this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
86 points (98.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7350 readers
367 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The sad thing is that people are voting for those politicians.
In Canada, the Liberals introduced the carbon tax around a decade ago. But one of the most popular points of the Conservatives was "axe the tax". Seeing how popular the slogan was, amd wanting to be re-elected, the Liberals did just that. They removed their very own carbon tax.
It makes gas cheaper so people want that. Cheap gas to power their ever bigger pickup trucks and SUVs. Who would vote to keep higher gas prices and use a smaller car? Or even worse, who would vote for bike lanes and public transit?
Politicians are pretty much just doing what people expect of them. They have to make sure gas is ever cheaper, that growth stays infinite, while also pretending to do something about the environment.
I would imagine that people in general would be more likely to support paying increased taxes to support climate change related action if they didn't feel that those taxes could be the difference between paying rent and being homeless. New taxes can't be the only solution because climate change isn't the only thing people care about.
The carbon tax was revenue neutral. It came back to you in the form of rebates. If you were an average Joe and did absolutely nothing in response to it, you'd still break even.
But if you did do something to lower your personal carbon footprint, you'd get ahead. You'd be getting back more than you were paying. And the higher the tax went, the bigger the payout would become. That was the point of it. It was an incentive to lower your taxes and emissions at the same time.
But all people with half a brain could hear was TAX TAX TAX. And so here we are…
They should have mailed the rebate on a big check that said "green refund - big polluters pay, you deposit"
I don't want to seem unkind but a lot of people are not choosing between paying rent or being homeless just because they should/could reduce the usage of their cars.
I know poorer people rely on car dependency and that taxing their gas is genuinely upsetting. However, the average Canadian monthly payment for a new car is $1,019. Some people can buy cars of $60 000 but the gas to feed it is too expensive and threatens their food or housing safety?
Again, this is going to sound incredibly disconnected and privileged, but I changed city and moved somewhere with public transit and an expansive network of bike paths so I don't have to pay eternally for a car and its polluting fuel. It's what made me afford my rent while being poor. It also has the benefit of polluting less.
More than 80 percent of Canada's population live in urban centers. Some have public transit and is actively being cut. Some have bike networks where car drivers criticize every inch that's not theirs. Most people living in those urban centers could reduce their car usage, but they chose to drive cars, whine about gas prices, parking costs, cyclists, and vote for politicians reflecting that.
It didn't make gss or anything cheaper though. Corporations pocket more profit and now I do t get a rebate.