this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024

224 points (98.7% liked)

World News

39368 readers

2381 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

224

Canada’s carbon tax is popular, innovative and helps save the planet – but now it faces the axe (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave to c/world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As prime minister Justin Trudeau trails in polls, opposition seek to persuade voters environmental policy is a burden

Mass hunger and malnutrition. A looming nuclear winter. An existential threat to the Canadian way of life. For months, the country’s Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has issued dire and increasingly apocalyptic warnings about the future. The culprit? A federal carbon levy meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

In the House of Commons this month, the Tory leader said there was only one way to avoid the devastating crisis: embattled prime minister Justin Trudeau must “call a ‘carbon tax’ election”.

Hailed as a global model of progressive environmental policy, Canada’s carbon tax has reduced emissions and put money in the pockets of Canadians. The levy, endorsed by conservative and progressive economists, has survived multiple federal elections and a supreme court challenge. But this time, a persistent cost-of-living crisis and a pugnacious Conservative leader running on a populist message have thrust the country’s carbon tax once more into the spotlight, calling into question whether it will survive another national vote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Windex007 -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Canada-wide, it's at -8 in terms of favorability.

Even if you attribute that to ignorance of how it works or even flat out hatred of Trudeau, it still isn't popular. That is the political reality. It is GENERALLY unpopular.

Considering Trudeaus favorability ratings are currently like, -30, it's actually significantly more popular than Trudeau himself, which makes me skeptical that the driving force really is just a dislike of Trudeau

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Considering Trudeaus favorability ratings are currently like, -30, it’s actually significantly more popular than Trudeau himself, which makes me skeptical that the driving force really is just a dislike of Trudeau

I think that's exactly the explanation of how the driving force really is just a dislike of Trudeau. The CPC has done a good job of tainting it as "Trudeau's Carbon Tax". The Environment is a top issue for Canadians. This is just anecdotal, but I live in a rural, conservative area and while you get a lot of ignorance or just hatred of any type of tax, you also get some people who logically understand how it works but simply hate it because it's tied to Trudeau.

[–] Windex007 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe. But if it was that simple then I'd expect it to be at least as unfavorable as Trudeau.

I think it's just people don't understand it, and I think that's frankly the fault of the liberals.

People hear "tax" and go "shit that's a thing I have to pay, right?" And "carbon" and say "my home is heated by natural gas and I drive to work" and then say "the government wants to tax me not to freeze and to get to work?" And then they don't connect the dots that the money that keeps getting direct deposited to them by the government is funded by the tax.

Like, if it was called "The Climate Bonus Payment" and the government had a little fucking fanfare around the distribution, it'd be wildly popular.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The more likely conclusion to draw here is that the carbon tax is well liked enough that it can rise above Trudeau's appalling favorability ratings. If people hated the tax itself as widely as you're supposing, it would logically be even less popular than the leader it's so indemnably associated with, no?

[–] Windex007 2 points 2 months ago

I think we roughly agree. The point I'm trying to make is that I think arguments around it being tied to just hating Trudeau are overblown. Even when Trudeau was net positive the carbon tax was net negative.

I think people's perception of the carbon tax are based on their understanding of the carbon tax. I don't people's view of Trudeau significantly factor into it, at least not directly.

Conservatives are most likely to see it unfavorably. They're most likely to not understand it. They might ALSO be more likely to see Trudeau unfavorably... But that's kinda post hoc ergo propter hoc IMO

[–] njm1314 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think your logic follows there, if anything that would prove it's probably more related to Trudeau than anything else. If it was opposite and the law was less favorable than Trudeau yeah I would agree with your logic but it just doesn't work the way you're saying.

[–] Windex007 -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My argument is I think I don't think a dislike of Trudeau is driving the unpopularity of the carbon tax. My argument is that misunderstanding of the carbon tax is driving the unpopularity of the carbon tax.

And my rationale is what you're saying: why is the CT MORE popular than Trudeau if hatred for Trudeau is why the CT is is unpopular? I agree, it DOESN'T follow.

[–] njm1314 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It does. It absolutely follows. I don't know how you're thinking of it, like I can't wrap my head around how you're getting from A to B here. If people hated the bill on its own then shouldn't it'd be less popular than Trudeau? It would have the double whammy of being unpopular on its own and being his policy.

Let's try this, we both agree that a lot of people have a negative opinion of Trudeau? Of course. Therefore anything connected with him is going to have an inherent downward swing of opinion due to the association? Right? Pretty simple. However as we see despite being associated with him it's still much more popular than he is. Therefore he's bringing it down more than the reverse.

Imagine there's a guy drowning and he's sinking to the bottom, he reaches out and grabs a piece of wood with his outstretched hand. His hands up high above his head clinging into this piece of wood and it's starting to sink too because he's too heavy and it overwhelms the woods buoyancy. That's what I'm saying. Picture this bill like the piece of wood. Does that help?

[–] Windex007 -1 points 2 months ago

If people hated the bill on it's own, then shouldn't it be less popular than Trudeau?

No.

Therefore anything connected with him is going to have an inherent downward swing of opinion due to the association? Right?

No.

These relationships can exist, but it's not the case that they must exist. We know through polling what the favorability is of the CT: low. We know through polling how well understood it is: poor. We know through polling that people who don't understand it are much more inclined to view it unfavorably. We already have a very straightforward explanation.

Adding in Trudeau is adding a 3rd variable into the mix to explain something that's already been explained. And when you add him it, you have to start inventing justifications to make things align with his numbers.

It is the antithesis of Occam's razor