I’m not sure what the words “largest in the world” means to you but…

I can have the largest ball of yarn in the world and it won’t make a difference to climate change. This technology literally doesn’t exist in the way people are selling it and to suggest that it will exist because “we need this tech” is absurd. The promises of AI technology are more realistic than direct air carbon capture.

Technology already exists that reduces carbon emissions and it is cheap as hell. It just doesn’t permit oil corporations to keep making money.

Trudeau instituted a 100% tarrif on Chinese EVs

You’re right, I made a mistake there.

To your larger point, this is a weird binary choice.

I don’t swe why that’s the case when the headline of the story is literally that the climate plan is too expensive. Why are we putting more money into oil if we don’t have enough money to protect the climate? If it is a matter of needing to spend that money on industry, why not spend it on diversifying the industries in Alberta and saskatchewan rather than funneling more money into a world-killing industry that employs fewer workers every year due to automation?

Like what is the actual upside for the average Canadian? Does it really make sense to be investing to expand oil revenue rather than green technology? Or honestly any other high tech industry? Instead Canada seems dead set on remaining a resource based economy.

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?

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.

More ambitious than nothing? Yes absolutely

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.

A lot of Nazis and other European facists supported the zionist project because it wpild give them a place to send the Jews.

Yeah that’s fair, HSR is sorely needed and im glad it hasn’t been canceled. CBC was also mentioned by vinceman and thats another positive difference. These feel like minor gains though when you look at the systematic defunding of most government services (including CBC).

I think it is reasonable to say we are better off with Carney than Poillievre, but it just does not seem significant enough to justify voting for liberal rather than NDP next time. Thats just ny opinion though

I don’t think we’ve really had a substantial difference in our current administration aside from the rhetoric of resistance. Canada has significantly increased deportations since Carney came to power and has been increasingly operating in an ICE-like fashion.

The OP details how on tech stuff, Carney seems very comfortable with kowtowing to American companies and the demands of the US government. In tiher aspects of trade, have we seen Carney make any gains with Trump in power that can be reasonably attributed to Carney?

So far, to me, “elbows up” seems restricted to building pipelines in Canada and making military deals with other countries. Is that really a substantial difference with how Poillievre would have operated?

I felt the same way, but looking at the policies being enacted I find myself asking: what did I vote against that isnt happening now?

Why are you conflicted? Im seeing huge reductions to industrial carbon price because the feds refused to reign in provinces that violate federal law and then reward them for violating those laws. Now we have even weaker climate policy.

The lesson is obvious to provinces: dont follow federal laws you dont agree with. I guess thats why heslthcare privatization has been allowed to progress so far across the country.

Its an interesting way to frame the problem compared to how it might be typically framed as “not enough jobs” or “wages aren’t high enough” or the new favorite among Canadian politicians of a “productivity crisis”

Ok I think I get it now, it is basically the flaw behind resource allocation through capitalism. The cost of supplying these mining towns does not match their ability to pay for those supplies after the mine goes bust. Do I have that right?

This is an interesting perspective I haven’t heard before. Are there historical examples of this happening?

What are you referring to? Im not American and Clinton was before my time

I dont think money spent on science is necessarily a bad metric for quantifying how much a government is prioritizing science. I do agree that more money spent on science != better science. I know from my own experience in geology that there are some things that China does well and a lot that they are really behind on and there’s a lot of sub-par science that comes out of China. Does that matter when science is just a numbers game in the modern context? I couldn’t say