I’m wondering if that’s what this legislation will do.
It’s focused on ensuring that a target % of all cars a manufacturer sells be electric. And in order to do that, they need to get more people to choose to buy electric.
They can achieve that by raising the prices of their ICE vehicles and selling less overall volume, but the proportion of EVs would be higher. or the seemingly easier option would be to create more cheaper EV options that people are interested in buying.
While yes it looks like things are more expensive, it’s still effectively a wealth transfer where the poorest get more money back from the system.
It’s sorta genius in that way, poorer folk are still rewarded for picking the less polluting option, but in the end don’t actually end up payijg more after the quarterly rebate
It’s not wrong headed at all. There is always an alternative.
In some cases that alternative is transit. In some cases that alternative is cycling. In some cases that alternative is carpooling. In some cases that alternative is driving an existing car more efficiently. In some cases that alternative is choosing to buy a ICE smaller car. In some cases that alternative is buying a BEV.
In all those cases, even a small step will reward someone for making that choise.
And in your case you’re likely breaking even or getting a little back from the carbon pricing system.
You as the consumer isn’t been told fuck you. You’re being slightly incentivised to make better choices, and rewarded if you do, but not penalized if you don’t.
The modern-day version of the catalogue will instead focus on low-rise builds, such as small multiplexes, student housing and seniors’ residences, then explore a potential catalogue for higher-density construction.
Why not provide interest-free loans on multi-unit construction instead, something that can get built right away?
Is this a substantially different idea from what the feds are already doing? They are currently working with various cities to update zoning laws to allow for easier building of higher density in exchange for the feds spending a bunch of money to subsidize building homes in the city.
Providing interest-free lones to developers feels like a similar program with different pros and cons.
The modern-day version of the catalogue will instead focus on low-rise builds, such as small multiplexes, student housing and seniors’ residences, then explore a potential catalogue for higher-density construction.
The modern-day version of the catalogue will instead focus on low-rise builds, such as small multiplexes, student housing and seniors’ residences, then explore a potential catalogue for higher-density construction.
The federal government is proposing financial incentives for farmers in lieu of cutting enteric methane emissions that are released in the air when cows burp.
This perspective always confuses me. There are thousands of things we need to be doing to help slow down this awful path we’re on.
But if we make any progress on any issue that isn’t one of the top 10 issues, people come out and make noise as if there is a single person working on solving all these problems, and by them progressing this one thing meant everything else was on hold.
The data found about 68 per cent of car shoppers in 2022 who did not own an EV showed an intent to purchase one, but that dropped to 56 per cent this year.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the biggest factor was just interest rates.
EVs still do tend to cost more than ICE vehicles, and the used market is still pretty new for EVs.
Autotrader is mostly a used car marketplace. So it doesn’t really surprise me that after a year where used cars cost more than news ones, and new cars were flipped for immediat profit.
Now that is starting to settle down and people who still can afford a new car just gets it right from a dealership.
The data doesn’t seem to support the title of the article.
Am I misreading the data they are sharing in the article?
It shows data that suggests that number of immigrants leaving now is similar to how it’s been for the last decade. And the overall rate now is lower than it’s been most of the last decade, it’s only increased slightly this year for the first time in 4ish years.
That’s why we’re talking about relative percentages.
In your example we would need to know how many trees existed on your road/city before. If there were less than 3 or 4 trees in your city before this, saying there was a surge is likely fine.
I have no clue how many people submit to the steam survey, but I’ll assume it’s representative.
A quick google suggests steam has about 120 million active users.
Linux went from about 1.4% to 1.9%.
Rough math says Linux went from 1.7 million to about 2.3 million.
Or an increase of 600 000.
That a lot, both in relative terms and in real terms.
Here’s a counter example for you.
You own stock in banana company. Over one day the price increases 2x. All the news agency’s are talking about how banana surged in price today. Will you then suggest that banana didn’t surge in price because it only makes up 1% of the overall stock market?
The Conservatives have a 16-point lead. Three-quarters of the country think it's time for a change. But Justin Trudeau is vowing to fight Pierre Poilievre in the next election.
