That’s. That’s the whole point. Things costing their true value.
Business exist to make money (even non profits need to make enough money from either sales or donations to cover operating costs). If something costs them more, it’s going to cost their customers more. This way negative externalities aren’t swept away to become an unmanageable problem in the future. The true cost of consumption is reflected in the price we pay.
What you’re describing as a bad thing is really the system working for good, as it was intended.
Unfortunately they are correct as the carbon tax in Canada is indeed a racket. It’s only on consumer consumption.
oil exports, our largest source of emissions, are exempt
agriculture and forestry, the next largest, also exempt
shipping and rail, oh look, exempt
heavy industry can buy phoney carbon credits for $5/ton instead of paying the $65/ton tax. Some of these are for forests that have already burned down
oh yeah the greatest emission source last year, dwarfing all others, 80% of our total emissions came from the massive forest fires for which our policy is just to LET THEM BURN
So the only people who carry the burden of the Canadian carbon tax are the ordinary taxpayers. But hey, the optics are good! Looks very progressive. Despite the fact that Canadian consumer consumption is the definition of a drop in the bucket that is global emissions.
If Canada wanted to make a difference they would nationalize the grid, build nuclear and renewables. Or forget it all for now and just put out the damn fires!
I believe it was a CBC article last fall that mentioned it, talking about the massive rise in acres burned from previous years. But I can’t directly give you a link at this time unfortunately, am on mobile and can’t find it either.
In 2021, Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 670 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (couldn’t find 2023 quickly on mobile but it will be close)
The wildfires that Canada experienced during 2023 have generated the highest carbon emissions in record for this country by a wide margin. According to GFASv1.2 data, the wildfires that started to take place in early May emitted almost 480 megatonnes of carbon
470 / 670 = 72%
To be fair this is not 72% of total emissions including wildfire smoke, but wildfires emitted 72% as much as the Canadian economy did.
So yes, it’s not 80% of total emissions - but it’s still a massive amount. Putting out these fires would have had nearly the same effect as shutting down our entire country and letting them burn.
Or you could say letting them burn nearly doubled our emissions, and in the hand-wavey world of emissions accounting you would be pretty close.
Man it’s been like 6 months since I read it, give me a break lol. “80% of Canada’s emissions” is correct, it can just be read either way, and I remembered it the wrong way (as % of combined, not % of emissions)
That’s. That’s the whole point. Things costing their true value.
Business exist to make money (even non profits need to make enough money from either sales or donations to cover operating costs). If something costs them more, it’s going to cost their customers more. This way negative externalities aren’t swept away to become an unmanageable problem in the future. The true cost of consumption is reflected in the price we pay.
What you’re describing as a bad thing is really the system working for good, as it was intended.
Unfortunately they are correct as the carbon tax in Canada is indeed a racket. It’s only on consumer consumption.
So the only people who carry the burden of the Canadian carbon tax are the ordinary taxpayers. But hey, the optics are good! Looks very progressive. Despite the fact that Canadian consumer consumption is the definition of a drop in the bucket that is global emissions.
If Canada wanted to make a difference they would nationalize the grid, build nuclear and renewables. Or forget it all for now and just put out the damn fires!
Do you have a source of your wildfires cause 80% of our carbon emissions?
Only thing I could find was about 25% which is much different then the number you showed.
I believe it was a CBC article last fall that mentioned it, talking about the massive rise in acres burned from previous years. But I can’t directly give you a link at this time unfortunately, am on mobile and can’t find it either.
I’d be really surprised if you could because it’s a made-up number.
Not made up, but estimated. Rather than find the exact article, here are the numbers after all was said and done:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions/sources-sinks-executive-summary-2023.html
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-canada-produced-23-global-wildfire-carbon-emissions-2023
470 / 670 = 72%
To be fair this is not 72% of total emissions including wildfire smoke, but wildfires emitted 72% as much as the Canadian economy did.
So yes, it’s not 80% of total emissions - but it’s still a massive amount. Putting out these fires would have had nearly the same effect as shutting down our entire country and letting them burn.
Or you could say letting them burn nearly doubled our emissions, and in the hand-wavey world of emissions accounting you would be pretty close.
Man it’s been like 6 months since I read it, give me a break lol. “80% of Canada’s emissions” is correct, it can just be read either way, and I remembered it the wrong way (as % of combined, not % of emissions)
There’s no Shane to admit you’re wrong.
It’s the internet no one cares.