5 ms·

As a Canadian, even I am surprised by how shallow the rhetoric of our PM is in terms of "building back better" and green future. He basically helicoptered an i

As a Canadian, even I am surprised by how shallow the rhetoric of our PM is in terms of "building back better" and green future. He basically helicoptered an insane amount of money on the population for rampant consumerism and bailed out companies indiscriminately whereas built basically no transit, no green infrastructure whatsoever.

premium-komodo 5y ago
When Trudeau repeated the WEF jargon "build back better", he was just signaling that he's on board to support the plans of German Bond-villain Klaus Schwab. I think once you understand that, you stop being surprised if he seems to lacks principle in some other area.
alfl 5y ago
Fellow Canadian, and can confirm: current Federal regime is all hat no cattle.
RileyJames 5y ago
You don't say ey, the situation is approximately exactly the same here in Australia. In fact, 'gas lead recovery' is the closest we have a to 'building back better'.
tekstar 5y ago
Our PM also walks behind the US and reiterates whatever climate target they state, like X % by 2030 and y % by 2050. I have seen exactly 0 plan on how to get there. I suspect he'll retire in 2029.
- mgbmtl 5y ago
  Mostly carbon taxes, infrastructure investments, and small things like subsidizing electric cars (5k$), countered unfortunately by supporting pipeline constructions for Alberta. So for example, the federal is funding the suburban train system in Montreal, and the tramway in Quebec City. Those projects will have a huge impact. And the federal will not fund the absurd proposed 10 G$ tunnel that Quebec wants to build. Trudeau uses the excuse that "infrastructure programs do not fund roads, only public transport, it's not my fault if I don't want to support the program", but that's how it works: the federal mainly proposes policies that meet certain targets, and then provinces get funding in exchange for implementing those changes.
  - tekstar 5y ago
    Do you think those policies are anywhere on the scale necessary to meet the climate change goals he has set out?
    - imtringued 5y ago
      I don't know what his goals are but a sufficient CO2 tax can easily result in 20%-50% less CO2 emissions.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        Sure, but those reductions will only be in the jurisdiction with the tax and will be matched by a corresponding increase in other jurisdictions. So if the goal is to migrate emissions to countries like China that don't have the tax, it's easy to do. If the goal is to reduce global emissions, then that's another matter entirely.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
      - tekstar 5y ago
        I've been thinking about this, and if that CO2 tax results in that less CO2, who feels the brunt of it? What does it look like to people? Is everything 20-50% more expensive, so we buy less of it? Would be great to see the CO2 reduction, but I don't see our government going the route of forced austerity. I guess the idea is to then force low-carbon innovation to bring prices back down?
    - mgbmtl 5y ago
      Any suggestions? I'm not going to argue with myself :) I merely explained my understanding of how federal policy works, the good and the bad, because I get rattled by cynicism. Imo a great way to get things done in Canada is at the municipal level, but the money often comes from the federal. c.f. Montreal's current admin (I did my small bit, even ran for office)
Ericson2314 5y ago
> He basically helicoptered an insane amount of money on the population for rampant consumerism. I take no issue with this. Keynes is right you need to prop back up aggregate demand, and keep people fed. > bailed out companies indiscriminately whereas built basically no transit, no green infrastructure whatsoever. That's the bad part. The demand-side stimulus should be indiscriminate because the supply-side policy should be extremely targeted. People buy whatever the good deal is, like an electric field pulls hardest on the stuff with the most charge. Its essential to to puppeteer the supply side so the environmentally good things are the good deals.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Yeah, one of the good things about just randomly throwing money at the crowd is that the crowd has a lot of brains and each brain can make the best possible decision for that person. There is no way a group of politicians is going to spend the money more efficiently. However, without a serious CO2 tax a lot of that money will be allocated to CO2 intensive consumption.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Yup! Vigorously seek out and tax the externalities, helicopter money, and publicly administer natural monopolies (like transit, telecommunications, electricity, etc.). It's a great simple recipe; amazing how much ink we spill beating around the bush.

premium-komodo 5y ago

When Trudeau repeated the WEF jargon "build back better", he was just signaling that he's on board to support the plans of German Bond-villain Klaus Schwab. I think once you understand that, you stop being surprised if he seems to lacks principle in some other area.

alfl 5y ago

Fellow Canadian, and can confirm: current Federal regime is all hat no cattle.

RileyJames 5y ago

You don't say ey, the situation is approximately exactly the same here in Australia. In fact, 'gas lead recovery' is the closest we have a to 'building back better'.

tekstar 5y ago

Our PM also walks behind the US and reiterates whatever climate target they state, like X % by 2030 and y % by 2050. I have seen exactly 0 plan on how to get there. I suspect he'll retire in 2029.

mgbmtl 5y ago
Mostly carbon taxes, infrastructure investments, and small things like subsidizing electric cars (5k$), countered unfortunately by supporting pipeline constructions for Alberta. So for example, the federal is funding the suburban train system in Montreal, and the tramway in Quebec City. Those projects will have a huge impact. And the federal will not fund the absurd proposed 10 G$ tunnel that Quebec wants to build. Trudeau uses the excuse that "infrastructure programs do not fund roads, only public transport, it's not my fault if I don't want to support the program", but that's how it works: the federal mainly proposes policies that meet certain targets, and then provinces get funding in exchange for implementing those changes.
- tekstar 5y ago
  Do you think those policies are anywhere on the scale necessary to meet the climate change goals he has set out?
  - imtringued 5y ago
    I don't know what his goals are but a sufficient CO2 tax can easily result in 20%-50% less CO2 emissions.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      Sure, but those reductions will only be in the jurisdiction with the tax and will be matched by a corresponding increase in other jurisdictions. So if the goal is to migrate emissions to countries like China that don't have the tax, it's easy to do. If the goal is to reduce global emissions, then that's another matter entirely.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
    - tekstar 5y ago
      I've been thinking about this, and if that CO2 tax results in that less CO2, who feels the brunt of it? What does it look like to people? Is everything 20-50% more expensive, so we buy less of it? Would be great to see the CO2 reduction, but I don't see our government going the route of forced austerity. I guess the idea is to then force low-carbon innovation to bring prices back down?
  - mgbmtl 5y ago
    Any suggestions? I'm not going to argue with myself :) I merely explained my understanding of how federal policy works, the good and the bad, because I get rattled by cynicism. Imo a great way to get things done in Canada is at the municipal level, but the money often comes from the federal. c.f. Montreal's current admin (I did my small bit, even ran for office)

Ericson2314 5y ago

> He basically helicoptered an insane amount of money on the population for rampant consumerism. I take no issue with this. Keynes is right you need to prop back up aggregate demand, and keep people fed. > bailed out companies indiscriminately whereas built basically no transit, no green infrastructure whatsoever. That's the bad part. The demand-side stimulus should be indiscriminate because the supply-side policy should be extremely targeted. People buy whatever the good deal is, like an electric field pulls hardest on the stuff with the most charge. Its essential to to puppeteer the supply side so the environmentally good things are the good deals.

imtringued 5y ago
Yeah, one of the good things about just randomly throwing money at the crowd is that the crowd has a lot of brains and each brain can make the best possible decision for that person. There is no way a group of politicians is going to spend the money more efficiently. However, without a serious CO2 tax a lot of that money will be allocated to CO2 intensive consumption.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Yup! Vigorously seek out and tax the externalities, helicopter money, and publicly administer natural monopolies (like transit, telecommunications, electricity, etc.). It's a great simple recipe; amazing how much ink we spill beating around the bush.