It matters when it’s the people and their activities causing the emissions. A bunch of unused land doesn't make the pollution that the people actually do where they live any less bad.
This is a truly bad take, it comes across as the most desperate attempt to minimize a problem that instead we deserve to look at head on
I don’t think most people are trying to reduce emissions to improve the view of their region from space.
Most people are focusing on, you know, the carbon emissions which are heating the planet, and the downstream effects from the changes that incurs?
Emission levels per capita is absolutely a better metric than “the view from space”. It’s perhaps a bit misleading— should the emissions from China that go to making disposable shit for europe and North America be attributed to their production or our consumption? (Obviously China should own the fraction for their own domestic consumption regardless)
But yeah, the emissions per capita is a good metric even if my country doesn’t look good in it. Because even if you’re fooling yourself with this view from space nonsense you’re not fooling anyone else
Canada will be mainly looking for skilled workers in the coming years. Being trained in healthcare or trades or engineering might give you a leg up, but it can’t be guaranteed
But overall Canada is reducing our overall immigration levels due to our previous government allowing many more immigrants than homes to house them.
Why do you feel pollution per km is an appropriate metric?
For sure but I want to be explicit they are only right by coincidence.
As I said, I don’t believe cons are saying this from a place of good intentions. So I agree with that. Yes, the complaints are hypocritical.
But I also don’t think it’s at all funny to joke about how the Chinese government puts a bounty on our people. In our own country! This is a real thing that is happening to real people.
That said, I’m wiling to hear out the full context on it. I can’t imagine a context that would make it okay, but there are lots of things I can’t imagine. But as it stands with the context I’m aware of it’s completely unacceptable.
So it’s not about agreeing with the conservatives or not. I don’t. I’m literally going door-knocking in a few hours to help get the vote out to ensure they do not win. A friend of mine who is rather old is volunteering in Carleton trying to unseat PP and I donated heavily to that riding in order to support them.
But also, I do not accept that we should allow our candidates from any party to make light of the abuses that the Chinese government is heaping on Canadians. Even candidates from a party I explicitly am supporting .
The Conservatives are not doing this to stand up on principle against China or stand with Chinese Canadians. They are doing this to help them win a seat, and to embarrass Carney to help win them seats elsewhere. Period.
This candidate should resign or be involuntarily replaced. This should not be considered a partisan issues, because while I am supporting the liberals in this election these types of vile “jokes” are unacceptable.
Vendors are not out there for fun, they sell goods for profit.
Price caps on groceries will result in either the companies hiding profits upstream; or food shortages. We don’t need feel good economics policies that do nothing at best and harm at worst.
This is irresponsibly dangerous policy. The socialist response to market failure should be providing a government alternative for food distribution if the market fails. To heavily fine and break up or disband the companies which cheat and steal.
We deserve better, do better
Instead of and not in addition to? Hell yes.
Please send them a message of support for doing this
Any short-term cooperation must not derail the urgent need to sever our economic and defensive dependencies on that nation.
It’s not simply that Trump is unreliable — American voters are as well.
So yes if we can ease some short-term pains felt by our workers and industries that is fine. But that’s where it ends.
So let’s take the renouned intellectual Joe Rogan as an example.
Earlier on he said “why are we picking on Canada”, and now he’s switched his tune to “I won’t go to Canada”. Because when they get pushback it doesn’t feel nice, and they side with their own because that’s easier and that’s what the propaganda machines are pushing.
This is example of how not only will not they wake up, their attitudes will continue to worsen. Right now white Democrats are thinking “oh phew, they aren’t coming for us right now, we are safe” even if they don’t admit it to even themselves.
I know this because this was me, when the targets were Muslims and Mexicans and Haitians what did I do besides fret my brow and say “golly gee that’s too bad” but didn’t do anything. The difference is that now Canadians are getting lumped in with the bad guys now and holy shit does it look a lot different when the barrel is pointed at you.
Sorry this is a long rant and not entirely directed at you.
I’m going to honest and say that I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Either you misunderstood what I’m saying, or i misunderstood you and still don’t understand; or both.
A proper accounting of the emissions generated in Canada is what’s important. Averaging our emissions down because of all our vast expanses of empty land is disingenuous at best and false propaganda at worst.
For industrial uses an ideal accounting would be look at who consumes the byproducts of those products. If we ship oil to the US we could allocate those emissions to the US and if China or India has emissions to serve our demand then we could be allocated this to us.
A consumption-based accounting in combination with the current per-capita accounting would give a decently accurate representation of where and why the emissions are occurring. Per-sq-km emissions have zero place in any reasonable discussion.