6 ms·

Maybe then we should consider not kneecapping our economy and driving people into poverty? The worst thing for the environment is poverty. I'm convinced most of

Maybe then we should consider not kneecapping our economy and driving people into poverty? The worst thing for the environment is poverty. I'm convinced most of the measures put in place to fight climate change have been a net negative to the environment, when you consider how much they are impoverishing people and thus driving more people to disregard environmental concerns for survival.

pjc50 4y ago
This argument might be valid in Brazil but definitely isn't in Canada.
- canadiantim 4y ago
  Canada is tripling its carbon tax meanwhile residents e.g. in Newfoundland are suffering extremely under the cost of fuel prices for heating their home, so much so that even liberal mps are voting to exempt home heating from the tripling of the carbon tax. So this argument definitely still valid in Canada, though I do agree that it is more valid is more developing countries.
  - VancouverMan 4y ago
    It's such a convoluted situation in Canada. The same politicians forcing insane "carbon taxes" are also putting in place immigration policies that bring in an absolutely massive number of people each year. This, of course, drives up the demand for electricity, housing (including heating, as you mention), infrastructure, transportation (of goods and people), food, and so forth, all of which contribute to "carbon emissions". The "green belts" that have been imposed by government around major cities just end up pushing urban sprawl farther out, beyond those belts. This, in turn, increases the time and energy spent commuting and travelling, which is usually done by car, since public transit in Canada is very limited and impractical, and the distances are quite far. Thanks to significant and overbearing government bureaucracy and regulations, building high-rise residential buildings in the densest cities takes ages. The actual construction phase is very rapid compared to sorting out the bureaucratic details. If these politicians really wanted to limit or cut "carbon emissions", the first thing they'd be doing is halting pretty much all immigration into Canada, to at least let the situation stabilize.
    - scohesc 4y ago
      The societal 'culture' has changed so rapidly that you'd hear cries of racism, bigotry, ignorance, etc. if you even suggested slowing/stopping immigration to the current party in power. I get we've got low birth rates. Maybe encourage the people that are here _now_ to procreate instead of forcing both care-givers to slave away all their hours to their employer instead of using the time for child-rearing? I get that people don't want to work for low wages - maybe we can stop bringing or severely limit the amount of immigrants for a bit (all avenues of immigration, education - and it's associated literal immigration mills and foreign housing investment schemes; refugees - that somehow are still refugees when crossing by land from USA into Canada, that are happier than ever to come to the country and make minimum wage because it's MUCH more than they made overseas - which they're now finding out is completely untenable in today's Canada, and some are even choosing to leave the country they immigrated to!) I'm definitely _NOT_ claiming immigration as the sole cause of all our problems, but when Statistics Canada says a quarter of all people in Canada are immigrants or permanent residents, maybe we need to slow things down a bit for a little while to let things settle.
  - scohesc 4y ago
    The weird looks I get for even suggesting bringing manufacturing back home so we can have western-made goods, with low-carbon manufacturing regulations just shows that people don't understand how hard we're getting fleeced for our money. Bring these things home, we can regulate, control, and promote cleaner manufacturing practices - or at least control industrial waste output instead of "pipe the waste chemicals into the river beside us, who cares!". I really find it a big problem that we're putting "the climate" as a higher priority than the people that are living here, right now, suffering because of multiple factors - one of which is governmental mismanagement, along with inflationary monetary policies, the sudden removal of all economic activity with Russia (a whole separate issue). I have no doubt in my mind that the Liberal MP who voted for exempting home heating from the carbon tax will be conveniently replaced during the next election cycle - given the current Liberal party culture of "follow us in lockstep or you're gone". I also have no doubt in my mind that because the western world decided to lower domestic production of energy sources like natural gas and oil products that we're going to see a an unexpected amount of people dying from freezing to death in their homes. Canada, USA, or Europe. Extremely frustrating that the Canadian government continues to insist raising carbon taxes on everybody during one of the most unstable economies, during the aftermath of a pandemic with harsh actions that wouldn't have needed to be so harsh if they didn't have a dilapidated healthcare system propped up by good feelings and government-sponsored marketing campaigns to "thank a nurse!" I'd rather support someone who takes care of people _now_ instead of fear-mongering us to give up more of our money for "the future" - which we'll never see because we'll already be dead of old age anyways. It seems so idealistic and faith-driven to me - just an excuse to take more of your money away from you with no meaningful return on your forced "investment".
