Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Is climate change, a major concern for Canadians ....


Is climate change important to canadians   

22 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

On 11/1/2019 at 8:06 PM, Army Guy said:

So here is a real question to Canadians.... How much do we really care about climate change ? And while polls are not the end all to be all how much credit do we give this poll.... 50 % don't want to use tax dollars or added costs....only 8 % of Canadian are willing to spend a whopping $100.00 or more.  WOW...

I guess thats saying something, even the left does not really believe in climate change enough to pay for it..., let me rephrase that they don't care about climate change thats better... I say that because most of us say we believe in climate change, kind of like the catch phrase we support our troops during the Afghan conflict....you had to say that or be attacked, or not taken serious on any topic......same here, we all believe in climate change, the science is out there.....and yet still not even a majority is convinced enough to put money towards it........

Maybe Justin had polled these numbers before and came up with the half ass carbon tax....because really Canadians don't really give a crap about climate change.... according to this poll. 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/matt-gurney-the-numbers-dont-back-up-any-claim-that-climate-change-sank-scheer/ar-AAJDtDb

I am extremely concerned but I do not think governments are the solution to what we need to do so I reject the premises of assuming government through collection of  taxes will be the primary agent for the changes we need. I believe the changes must come from and be initiated by the private sector.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 312
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ya ... no ... being a noisy, nasty ill-informed fanatic doesn't make one a leader. You have to say things that make sense. That's why I asked if you officially represent the PPC. Max might not appreci

I wouldn't say "nowhere".  As it stands right now, fossil fuel production is on life support, kept alive only by public subsidies. All Canadians have to do is shift some subsidies from fossil fue

https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise/   It may be boring to you, but to some people it's a harsh reality that is not simply fixed with money.  

Posted Images

17 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

what worries me is that some people(with degrees I assume) think everyone is just going to stop everything and go green.  

Of course if three economists came out with a warning that we face en economic emergency we'd be overrun by headless chickens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong way to put it in your #1 choice above.

I would pay exactly ZERO in taxes, but I do care A LOT and I think we have a real climate emergency.

My thought is that what I pay in taxes will make no difference to the climate; it will actually have a negative impact if anything because of the increased ability of the government to spend and do further harm.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me at least, like in most most cases, I'm not really concerned with how much I'm taxed (with a certain variance according to priority/impact etc..) Where my concern lies, is in how said taxes are spent, if I knew that a few thousand of my dollars per year would have a direct effect, I'm more then ok with that

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 5:43 PM, Cannucklehead said:

.....

11,000 scientists.

"What worries me is that our government is not taking this issue seriously enough from a policy perspective and … short-sighted priorities fail to acknowledge the tremendous cost of inaction," she said.

hat worries me is that some people(with degrees I assume) think everyone is just going to stop everything and go green.  

I hear Mickey Mouse signed that too

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

 if I knew that a few thousand of my dollars per year would have a direct effect, I'm more then ok with that

What do you think money can be meaningfully spent for to help the environment?

Buy what?

Any product you buy has a negative effect on the environment.  Any meeting in another city / country has a negative effect on the environment.  Employing more people has a negative effect on the environment.

The logical conclusion is that spending money can have no positive impact on the environment!

Edited by cougar
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cougar said:

What do you think money can be meaningfully spent for to help the environment?

Buy what?

Any product you buy has a negative effect on the environment.  Any meeting in another city / country has a negative effect on the environment.  Employing more people has a negative effect on the environment.

The logical conclusion is that spending money can have no positive impact on the environment!

With a defeatist attitude like that ,(anything and everything is negative) not sure how you manage to get out of bed in the morning.

Here is an anecdotal example of what I mean. I owned a small event production company. It's an industry that often leaves a large carbon footprint, being sensitive to that fact, and being unsatisfied with what the gov't offers, I tasked an employee to find a better way to offset our emissions. She found an NGO in south america whos work is geared towards diminishing carbon emissions from third world countries. 

The technology exists, we have the money (used pragmatically, as my original post suggests) all we need is the will.

If the logic you chose to employ is fallacious, I agree, little positive impact will result

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few Canadians will die because of climate change, but 50% will get Cancer in their lifetime. What environmentalists should be focused on, is taking on the chemical industry. Making sure we find alternatives to toxic chemicals. This is how you protect human health and entire ecosystems.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PPC2019 said:

Very few Canadians will die because of climate change, but 50% will get Cancer in their lifetime. What environmentalists should be focused on, is taking on the chemical industry. Making sure we find alternatives to toxic chemicals. This is how you protect human health and entire ecosystems.

Cancer has been around for 1000's of years, before toxic chemicals were discovered.  But yeah they should try to find alternatives to those too.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Cancer has been around for 1000's of years, before toxic chemicals were discovered.  But yeah they should try to find alternatives to those too.  

