3 ms·
It's a very dishonest way of framing it. The entire article makes it sound like they're talking about actual payment to wealthy fossil fuel companies that could
by makomk 7y ago
It's a very dishonest way of framing it. The entire article makes it sound like they're talking about actual payment to wealthy fossil fuel companies that could be paid to actual Canadians instead and would make them $1,650 a year better off.
- kennywinker 7y agoNot exactly. Framed the way you do it doesn’t mean i’m $1650 better off, it means government is hiding the real cost of my consumption and encouraging me to use fossil fuels. I’d rather bare the cost, and be able to realize the financial benefits of reducing my carbon footprint.
- Shivetya 7y agopretty much how all politicians operate when they want something and how they get their message out through what we assume are reputable sources. They on the sounds plausible or I already agree with that type of wording to eventually turn us to what they want us to believe and get behind. however this article gives that up instantly and even warned us up front "Opinion" is the clear label and that means when reading you must come in with the understanding, all bets are off, what you are about to read may or may not be true and it is up to you to do your due diligence. Sadly most people won't if they agree with any of the premise of an article.
- gpm 7y ago> that could be paid to actual Canadians instead and would make them $1,650 a year better off. This much sounds like it is true. They could tax the fossil fuel companies and redistribute it to Canadians (which is in fact how the carbon tax works, except it's not that high).