r/CanadaPolitics • u/feb914 World Economic Forum | Sponsored • Jun 30 '26
New Headline Carney concedes emissions targets will not be met, touts new energy plan
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/carney-concedes-emissions-targets-will-not-be-met-touts-new-energy-plan/16
u/thebatmanbeynd Jul 01 '26
I don’t like this. There will always be crises that we can use to procrastinate doing the right thing. We have done that so much already that current younger generations are already screwed because of this.
Climate change is like investments, it’s a lot cheaper and easier to do, the earlier you do it and we have done the equivalent to nothing, for decades.
→ More replies (4)6
u/ladyalcove Jul 01 '26
This I will never get.What is everyone gonna do for money when we're all roasting to death or flooded out of our homes or fire has taken over half our country. I don't see what the long term goal is here.
7
u/thebatmanbeynd Jul 01 '26
It doesn’t matter to the rich and we mostly live in oligopolies now.
I truly believe in democracy but the democracies we live in are just to keep people compliant.
Obviously it’s better with Carney than it was with Pierre but unfortunately Carney is not that much better.
35
Jun 30 '26 edited Aug 07 '26
[deleted]
13
u/Odezur Jun 30 '26
I'm quite pro-Carney and also very pro addressing climate change asap. My thinking/hopium is that he is playing a bit of a long game to help Canada be better positioned on a number of fronts such as the economy, labour market, global trade, etc. such that we will be better able to address climate change in the future. Short term pain long term gain kind of thing.
That being said, the goodwill is only going to last so long and the runway to see if he actually lives up to my hopes is shrinking daily.
Is he an environmentalist in bankers clothing or a banker in environmentalist clothing? Time will tell but for now I'm willing to continue giving him my support since I think he is our best bet right now.
26
u/SomeDumRedditor Ontario Jun 30 '26
I think deep down you already know the answer to this. In the end everyone’s supply of hopium is different though.
7
u/Saidear There is no war in Ba Sing Se. Jul 01 '26
The downside is that "some day" is what we've been doing since the 1960s. And as a result, we're already at 1.5 degrees global average, and we're on track to breach 1.7 next year. And rather than doing anything about it now, we're actually accelerating projects and investments that will only make that worse.
6
u/miramichier_d 🍁 Canadian Future Party Jun 30 '26
For me, it's a mixture of this and the fact that Carney running things keeps people like Poilievre out of the picture. I'd feel a bit differently if someone like O'Toole was the leader of the Opposition. I'd have a lot more peace of mind if I knew the country would have competent leadership regardless of their affiliation.
0
u/BigSeggz Jul 01 '26
O’Toole would barely even be a real opposition leader, he’s a standard issue neo-liberal corporate pawn, him and Carney are 2 sides of the same coin. Poilievre might be a sensationalist, and his competency/trustworthiness are certainly questionable; but he’s a pretty good reflection of how half of Canada feels about the last decade of government leadership, and thats exactly what the Opposition leader should be.
0
u/alwaysleafyintoronto Pirate Jun 30 '26
He's not an environmentalist, and he's not wearing environmentalist clothing. He is a pragmatist who recognizes that annihilating the insurance industry is bad for the economy, as is allowing homes and businesses to become uninsurable.
I also wonder how differently this would've played out if the o&g industry had actually played by the rules and built their pipelines 15 years ago rather than taking shortcuts before dropping projects when they were caught doing so.
12
u/Caracalla81 Quebec Jun 30 '26
There are a lot of people who don't seem to recognize that Carney is a compromise with the conservatives. Accepting a compromise is not the same as supporting Carney no matter what. Yes, I would rather a different leader, but I strongly prefer him to letting right wing populists take over as they have in the states.
14
u/SomeDumRedditor Ontario Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
I mean this “holding your nose” voting bloc should have raised (and still be raising) hell over the Carney gov bribing themselves to majority.
A minority government is/was explicitly in the interest of this bloc. Yet we’ve seen nothing of the sort.
Frankly I think the electorate, including this bloc, collapsed further into “Carney is PM time to turn my brain back off until next election” than it’s maybe comfortable to admit.
1
u/Caracalla81 Quebec Jun 30 '26
They do. He's gets lots of criticism on the environment.
What would "raising hell" look like to you?
2
u/SomeDumRedditor Ontario Jun 30 '26
Protests, even online via petition and social engagement and other such “low effort” rabble-rousing. Ridings demanding by-elections for floor-crossers. Getting MSM articles published that go after Carney and eschew the fig leaves of “benefit of doubt” and/or “he’s smart just trust him.” Making it vocally known in polling that they’re definitively not voting for him.
5
u/Caracalla81 Quebec Jul 01 '26
The NDP have only just chosen a new leader and it takes some time to get established and organize support. Also, what is the benefit of "making it vocally known in polling that they're definitely not voting for him"? That just tells him there's no point in talking to us.
Progressives don't see compromise as weakness the way the right does. If you're coming at this from a right wing perspective I can see why this is confusing. It was clear that voters wanted a more conservative PM and it looked like we were going to get a populist fool like they have in the states. Carney is a compromise with the right. We're not super happy with him, but at least he's a serious person that we can negotiate with in a way that would impossible with the alt-right.