    - arbitrary_name 4y ago
      Why do you think there is a dilapidated health care system today, if not due to the inaction of yesterday? Why do you think we have inflation, housing crises and environmental catastrophe today, if not for the short sightedness and selfishness of those who came before us? Your position appears to be one of self centered convenience, the exact same mindset that has prevented any solutions in the past. You are literally proposing we do nothing because it will impact you. Well, at some point, we won't even have a choice: we will have our backs against the wall, with the costs of our inaction limiting our choices.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >This argument might be valid in Brazil but definitely isn't in Canada. I assure you many Canadians are getting ready to fire up ye olde wood stove this winter who wouldn't otherwise but are doing so thanks to motivation from energy prices.
rob74 4y ago
Hm, then I wonder why rich nations have much higher per capita CO2 emissions than poor nations (https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-do/climate-action-note/state-of-climate.html https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-d...)?
- jamescostian 4y ago
  You're not replying to a comment saying "poor people are the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions", you're replying to a comment saying "driving people into poverty is the biggest contributor of CO2" So the thing to look at isn't poor people's emissions, it's rich people's emissions, given that (relatively speaking, bc increasing money supply just decreases its worth) the richer rich people are, the more poor people there are (or the poorer the poor people are). This is well-known, you can google and find tons of articles, but here's one from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-make-the-rich-pay-for-their-carbon-emissions https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-m... The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last). I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind, but that could hurt poor people even more if it happened before poor people got more money to afford more eco-friendly choices). And on the opposite side of the spectrum, if rich people weren't quite as rich, they wouldn't consume quite as much in excess, and would lead to less emissions.
  - ntp85 4y ago
    The parent comment was about a knee-capped economy which would also affect the rich, wouldn't it?
    - jamescostian 4y ago
      Imagine if everyone made a little more money, except for rich people who made considerably more money. Prices would go up and pretty much everyone would struggle to consume as much (or, consume things of as high quality, or perhaps as eco-friendly), but rich people wouldn't really see much of a change in their spending power, since there's few of them and they're making considerably more. I'd argue that idea counters your argument. Unfortunately, that idea is more than just an idea: https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits-protecting-low-wage-workers-from-inflation-means-raising-the-minimum-wage/ https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits...
ntp85 4y ago
Isn't it common sense that the wealthy are the ones who produce / emit the most CO2? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I can't understand how poverty is the worst thing for the environment seeing that it restricts consumption.
- canadiantim 4y ago
  Poor people care less for the environment than wealthier people, as a general rule. So if you push more people into poverty you get a population that will care about environmental concerns less. E.g. they will overharvest fish populations, or care less about other environmental pollution because their primary concern is getting food on their table and surviving. It's like maslow's heirarchy of needs. People generally need to look after their own and their family's survival first before they look at the survival of the environment.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Poor people care less for the environment than wealthier people, as a general rule. This is not true. "Higher and lower incomes make little difference to people's concern about the natural environment, according to new research from the University of Bristol." https://phys.org/news/2012-09-environmentalism-rich-poor.html https://phys.org/news/2012-09-environmentalism-rich-poor.htm... See also: "People Of Color And Poor Americans Are More Likely To Care About Climate Change, Study Says" https://www.livekindly.com/people-color-poor-likely-care-climate-change/ https://www.livekindly.com/people-color-poor-likely-care-cli...
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Poor people take public transit, drive small cars, ans buy less. Obviously not by choice but this tends to be much more environmentally friendly. Middle class Americans drive lifted pickup trucks without using the main functionality. That harms the environment
  - cfhhgtyg 4y ago
    I don't think that's true, even though it may seem like that, since poor people can't consume as much climate friendly marketed tech. Study for attitude to climate policies and more for countries all around the world, rich and less rich: https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/international-attitudes-toward-climate-policies/ https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/international-attitudes-...