In 1900 It was expected that, 1 in 20 people would get cancer in their lifetime. Now it's close to 1 in 2. We shouldn't be so focused on climate change, when 1 in 2 people are getting cancer due to toxic chemicals in the environment.

I may be a conservative, but I'd like to see things like Lysol and Nail Polish banned.

Edited by PPC2019
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

We shouldn't be so focused on climate change, when 1 in 2 people are getting cancer due to toxic chemicals in the environment.

Seems to me the two are interconnected (pesticides used in agriculture for example), but even if they were completely separate issues, why would you ignore one to fix the other? 

Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Seems to me the two are interconnected (pesticides used in agriculture for example), but even if they were completely separate issues, why would you ignore one to fix the other? 

Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time

When all the media attention is on Climate Change, no one is paying attention to all the other environmental problems. I want to see a plan to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals going into Lake Ontario. Toronto depends on Lake Ontario for drinking water, and it isn't safe for swimming.

Edited by PPC2019
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

When all the media attention is on Climate Change, no one is paying attention to all the other environmental problems. I want to see a plan to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals going into Lake Ontario. Toronto depends on Lake Ontario for drinking water, and it isn't safe for swimming.

I don't disagree that we should be concerned about levels of toxicity in our lakes etc...(again i see a direct link with that and climate change)

Where i do disagree is the idea that we need to put one aside to focus on the other.

Pardon my use of a military analogy, but an army can attack on two fronts, its often the best strategy 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I don't disagree that we should be concerned about levels of toxicity in our lakes etc...(again i see a direct link with that and climate change)

Where i do disagree is the idea that we need to put one aside to focus on the other.

Pardon my use of a military analogy, but an army can attack on two fronts, its often the best strategy 

 

The best way to attack all fronts, is to reduce the population. I don't hear anyone talking about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

The best way to attack all fronts, is to reduce the population. I don't hear anyone talking about that.

Well you just did, though it wasn't a good faith argument, simply an attempt to divert the conversation. 

Changes are happening, I grew up in Toronto with the acid rain, no more of that anymore, most pesticides are not permitted for residential use, and have been heavily regulated for commercial use.

You're either looking for solutions to problems or looking for reasons not to act, you seem to be the latter

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Well you just did, though it wasn't a good faith argument, simply an attempt to divert the conversation. 

Changes are happening, I grew up in Toronto with the acid rain, no more of that anymore, most pesticides are not permitted for residential use, and have been heavily regulated for commercial use.

You're either looking for solutions to problems or looking for reasons not to act, you seem to be the latter

 

 

 

Well the liberals want 100 million Canadians by 2100. How are we going to protect Lake Ontario with 20 million people living in the GTA by the end of the century? The PPC had the best plan to deal with immigration, and we were called racists.

Edited by PPC2019
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Well you just did, though it wasn't a good faith argument, simply an attempt to divert the conversation. 

Changes are happening, I grew up in Toronto with the acid rain, no more of that anymore, most pesticides are not permitted for residential use, and have been heavily regulated for commercial use.

You're either looking for solutions to problems or looking for reasons not to act, you seem to be the latter

 

 

 

I think it's disingenous to bring up acid rain (or the ozone hole, for that matter) when talking about our capacity for fighting climate change.  There really is no comparison.  If there was, we would have fixed it by now.

The idea that people who truly understand the scope of the problem, and are not afraid to admit it, are looking for reasons not to act is wrong.  They are just happy to admit there is no fix.

I've yet to hear an actual workable plan from those whose best contribution so far has been:  "Well, we have to do SOMETHING!!!".

Because that's all we get.  Even the recent 11000 don't actually have a plan.  They just all signed a letter to tell us something we already knew.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PPC2019 said:

In 1900 It was expected that, 1 in 20 people would get cancer in their lifetime. Now it's close to 1 in 2. We shouldn't be so focused on climate change, when 1 in 2 people are getting cancer due to toxic chemicals in the environment.

I may be a conservative, but I'd like to see things like Lysol and Nail Polish banned.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/history-of-cancer/what-is-cancer.html

 

Gotta go back further than that.  Imo it's a genetic thing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think it's disingenous to bring up acid rain (or the ozone hole, for that matter) when talking about our capacity for fighting climate change.  There really is no comparison.  If there was, we would have fixed it by now.

The idea that people who truly understand the scope of the problem, and are not afraid to admit it, are looking for reasons not to act is wrong.  They are just happy to admit there is no fix.

I've yet to hear an actual workable plan from those whose best contribution so far has been:  "Well, we have to do SOMETHING!!!".

Because that's all we get.  Even the recent 11000 don't actually have a plan.  They just all signed a letter to tell us something we already knew.

Essentially I agree with everything you said.

If you follow the thread I think you'll understand why I brought up acid rain.

I do think that we should stop relying on others to find solutions. 

