Can’t wait for all the liberals to come out and defend the revocation of labour rights with great takes like “We are in unprecedented times, we have to make tough decisions.” Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine is on the money yet again.

Your take on this is excellent. I feel like the Canadian political and capital classes have fallen for this belief that if only we incentivize enough private investment, then all our problems can be solved. There has been a serious generational neglect of investment in developing local expertise (see health care, science, infrastructure development, etc etc) because feds and provinces don’t want to fork up the capital to build and maintain the social systems required to develop these expertise.

Privatizing a government R&D program is pretty much the exact opposite thing to do if you want to achieve this. It ensures that priorities will shift away from long term projects and providing consistent work for Canadian scientists and towards the short term thinking of corporations who do not care about building any kind of social or educational infrastructure and only care about juicing as much as they can out of the asset as it exists today.

It will be good news if any hard rock Li mines reach production. I wasbunder the impression they weren’t really competitive with basinal brine Li, but they are generally thought to be better for the environment.

What argument are you making here? Government won’t do it because raising any taxes is bad? Maybe if a government is shit at messaging, they could lose political capital through a wealth tax but its clearly popular policy.

I brought up a wealth tax because the OP said thay services needed to be cut because we dont have enough money coming in. My point is that services don’t need to be cut if the country’s wealthy actually paid their fair share and I dont understand why everyone acts like financial troubles means that poor people have to suffer rather than rich people paying more.

Onviously if you ask a slanted question like that, you will get slanted answers, but we are just talking hypotheticals right now. While its a little dated, the data suggests you are quite wrong and wealth taxes are popular.

Wealth taxes are actually very popular. The reason they aren’t implemented is because libs and Tories are captured by capital

Cutting services isn’t “triage” if it impacts the most vulnerable and poor. Triage would be cutting tax breaks for multi billion dollar oil corporations and raising taxes on the wealthiest people in the country.

Of course, but the services he needs will be more likely to be in place thanks to the increased tax revenue as the jobs market picks up.

Not true when services are being cut

The homeless people with these mental issues will never be employable regardless of the economy

Also not true for a lot of people if they were actually supported.

I hate that the idea of Canada acquiring nukes has become so prevalent. Having nukes does not help anyone, it merely increases the global risk of nuclear war. Every country with nukes is another country that can decide to pull the trigger.

Consider the actual calculus that goes into MAD. If we think we have a nuke heading towards us, we have to act prior to verification. The decision that is effectively to be made is: do we let a potential nuke hit one of our cities and let millions of people die, or do we launch a counter attack and kill millions more people and prompt further response from the enemy? The most likely outcome of this is full scale nuclear war. Even between two countries, this would devastate the planet and result in countless deaths.

Counterintuitively, even if we have nukes, launching a counterattack is the response that would result in the worst possible outcome. But it is also useless to have nukes if you have no possible intent of using them defensively. This is basically entering into the most apocalyptic game of chicken that anyone can play.

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 my favourite episode of Star Trek

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.

I read the post before the title and was prepared to come at you. QGIS doesn’t get enough love for how good it actually is.

There used to be a speed camera on this stretch of Bathurst. Doug Ford is responsible for this.

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?