pjc50 4y ago

This argument might be valid in Brazil but definitely isn't in Canada.

canadiantim 4y ago
Canada is tripling its carbon tax meanwhile residents e.g. in Newfoundland are suffering extremely under the cost of fuel prices for heating their home, so much so that even liberal mps are voting to exempt home heating from the tripling of the carbon tax. So this argument definitely still valid in Canada, though I do agree that it is more valid is more developing countries.
- VancouverMan 4y ago
  It's such a convoluted situation in Canada. The same politicians forcing insane "carbon taxes" are also putting in place immigration policies that bring in an absolutely massive number of people each year. This, of course, drives up the demand for electricity, housing (including heating, as you mention), infrastructure, transportation (of goods and people), food, and so forth, all of which contribute to "carbon emissions". The "green belts" that have been imposed by government around major cities just end up pushing urban sprawl farther out, beyond those belts. This, in turn, increases the time and energy spent commuting and travelling, which is usually done by car, since public transit in Canada is very limited and impractical, and the distances are quite far. Thanks to significant and overbearing government bureaucracy and regulations, building high-rise residential buildings in the densest cities takes ages. The actual construction phase is very rapid compared to sorting out the bureaucratic details. If these politicians really wanted to limit or cut "carbon emissions", the first thing they'd be doing is halting pretty much all immigration into Canada, to at least let the situation stabilize.
  - scohesc 4y ago
    The societal 'culture' has changed so rapidly that you'd hear cries of racism, bigotry, ignorance, etc. if you even suggested slowing/stopping immigration to the current party in power. I get we've got low birth rates. Maybe encourage the people that are here _now_ to procreate instead of forcing both care-givers to slave away all their hours to their employer instead of using the time for child-rearing? I get that people don't want to work for low wages - maybe we can stop bringing or severely limit the amount of immigrants for a bit (all avenues of immigration, education - and it's associated literal immigration mills and foreign housing investment schemes; refugees - that somehow are still refugees when crossing by land from USA into Canada, that are happier than ever to come to the country and make minimum wage because it's MUCH more than they made overseas - which they're now finding out is completely untenable in today's Canada, and some are even choosing to leave the country they immigrated to!) I'm definitely _NOT_ claiming immigration as the sole cause of all our problems, but when Statistics Canada says a quarter of all people in Canada are immigrants or permanent residents, maybe we need to slow things down a bit for a little while to let things settle.
- scohesc 4y ago
  The weird looks I get for even suggesting bringing manufacturing back home so we can have western-made goods, with low-carbon manufacturing regulations just shows that people don't understand how hard we're getting fleeced for our money. Bring these things home, we can regulate, control, and promote cleaner manufacturing practices - or at least control industrial waste output instead of "pipe the waste chemicals into the river beside us, who cares!". I really find it a big problem that we're putting "the climate" as a higher priority than the people that are living here, right now, suffering because of multiple factors - one of which is governmental mismanagement, along with inflationary monetary policies, the sudden removal of all economic activity with Russia (a whole separate issue). I have no doubt in my mind that the Liberal MP who voted for exempting home heating from the carbon tax will be conveniently replaced during the next election cycle - given the current Liberal party culture of "follow us in lockstep or you're gone". I also have no doubt in my mind that because the western world decided to lower domestic production of energy sources like natural gas and oil products that we're going to see a an unexpected amount of people dying from freezing to death in their homes. Canada, USA, or Europe. Extremely frustrating that the Canadian government continues to insist raising carbon taxes on everybody during one of the most unstable economies, during the aftermath of a pandemic with harsh actions that wouldn't have needed to be so harsh if they didn't have a dilapidated healthcare system propped up by good feelings and government-sponsored marketing campaigns to "thank a nurse!" I'd rather support someone who takes care of people _now_ instead of fear-mongering us to give up more of our money for "the future" - which we'll never see because we'll already be dead of old age anyways. It seems so idealistic and faith-driven to me - just an excuse to take more of your money away from you with no meaningful return on your forced "investment".
  - arbitrary_name 4y ago
    Why do you think there is a dilapidated health care system today, if not due to the inaction of yesterday? Why do you think we have inflation, housing crises and environmental catastrophe today, if not for the short sightedness and selfishness of those who came before us? Your position appears to be one of self centered convenience, the exact same mindset that has prevented any solutions in the past. You are literally proposing we do nothing because it will impact you. Well, at some point, we won't even have a choice: we will have our backs against the wall, with the costs of our inaction limiting our choices.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>This argument might be valid in Brazil but definitely isn't in Canada. I assure you many Canadians are getting ready to fire up ye olde wood stove this winter who wouldn't otherwise but are doing so thanks to motivation from energy prices.