Never invade Russia in the winter. Never fight a land war in Asia. Never go for a third term as Prime Minister in Canada. It makes the electorate hate you. I don’t complain much about his policies, but Trudeau is screwing his own party over and now we might end up with the Trumpiest of Canadian politicians as PM.
Criticising only works if you have an argument to back you up. When you’re just making things up you’re just talking shit.
People don’t really take “talking shit” seriously, which is why you’re getting the reaction you are.
If you have anything substantial to back up anything you’re saying, people are generally happy to listen. But the reality is you’re regurgitating the same fake points that we’ve all heard and have been disproven dozens of times.
This money can be much much better spent. This doesn’t really solve anything other then letting oil companies pretend they are doing something with very little oversight.
😂 of course. But it means you’re talking shit and you’re argument is baseless. But of course you’re allowed to try to pass off made up realities as fact.
It is insiane to me that Google shows these ads to google one subscribers.
I already pay google hundreds of dollars a year, and have done so for years. then over the last 2 yesr they slowly started rolling out intrusive ads into my mobile Gmail app.
It was the final straw for me. I’ve started slowing migrating my email off Gmail, but my goodness is that ever a slow and painful process.
I certainly miss self checkouts. They were always faster, and I never had significant problems with the.
Losing self checkout at the grocery store has been especially painful. It was so much more efficient to grab items from my cart and pack them directly, the extra step of passing them through a cashier causes me to forget what items I haven’t bagged yet, and makes it that much harder to group items while I’m checking out, which then makes it a little harder when unloading at home. That one change has added 15-20 minutes extra overall time commitment to any large grocery run, and I’m pretty bitter about it
For anyone who purchased a house in the last 5ish years sure. Much longer than that and they are sitting on a whole lot of equity.
Yes if they sold the house they would have 1/2 - 1 million dollars in cash and be homeless. But that’s a lot of dollars better than all the other people who currently also don’t own a home and don’t have all that cash.
Which is sorta the point the article is trying to make.
Those house owners likely fall into upper middle class rather than middle class.
Another way to look at it. Depending on who you ask middle class roughly covers household income of about 75k-150k
If one of those home owners sold their home and made 1 million in equity, that money could be expected to make them ~50k a year. For many current home owners that hypothetical raise would push them above the middle-class bracket.
Did you not read the earlier comments in this thread? That very point was already addressed.
The point the article is trying to make is that after selling the house, even after mortgage is settled, these homeowners have a lot of cash. Much more than their renter peers who are in the same position (houseless) and trying to find something they can afford.
The point above seems obvious when it’s put like that, but it’s still hard for people to grasp.
This is why the article argues that people who are in the privileged position of having huge equity in their house need to also consider what that does to their wealth class, even if they themselves don’t believe it. A lot of home owners who have had a house for 10-15 years (and even more who paid off their house years ago) have no clue how much harder it has gotten for middle class income people to buy houses.
The carbon tax isn’t a “shakedown” btw, the income is redistributed.
Are you suggesting there is a city in Canada that doesn’t have some form of public transit? I’m not aware of any large cities like that so I really struggle to understand why you feel the carbon pricing wouldn’t be effective right now.
How do you build transit infrastructure when you don’t know where the demand is?
I encourage you to look into China’s bullet train network, they did what you’re suggesting. And the last I heard the system is struggling because the stations and lines weren’t built where people actually needed them so it’s heavily underutalized.
The most successful public transit systems were ones built up over time. It’s going to take decades to fix public transit in many of our cities, are there any cities that aren’t doing this?
Also remember that city policy falls under provincial jurisdiction. I was surprised this year to even see the feds start trying to throw money at that problem and incentivise cities to rethink zoning. But it takes time, and it also takes voting people who care into the right spots (city hall and provincial governments)
And if there is no viable alternative for then to turn to they will not change their minds.
Policy like this isn’t meant to impact everyone the same way.
If a city has public transit, they likely have coverage targets. Every city does this differently, but in most cities, the majority of people are targetted to be covered.
This means that if more people start using the system who are covered, it’s more likely the system itself will be expanded to cover more places.
But you’re all missing the 2nd incentive, this could also incentivise people to move to places near transit and could encourage higher density buildings near better transit.
Both of those are things you want, and both of them are things the carbon pricing helps do.