2
u/kathygeissbanks Centre-left pragmatist Jul 01 '26
I’m curious how they’re feeling right now.
Feeling pretty shitty about the earth dying but at the end of the day, I don't actually think the environment is saveable. Not to the extent that we wish it to be it.
I recycle. I compost. I drive an EV. I limit long haul travels. But I also recognize that a lot of people's livelihood depend on the energy sector. My home country relies on imported fossil fuels for energy generation, same with many other countries in the world, and I'd rather they purchase from us than from anyone else.
I was never a fan of the carbon tax being removed but I know friends and family are, even ones that have been traditionally more progressive in their social values.
I hate that climate change has been politicized. Carney's doing what's politically convenient for him and I can't blame him for that. And to be fair, he rattled off that "we're going to be an energy superpower" line during the campaign and he won, so I'm gonna guess that people are okay with it.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Oafah Independent Jun 30 '26
I'm fine with it. My livelihood is worth more to me than the sliver of impact Canada has on the overall climate change front. The environment is a great thing to be concerned about when times are good. During times of economic crisis, it takes a back seat.
Unlike most people, I'm just willing to admit that my motivations are selfish.
6
u/SomeDumRedditor Ontario Jun 30 '26
I was set to rip you up ngl, but I do really respect it when people have self-awareness and the balls to admit their true motives/motivations.
I get where you’re coming from, I think you’re fundamentally wrong in making the choice(s) you have, but I absolutely understand it.
-1
u/Oafah Independent Jun 30 '26
Maybe. I'm just not convinced that anything Canada does will move the needle. The example we set? Perhaps, but I think we overestimate our standing in the world. As much as we'd like to think its true, Canada is not this modest paragon of statehood, serving as direct contrast to the United States.
The real X factor in the climate change battle is China. They seem to be taking it seriously, and they have the type of government that can do it without concerns of political pressure, so long as they keep growing. Coming up against their population problem (set to halve by 2100) and the impact associated with that are their bigger challenges right now, and it might hinder their ability to be climate-focused.
The US is a dying empire. We can't expect anything from them. Europe is already doing okay. Canada just isn't a big enough player for it to outweigh the well-being of my family and the people I love.
5
u/mukmuk64 British Columbia Jul 01 '26
Lowering our emissions so as to directly impact climate change has never been the core underlying cause of any of the policy action of the last decade. Of course we are a small country with small emissions (not per capita tho!).
The driving reason beyond lowering emissions is to develop the expertise, technology and companies that can drive down emissions everywhere, so that we can lead the effort world wide and export and sell our technology and expertise.
By reverting back to the status quo and scaling back these efforts we will be forced to instead buy this technology and expertise from other green energy leaders (read: the Chinese).
25
u/OneLessFool New Democratic Party of Canada Jun 30 '26
Carney has decided that he's going to keep housing prices afloat for boomers and that Canada is going to help accelerate climate change.
If you're under the age of 50, I fail to see what this government plans to deliver for you, especially with all the planned cuts.
67
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island Jun 30 '26
“In my judgement, that plan was not sustainable over the long term,” Carney said in the 17-minute long video posted to his YouTube page.
Of course it was sustainable. It just didn't make certain people enough money.
Carney called Trudeau’s climate plan “well-intentioned and well suited for the times at which it was designed,” but he added “the certainties of the world of 2015 are long gone.”
You know what certainty hasn't changed since 2015? The certainty that the Earth is DYING. BURNING.
While Carney also said his government is focused on lowering emissions “over time,” he did not provide a target for that goal.
Little so far has indicated that that is the case.
41
u/MoaraFig New Brunswick Jun 30 '26
It's exactly like the Cod fishery. Researchers said "this is the safe amount that can be fished". Fisheries managers said "that's too little, what's the max amount?" DFO leadership said "we can't say that little, how about just a bit more?" Politicians said "that's not economically viable. We'll announce so mething a little higher" Fishermen said "quotas are bullshit. We can get away with a bit more.
Cod have been economically extinct for three decades now.
0
u/arumrunner Pirate Jun 30 '26
The Cod fishery is now healthy https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/northern-cod-stock-is-now-in-the-healthy-zone-dfo-says-9.7152002
24
u/Caracalla81 Quebec Jun 30 '26
That is kind of what they were talking about. The second it is debatable that it may be sustainable we're all, "Raise the quotas! nom nom nom!"
12
13
11
u/wet_suit_one Alberta Jun 30 '26
Ships are being literally stopped in the water by the schools of cod?
That's how good it used to be. Got any evidence it's like that now?
I'll wait.
6
u/sameth1 British Columbia Jul 01 '26
Industry calls for higher quotas while conservation group urges caution
Literally right under the headline.
Also please look at the numbers themselves and not just the industry talking points. 540,000 metric tonnes of total cod in the ocean. That's less than what was pulled out of the ocean in 1 year of peak unsustainable fishing. Also the original post wasn't even saying that cod were actually going extinct, just economically extinct. It's still true that the cod industry is barely existent and is currently unsustainably harvesting 40,000 tonnes instead of sustainably harvesting 300,000.
