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.
Justin Trudeau could cure cancer 6 days in a row and our pseudo-aristocracy would claim he was lazy on the 7th; or probably the cause to begin with.
Polievre - if he’s still the leader of the “no tax no benefits” American party this week - has no platform other than “Trudeau sucks” and the truck-nut Flatlanders just nod their head.
Sadly, they could take the election, and our hopes for decent hospital care go from “soon” to “never, plebe”. Fucking Texans.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
It’s not popular.
It’s not popular amongst those with f*ck trudeau bumper stickers on their jacked up, under-utilized vanity trucks.
But nothing tied to his name is popular with them.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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
It’s popular with me, like most people I get back more than I put in.
Same here. That doesn’t mean it’s popular with most Canadians. And if it’s the issue to give us Poilievre, who comes with other downsides, then perhaps we should revisit it. It don’t matter how many up/down votes it gets among us.
Mostly it’s just unpopular because Trudeau’s name is attached (just like Obamacare, aka the Afforable Care Act, was in the US).
A few weeks back there was a comment made here (sorry, can’t find it) where the poster said he’d discussed the carbon rebate with a couple of guys who were adamantly against it and swore they never received the rebate.
Turned out one guy owed back taxes (so the rebate was withheld to pay it) and the other guy’s wife received theirs.
And that’s on the the lack of messaging to clarify the tax/rebate info for people.
Wait until the Cons win the next election and the rebate stops … right wing voters will be pissed then.
I remember that thread.
In conservative media, sure.
Look at some polling numbers on the issue.
A plurality of Canadians don’t support it.
Though, given that most don’t realize they are receiving the benefits from it, this seems more a messaging issue than a policy one.
But this is kind of the issue. Any environmental legislation is going to have to battle through conservative disinformation. The alternative is the conservative’s plan which seems to “screw it, that’s somebody else’s problem. Specifically, the next generation’s.”
Right, so the title is false. You can’t say something is popular when most people who have some opinion on it have a negative one.
Ehhhhhh, I dunno. I mean, it’d be weird to argue donald trump isn’t popular, despite thr majority of folks having an unfavourable opinion of him.
I also think this is sort of like Obamacare which was famously incredibly popular with folks, including Republican voters, as long as you didn’t use the word Obamacare. If you loom at that abacus polling I linked earlier, you’ll note that most folks don’t even seem to realize the cheques they’ve received have anything to do with the carbon tax and many don’t understand they’re getting more than they pay in…
I’m not arguing that people know what it is or are aware of the actual implications.
Okay but it does seem odd to claim it’s unpopular when the unpopularity is based on misunderstanding. (Also, would you say trump is unpopular despite his legions of rabid
marksfans?)Let’s go back to Obamacare, which when polled absent the name, was wildly popular. But Obamacare with the name was unpopular.
So, would you say Obamacare was popular, unpopular or complicated? And do you see how this applies to the Carbon Tax, which suffers from the same issue?
Okay but it does seem odd to claim it’s unpopular when the unpopularity is based on misunderstanding.
I don’t think it’s odd, because people vote based on whatever their understanding or misunderstanding is. Therefore this popularity is what drives upstream decisions on keeping, modifying or repealing this policy. Not what the true, factual reality is.
Obamacare
I don’t have the numbers on Obamacare but lets assume for sake of argument that 80% of people wanted it repealed, while only 20% if it was called ACA. If at a given point in time the law was referred to by Obamacare by 80% of the people and they wanted it repealed, then I’d say it’s unpopular. Of course I can see how this applies to the CT and I’d refer you to my previous paragraph. People will vote and demand change on the basis of their current beliefs, however well they match reality. If someone managed to manufacture belief one way or another, that’s what counts at the ballot box. Today I think the beliefs on CT can’t be framed as popular. Worse, I think they shouldn’t be framed this way because it could lead to counterproductive results.
I think it’s a rose by any other name. As a political name, I think you are right. As a policy, I think it is broadly popular.
Think of Obamacare. It is basically unchanged and now, fairly popular as more have experienced it instead of conservative misinformation. At the beginning, like the carbon tax, it was broadly popular in all but name.
Now, people will absolutely vote based on their misunderstanding of the situation. (This is a program wherein most Canadian citizens get money from the government but more than half of us don’t think we got it and of those who do understand they received it, a sizeable proportion has no idea it has to do with carbon rebates.)
If you took the exact same policy, branded the cheques “Poilievre’s Policies Payback to Canadians” or whatever, it would (minus the chicanery) be broadly popular.
So sure, the name of a thing is unpopular but the thing itself is popular. Your call which you think is more important I guess?
I think the problem is that it’s targeting residents, which is how you know the policy was drafted by anti-environmental proponents, regardless of what anyone says. Carbon taxes need to target companies, not residents. Companies and industries are the main producers of carbon emissions, the output of residents pales in comparison.
I think you hit the nail on the head. More and more I think this is exactly the problem. Carbon taxes especially become a problem when the individual has no good alternatives to switch to. One obvious example is commuting by car and public transit. People should feel encouraged to switch to public transit by the policy. Except public transit is so inadequate in most of Canada that it’s simply not a realistic option for many if not most. If you’re an individual in that situation, you’d feel the carbon tax is just punishing you with no action you can take to make it stop. The only lever left to them is the democratic lever and they’re gonna pull it to make it stop. I think you’re right that the focus of the carbon tax should be on industry alone. Companies are much more likely to have ability to do something about their carbon output as well as to be able to act rationally on price signals. In order to address individual-level emissions, other policies should be employed. Create alternative first, then make them irresistible. Build massive public transit then make it cheap to use, procure large supply of heat pumps then subsidise exchanging gas furnaces for them.
Oh and when economists call it the most efficient way to curb climate change, they are talking specifically about economic efficiency. Its political externalities aren’t factored in even if they are large enough to kill the policy itself.
If commuters don’t have an alternative to travel, then policy makers should mandate that the commuters carbon tax be paid for by their company
it’s not popular
The downvotes you’re getting disprove your assertion.
I wish they represented the general Canadian population. 😄
Popularity has little bearing on merit.
But it does have bearing on the title.
It’s not popular with people who don’t like money
