What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Baseball
Basketball
Curling
Hockey
Soccer
π» Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
π£οΈ Politics
π Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
starting to think a 4 years term is too long for any elected official - should be 2 years max for anyone - carney did ok last year but abandoning climate objectives is just as insane today as it's been for the last 50 years
Ironically, not taking climate change seriously will eventually solve every other problem on Earth.
Because we will all be dead and thus we don't have to give a fuck about anything!
Nah, no climate scientist is seriously saying it will wipe us out.
To quote professor Farnsworth, "No, no, no one's saying that. But I'm certainly thinking it loudly."
well,. you could have voted Green and shifted the Overton Window but you voted in an ex banker and pretended he wasn't a neo liberal dipshit
You say that as if it wouldn't have meant a win for Bitcoin pete.
I concur the world would be a more pleasant place if we all worked together and some of us weren't greedy cunts, it just isn't that way unfortunately.
Satire is dead.
Long live satire!
If only he was interested in doing anything about any other problem on Earth.
Hey, we got the grocery rebate a few days ago, he is trying to fix capitalism! /s
Seriously capitalism is broken, and it needs to be replaced.
By what, in detail?
The answers out there to that are seriously lacking, which is why you never hear it in IRL political discourse.
[Gestures at the entire foreign policy portfolio]
Sure, he's doing close to nothing on climate change. It is possible to have more than one facet, though.
I wouldn't say being America's lapdog is a good foreign policy, nor does it do anything about problems with Canadian foreign policy.
His whole thing is that our relationship with the US is cooked and we need to look elsewhere ASAP.
Pay more attention to what he's doing then.
That's pretty much mainstream politicians everywhere, unfortunately.
because voters demanded it. Carney swung 30 points by killing the carbon levy.
Yep. We don't, as a species, seem equipped to handle it intelligently. It's too slow-moving and abstract.
There's issues where politicians deviate from the average person, but it's not most things, and this isn't an example. "Takes climate change seriously, after all their other problems" describes like 90%+ of everybody.
Edit: Well, maybe 70%, and another 20% that deny some aspect of it.
Carbon taxes also won't solve anything. At best it's a token effort, A carbon tax is just pushed to the consumers, making quality of life worse.
There are studies that if you completely and radically reorganized how we work and live and how wealth is distributed, we could have higher standards of living while only consuming 30% of energy and resources.
But there is no way to get there because the power of the neoliberal plutocrats is too strong. And they employ the smartest people on earth to craft the best propaganda to keep and grow their power. It's not about humanity as a species or human nature, but about the current absolute power of capitalism globally.
Not burning fossil fuels is always pushed to consumers. Most stuff consumers use involves some of it, and most people prefer the stuff, whether that's rational or not.
we could have higher standards of living while only consuming 30% of energy and resources.
Riiiight. Have you ever had to organise or build something? It all takes resources, and nobody is working with a ton of slack. Unless that study is assuming all kinds of futuristic physical infrastructure just magically appears to carry the burden, it doesn't make sense.
If we all lived at a basic third-world kind of standard, we could probably do it on 30% of the resources. If you want to own a car or have a lot of privacy, you're SOL, though. And even there it'd take time to rebuild things to accommodate the new system.
This is a third world-focused paper, in a development studies (as in "developing nation") journal. It's basically talking about what I described in the last paragraph - everyone gets to live in Mainstreet, India, and nobody in Mainstreet, USA.
It would, indeed, involve everyone getting medically adequate nutrition, education, a flush toilet and an internet connection, which is how they're defining "decent standard of living". Specifically, see table 1.
You could argue this is worth it, and that argument wouldn't be crazy. But, it's not a higher standard of living for the average Lemmy user.
Yeah possibly. Only one phone and one tablet or laptop per person, no PC battlestation :(
But I would argue it still does mean more luxury in the developed world for one simple reason: The biggest luxury in life is time. But if you only use 30% resources and energy, you can probably cut working hours / employment to something like half.
That is not just lazing about, it's being able to read and learn, to raise your children without having to work, to be relaxed about the future and the economic outlook. Just looking at how children are raised and educated today vs 50 years ago, quality of life has drastically sunk. Gadgets and multiple cars are not all there is to quality of life. There are those comparisons to medical servs who only worked 20 hours a week.
But the larger point is to show the sheer scale and enormity it would take to really address climate change. Banning most meat production would be simple (but hard) because people can just eat potatoes. But most of the rest is hard. It will not be achieved by a carbon tax.
Basically people are tired of greenwashing.
No PC battlestation, and a family of four living in 650 sqft. It might not be the kind of phone you're thinking of, either, since dumb phones still have a following in poor countries. But sure, you can still live a happy life that way.
It will not be achieved by a carbon tax.
I mean, if aliens invaded and forced us to put on a $1,000,000 per tonne carbon tax, fossil fuel burning would stop pretty entirely. IIRC the economic response to the carbon taxes we've had has been pretty much as expected.
a family of four living in 650 sqft
That's not unusual though in EU or Korea or Japan I figure. I grew up in 500 ftΒ².
And I think the idea is that you can still afford more luxuries, and that this would only be the start, what we could do with current tech and production capabilities and equal distribution.
The thing is... anyone who wants any war or other extra problem, will find a generous friend in oil industry. Human sustainability is a threat to oligarchy, and always will be.
At which point he will claim it was too late anyway and there's no point worrying about it
The wildfires never stopped. Wildfire season is now all year long.
Carney "pivots to oil" a blind betrayal.
I can picture Mark Caricature saying this.
Mark Caricature
I don't know about that one. If anything he's too bland and forgettable in style.
dint they just say they abandoned it.
He made them advance the Pathways carbon capture project. To those just casually following global warming, we need there to be carbon capture. Ideally we'd have moved away from fossil fuels a decade ago, but that didn't happen. So right now we're at a point where we need to make carbon capture work or we're fucked.
It sucks that we're now dependent on this tech working, but that's the reality of the global warming situation now. It's too late to just reduce carbon emissions and wait it out, we need to start actively pulling carbon out of the air ASAP.
Supply side economics don't work. Hopefully before the pipeline is finished, the demand for fossil fuels will be so low it won't really be used much. But if the demand for is still high and even if there was no pipeline, oil from somewhere else will be used. Demand drives the economy, not supply.
In any case, developing the capability of extracting carbon from the air is imperative. Demand for fossil fuels goes away, we need carbon capture. Demand for fossil fuels stays high, we need carbon capture. People burn oil from Alberta, we need carbon capture. People burn oil from somewhere other than Alberta, we need carbon capture.
Making the oil companies start doing carbon capture is a big win in the fight against global warming. Not the ideal solution, but it's too late for ideal solutions now.
The problems I've seen, as an adimittadly casual air-source carbon capture follower, are that no system in use currently can actually prove viable. All the calcs and test samples don't line up with field results. For sure we need to figure out why and make it work, but it being sold as an answer is still extremely suspect
Keeping in mind that this is the Beaverton, the most trusted news in Canada, CCS is just part of the green washing PR so liberals can get that warm fuzzy feeling inside like something is being done when practically things get much worse.
If it can't be made to work, we're fucked. It sucks that we're dependent on making an unproven technology work, but that's what we've come to.
The issue is that it continues to be sold as if it does work. It's been used as leverage when proposing more oil projects, and as a greenwashing panacea for politicians, for 20+ years now, despite that it's complete vapourware.
They needed to made to work before it was used as an excuse to drill-baby-drill. Not 30 years later.
Yeah many things should've been done 30 years ago. That's irrelevant now. The only thing that matters is what is done now.