Small anecdotal example, i owned an event production company, an industry that often has high emissions. Sensitive to that and unsatisfied with what the gov't offered, i took it apon myself to reduce that foot print with the hope of at least coming out "carbon neutral" . I found an NGO in south america where we could track where the money went.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, PPC2019 said:

Well the liberals want 100 million Canadians by 2100. How are we going to protect Lake Ontario with 20 million people living in the GTA by the end of the century? The PPC had the best plan to deal with immigration, and we were called racists.

I have zero interest in participating in a bad faith, partisan conversation.

If you want to have a rational, honest discussion though, I'd be glad to engage

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Essentially I agree with everything you said.

If you follow the thread I think you'll understand why I brought up acid rain.

I do think that we should stop relying on others to find solutions. 

Small anecdotal example, i owned an event production company, an industry that often has high emissions. Sensitive to that and unsatisfied with what the gov't offered, i took it apon myself to reduce that foot print with the hope of at least coming out "carbon neutral" . I found an NGO in south america where we could track where the money went.

 

Individual efforts are great, but they won't stop the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Your post seems unfinished, so I don't know if you achieved your goal, but if you did, I wonder who suffered for it, and how much.  I am assuming no-one, and not much.  In other words, you did what you could, within bounds set out by your individual situation.  Everyone should do that, but it won't make any difference to climate change. 

We have to rely on everyone to sign on to a solution, at the very least.  It won't work otherwise.

For many climate change is secondary to their own political views.  Look at the opposition to nuclear, and on a lesser scale, carbon capture technology.  Shipping LNG to Kitimat for the Asian market would have a net beneficial effect on the climate, (Not by much, I agree, but then, what would?) but it is opposed by some environmentalists and First Nations. Alberta's oil and gas is the most regulated in the world, but there are those who would shut down production, only to have the shortfall made up immediately by production from a less regulated source. There are those who oppose pipelines for oil, even though trains burn fossil fuels to run.  There are those who think the days of oil and gas are done, and all we have to do is wait. Currently demand growth is slowing due to an economic turndown.  But it's still rising.  Just not as fast.

I'm a broken record on this, but if you actually step back from it, and look at what has happened since the industrial revolution, when we had a population of <1billion, and then try and imagine what actually has to happen to reverse, or even just call a halt to, climate change, you can see how impossible it is.  Because it has to be a worldwide effort, with an absolutely unheard of level of cooperation. 

And even then, the lag in the system means that when we do go to net zero, it won't stop the climate changing for about twenty years.

Just move to higher ground and arm yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

With a defeatist attitude like that ,(anything and everything is negative) not sure how you manage to get out of bed in the morning.

Here is an anecdotal example of what I mean. I owned a small event production company. It's an industry that often leaves a large carbon footprint, being sensitive to that fact, and being unsatisfied with what the gov't offers, I tasked an employee to find a better way to offset our emissions. She found an NGO in south america whos work is geared towards diminishing carbon emissions from third world countries.

By doing what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PPC2019 said:

In 1900 It was expected that, 1 in 20 people would get cancer in their lifetime. Now it's close to 1 in 2.

People in 1900 had an average lifespan of 47. As lifespan has increased so too have the diseases of the elderly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PPC2019 said:

The best way to attack all fronts, is to reduce the population. I don't hear anyone talking about that.

Are you volunteering to be reduced?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 7:16 PM, SkyHigh said:

 For me at least, like in most most cases, I'm not really concerned with how much I'm taxed (with a certain variance according to priority/impact etc..) Where my concern lies, is in how said taxes are spent, if I knew that a few thousand of my dollars per year would have a direct effect, I'm more then ok with that

Please , Lets be honest here we all are concerned with how much taxes we pay and where it goes, and we are already paying higher taxes that are not going to producing any viable results, we also found out that the carbon tax is not fully costed out to meet Paris accord agreed upon numbers , to do that we are going to pay out double of what the max figure was … according to Barbie.... so this is going to cost more than a few thousand dollars....and for the same result ….nothing...

If Canadians wanted this climate emergency seriously they would have looked to the green party for results...but they did not, because it involves more sacrifice than they are willing to pay out..... I aware of what the above poll points to, but in reality that did not happen....the fact that the greens only have 3 seats is telling....or should I say the party with the best platform to fight climate change ""if this was a climate emergency" which it is not, life will be on this planet in 10 , 20, 30 years from now..

Until the current governments federal and provincial  take climate change seriously , how can we expect the population to.. lets not even talk about all the other countries, that are not interested in doing the same sacrificing their current standard of living. How do you suggest we change minds when there is NO plan of attack, at any level of government there is no incentives for companies to produce in mass qty green tech...What we lack is leadership.... to deliver that incentive for everyone to jump in board....thats not defeatist attitude that is todays reality.  what is it that my mother used to say actions speak louder than words, Canadians put their votes into action and quit clearly voted for Barbies climate plan, which does little for anybody.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...