The trouble you’re having is with increased gas prices is a global problem not caused by the carbon tax, oil prices have gone up everywhere.
You asking to get rid of the carbon tax is just you asking to have less money in your pocket, which is hard to understand when you’re also complaining about costs.
A lot of people do love in dense areas in cities though. That’s what makes them dense.
And programs like the carbon pricing makes those places more attractive to build denser housing.
EVs don’t even need to be the only alternative, if the carbon pricing is encouraging someone to buy a more fuel efficient ICE vehicle, the incentive is still working.
I still have such a hard time understanding how people are calling the carbon pricing setup a stick, most of us are getting more money back from the program. Yes overall oil prices worldwide have gone up since the program started, but international oil prices aren’t impacted by Canadian carbon pricing policy…
The carbon pricing redistributes the earnings back to people.
This then does let people have an impact on climate change by influencing them to choose products that produce less carbon and therefore appear to cost less.
The genius is that the price difference is artificial, if on average people in the province choose the more expensive option, they will make back the difference quarterly.
As is the system only really penalizes people who consistently choose the more carbon inefficient options and do it a lot.
Just a reminder that you’re getting money money back from the carbon rebate program then you are putting in (and the calculation accounts for everything around you getting more expensive)
I know you had a lot of unbacked up claims in your comment, but I wanted to remind you that most people get money back from the carbon rebate then they paid in.
Ottawa expected to release promised EV sales regulations Tuesday (www.cbc.ca)
Sales targets meant to ensure automakers ramp up EV production to keep up with demand, says source
Lemmy.ca upgraded to 0.19
Hi Everyone!...
The ‘carbon tax’ isn’t causing inflation. No matter what politicians say | The Narwhal (thenarwhal.ca)
Ottawa to launch pre-approved home design catalogue, bring back post-war effort (www.cbc.ca)
The federal government intends to resurrect a post-war effort to ramp up housing construction across Canada — but with a 21st-century twist....
Canada wants to make cows burp less to fight climate change (globalnews.ca)
The federal government is proposing financial incentives for farmers in lieu of cutting enteric methane emissions that are released in the air when cows burp.
Canada faces declining EV interest, report shows, despite push to boost sales (globalnews.ca)
The data found about 68 per cent of car shoppers in 2022 who did not own an EV showed an intent to purchase one, but that dropped to 56 per cent this year.
Canada's surging cost of living fuels reverse immigration (www.reuters.com)
Household impact of Canada axing the carbon tax (www.cbc.ca)
If Canada axed its carbon tax– and rebates- this is how different households would gain or lose....
Steam Linux Marketshare Surges To Nearly 2% In November (www.phoronix.com)
store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
Poll says three in four want Trudeau to go, but Trudeau insists he’ll stay (globalnews.ca)
The Conservatives have a 16-point lead. Three-quarters of the country think it's time for a change. But Justin Trudeau is vowing to fight Pierre Poilievre in the next election.
Plex starts narcing on its own users' anime and X-rated habits with an opt-out service, and it's going terribly (www.pcgamer.com)
Poilievre opens up 15 point lead over Trudeau on preferred Prime Minister tracking (Nanos) (nanos.co)
Never invade Russia in the winter. Never fight a land war in Asia. Never go for a third term as Prime Minister in Canada. It makes the electorate hate you. I don’t complain much about his policies, but Trudeau is screwing his own party over and now we might end up with the Trumpiest of Canadian politicians as PM.
Diane Francis: Trudeau Liberals content to ignore money laundering epidemic (financialpost.com)
Canadian Oilsands giants continue work on proposed $16.5B carbon capture project, despite lingering questions (www.cbc.ca)
Google is putting ads in gmail. WTF? (sh.itjust.works)
Why would anyone use this over Proton Mail or the gazillion alternatives if it treats people like shit.
Why several big-box stores have ditched their self-checkouts (www.cbc.ca)
Homeowners Refuse to Accept the Awkward Truth: They’re Rich - Owners of the multi-million-dollar properties still see themselves as middle class, a warped self-image that has a big impact on renters (thewalrus.ca)
Public support for carbon tax waning quickly (www.nationalobserver.com)