rob74 4y ago

Hm, then I wonder why rich nations have much higher per capita CO2 emissions than poor nations (https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-do/climate-action-note/state-of-climate.html https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-d...)?

jamescostian 4y ago
You're not replying to a comment saying "poor people are the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions", you're replying to a comment saying "driving people into poverty is the biggest contributor of CO2" So the thing to look at isn't poor people's emissions, it's rich people's emissions, given that (relatively speaking, bc increasing money supply just decreases its worth) the richer rich people are, the more poor people there are (or the poorer the poor people are). This is well-known, you can google and find tons of articles, but here's one from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-make-the-rich-pay-for-their-carbon-emissions https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-m... The poorer you are, the less you can individually consume, and the more you must go for things that are cheap at the expense of other things (e.g. buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last). I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening without government intervention of some kind, but that could hurt poor people even more if it happened before poor people got more money to afford more eco-friendly choices). And on the opposite side of the spectrum, if rich people weren't quite as rich, they wouldn't consume quite as much in excess, and would lead to less emissions.
- ntp85 4y ago
  The parent comment was about a knee-capped economy which would also affect the rich, wouldn't it?
  - jamescostian 4y ago
    Imagine if everyone made a little more money, except for rich people who made considerably more money. Prices would go up and pretty much everyone would struggle to consume as much (or, consume things of as high quality, or perhaps as eco-friendly), but rich people wouldn't really see much of a change in their spending power, since there's few of them and they're making considerably more. I'd argue that idea counters your argument. Unfortunately, that idea is more than just an idea: https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits-protecting-low-wage-workers-from-inflation-means-raising-the-minimum-wage/ https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits...

ntp85 4y ago

Isn't it common sense that the wealthy are the ones who produce / emit the most CO2? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I can't understand how poverty is the worst thing for the environment seeing that it restricts consumption.

canadiantim 4y ago
Poor people care less for the environment than wealthier people, as a general rule. So if you push more people into poverty you get a population that will care about environmental concerns less. E.g. they will overharvest fish populations, or care less about other environmental pollution because their primary concern is getting food on their table and surviving. It's like maslow's heirarchy of needs. People generally need to look after their own and their family's survival first before they look at the survival of the environment.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Poor people care less for the environment than wealthier people, as a general rule. This is not true. "Higher and lower incomes make little difference to people's concern about the natural environment, according to new research from the University of Bristol." https://phys.org/news/2012-09-environmentalism-rich-poor.html https://phys.org/news/2012-09-environmentalism-rich-poor.htm... See also: "People Of Color And Poor Americans Are More Likely To Care About Climate Change, Study Says" https://www.livekindly.com/people-color-poor-likely-care-climate-change/ https://www.livekindly.com/people-color-poor-likely-care-cli...
- themitigating 4y ago
  Poor people take public transit, drive small cars, ans buy less. Obviously not by choice but this tends to be much more environmentally friendly. Middle class Americans drive lifted pickup trucks without using the main functionality. That harms the environment
- cfhhgtyg 4y ago
  I don't think that's true, even though it may seem like that, since poor people can't consume as much climate friendly marketed tech. Study for attitude to climate policies and more for countries all around the world, rich and less rich: https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/international-attitudes-toward-climate-policies/ https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/international-attitudes-...