Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgbmtl | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Do you think those policies are anywhere on the scale necessary to meet the climate change goals he has set out?

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)

I asked the question because I was actually wondering your thoughts, like, maybe I'm being too negative to think what has been done so far has been far from what's necessary. I wasn't trying to be cynical about it.

In terms of suggestions, the book Drawdown contains many. It lists 100 contributing solutions to climate change. I'm going to go read it again, but the gist is that there are no silver bullets.

Two things that were campaign and earlier year promises we've yet to see.. planting 3 billion trees, and ending fossil fuel subsidies.. those still haven't happened.

Yep, I agree. No silver bullet, and funding fossil fuels makes no sense (although part of me understand they want to avoid a situation such as in France, where it could could price hikes, inflation, and the population is not ready for it.. carbon taxes make more sense)

I don't know what his goals are but a sufficient CO2 tax can easily result in 20%-50% less CO2 emissions.

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_di...

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com