.

The Darlington nuclear project is among the first of the announced national projects; North America's first small scale nuclear reactor. Really useful for Canada especially where we have a lot of remote communities without easy access to other energy inputs. (You should see how much is power in the North is diesel and other really dirty fuels.)

If memory serves, the Alberta pipeline MOU comes with the world's (possibly just North America's) largest carbon capture mechanism, which is incredibly useful if we want to down the road join into the EU CBAM with other countries, which would be a climate change game changer.

The next tranche of major projects is supposed to include a major wind one for the North Atlantic (again, really useful and targeted transition as a lot of power used there is oil/gas for heating.)

On Conservation, Carney has announced plans to effectively double our protected Conservation both marine and land.

Also, just today, Carney announced an MOU that doubles BC's clean power capacity while also upholding our northern tanker ban, which while not really climate change is really reassuring to hear as that ecosystem is fragile and very much at risk.

Again, is there more that could be done? Sure. But, instead of my temporary feel goods, I much prefer a plan and mandate that I think can effect long lasting change. These are the moves that position Canada for a durable green transition, without relying on a trump ex machina to win the Left the election every time. Carney's approval rating is uniquely high in the G7 I think in large part because he's doing a good job of straddling the line between the Right and Left on climate. That compromise means that I won't see everything I want but neither will my Conservative friends.

Edit: Oh, and I completely forgot allowing tens of thousands of affordable Chinese EVs into the Canadian market over the strenuous objections of Conservative premier Doug Ford.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

This is serious cope. The nuclear and wind projects were planned before Carney, the only difference I am aware of is that he's promised these projects more federal dollars and loosening regulations to try to speed those things along.

If memory serves, the Alberta pipeline MOU comes with the world's (possibly just North America's) largest carbon capture mechanism, which is incredibly useful if we want to down the road join into the EU CBAM with other countries, which would be a climate change game changer.

Direct air carbon capture is vaporware. Literally no proven scale-able methods exist. The cost of any serious carbon sequestration would be high enough that the only reason you would do it over just building renewables and reducing oil and gas usage is to funnel green energy dollars to oil and gas companies.

Oh, and I completely forgot allowing tens of thousands of affordable Chinese EVs into the Canadian market over the strenuous objections of Conservative premier Doug Ford.

I am in favor of this but let's not forget the fact that Carney removed the EV mandate from domestic manufacturers and the only reason the tariffs were dropped was because China responded with counter tariffs on canola.

Any of the climate gains from these green energy projects is effectively neutered by expanding oil and gas production. It makes no sense to be giving more of our money to these companies when the rest of the world is doing their best to transition away from them. In fifteen years when we have an oil pipeline and China has monopolized the EV and battery market, will we admit that we fucked up? Or will we do what the USA is doing and double down further on O&G while banning green energy projects because they threaten oil profits?

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

wind projects were planned before Carney, the only difference I am aware of is that he’s promised these projects more federal dollars and loosening regulations to try to speed those things along.

Naw. Nothing had been officially planned though, because of the obvious benefits, these projects have had numerous working groups etc. But, there's a difference between talking about something and doing it (try just talking about going to the gym instead of going.)

Direct air carbon capture is vaporware. Literally no proven scale-able methods exist.

I'm not sure what the words "largest in the world" means to you but...

This is the sort of tech the world will need to be able to adopt if we're ever going to get a comprehensive CBAM or entice our recalcitrant Southern neighbours to go low carbon. Or consider say, Guyana, Nigeria or even Venezuala, all of which are developing nations investing heavily in their oil industries. The way we're going to be able to come to a compromise with them is exactly this sort of technology.

Carney removed the EV mandate from domestic manufacturers

Almost like how they were removed across the continent... We don't have any Canadian only manufacturers, so it was a pretty nonsensical plan after that happened.

and the only reason the tariffs were dropped was because China responded with counter tariffs on canola.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Trudeau instituted a 100% tarrif on Chinese EVs. China retaliated. But the net result is that Carney undid a bad climate policy of Trudeau's.

. In fifteen years when we have an oil pipeline and China has monopolized the EV and battery market, will we admit that we fucked up?

To your larger point, this is a weird binary choice. Again, we'll have a pipeline but we should also have a large national electric grid, we're aiming to more than double our clean energy production etc. AND, with a little luck, we'll have done it without an angry Conservative party tearing things apart. (Witness the trump administration paying millions to get out of wind power deals seemingly out of spite.)

You might actually read the electrification strategy , it's relatively well done and accessible. If you're more into pictures, figure 4 kind of demonstrates the entire idea.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I see a Carney plan as actually happening, in the long term

I agree, but...

The only problem with that is governments change on a shorter time scale, and new governments frequently hobble or completely eliminate the previous government's long term projects for ideological reasons while claiming that they haven't shown results and therefore are useless.

It happens all the time, and it is a large part of "this is why we can't have nice things".