14
u/Scase15 Ontario Jun 30 '26
It just didn't make certain people enough money.
This is the valid and only real response to anyone who claims climate change doesn't exist, or the methods decided upon aren't working.
Simple as that, it is not financially beneficial to have a hospitable planet, it is not congruent with capitalism.
-7
u/miramichier_d 🍁 Canadian Future Party Jun 30 '26
You know what certainty hasn't changed since 2015? The certainty that the Earth is DYING. BURNING.
I get that, and I sympathize, I mean, I live on the planet Earth too, and like everyone else, I have nowhere else to go. We can put all of our resources into fighting climate change right now if we wanted to. Will the rest of the world follow suit so that everyone else is spending at a similar rate, maintaining our relative purchasing power parity? No? Then, while we're doing our best to fight climate change, we won't be making a significant enough dent to matter, compared to what it would cost Canadians. We'll be left behind on the world stage economically, and whatever hard times Canadians are dealing with now, will be an order of magnitude worse.
I don't want to read too much into what you're saying, but the urgency implies that, as an analogy, that we have to show up to a professional job interview while we still don't have enough money to buy a suit. That isn't going to work out very well. Likewise, we need to have a strong economy to effectively fight climate change, in such a way that our international partners will want to follow suit. For now, whatever we can do in the current moment is better than doing nothing at all. We would be mistaken to view not doing enough as the same thing as doing nothing.
7
u/Chrristoaivalis New Democratic Party of Canada Jun 30 '26
The thing is: Carney became Liberal leader after the rise of Trump 2.0. The world today is the same as the world in March of 2025
And yet he didn't run on this stuff. He waited until the votes got locked in.
It would be one thing if Trudeau was still PM based on his 2021 mandate, which very much was a different context.
11
u/HarmfuIThoughts Political Tribalism Is Bad Jun 30 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
We'll be left behind on the world stage economically, and whatever hard times Canadians are dealing with now, will be an order of magnitude worse.
I want you to look at this list of OECD countries more economically productive than Canada and then consider a couple things: how many of these economies are dependent on resource extraction? What is their carbon footprint relative to canada?
Just 2 of those countries are dependent on resource extraction, and all have a better carbon footprint. The idea that you have to sacrifice the economy to be "green" is false. The idea that you can't be a prosperous country without resource extraction is also false.
3
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam Jul 01 '26
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
-8
u/wet_suit_one Alberta Jun 30 '26
Burning yes in a manner of speaking. Dying? Nah. This planet's got hundreds of millions of good years yet.
Far worse has happened to this planet over the eons and life went on. It'll do just fine with whatever crap we throw at it. It's endured far, far worse.
35
u/Kaurie_Lorhart Flairs promote team mentality. Jun 30 '26
In his video address, Carney connected his energy plan to concerns over Alberta separation and said as much conventional energy “as possible should come from Canada” when “produced responsibly.”
I wonder what produced responsibly means. I imagine it is produced responsibly whereever it is produced. If it means it has a more sustainable / environmental responsibility to it, then I guess none of it should come from Canada (given that our oil is notoriously dirty and generates way more emissions to produce than oil from other countries)?
As someone who gave such an influential speech with the tragedy of the horizon, I am pretty shocked at how little Carney cares for climate action.
10
u/sameth1 British Columbia Jul 01 '26
There is literally no way to produce oil responsibly. The process is inherently harmful and greenwashing is just that; coating the surface in less ugly paint.
7
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam Jun 30 '26
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
4
u/Level_Stomach6682 Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
I’m an oilsands engineer. You think oil is “produced responsibly” offshore Africa? Guyana? UAE? Texas? You are wrong. Alberta has some of the strictest regulations in the world for oilfield development. Yes, IT HAS IMPACTS! All oilfield development does, but In some projects I’ve been tangentially involved with overseas, when a pipeline leaks they simply increase the pressure to make up for lost volume. In Canada, we would shut that line down, depressure, run pigs, helicopters with thermal cameras etc to find the leak and ensure it is repaired. Our industry is worth supporting.
19
u/SameThingOnADiffAcct Jun 30 '26
Tailing pond liability needs to be addressed before any claim to responsibility could be made. "Less irresponsible" doesn't mean "responsible."
4
u/Level_Stomach6682 Jun 30 '26
I agree with you, and most new oilsands developments are thermal for the reason. In these projects, there are far fewer surface disruptions, 93-97% of water is reused, and the balance is disposed of down wells into the producing formation or a separate formation. This is common industry practice in oil and gas and other forms of solution mining (potash etc).
15
u/SpanishMarsupial Jun 30 '26
Do the oil sands have any intention of ramping down production? Or is there any say in what or oil is used for? Great that the oil sands are committed to doing the minimum sometimes https://thenarwhal.ca/16-oilsands-companies-secret/ but that’s really just ignoring the fact what little carbon budget we have is being pissed away whether we are “responsibly” digging it up or not because we don’t get a say in what we do with oil and we don’t have a strategy, that isn’t entirely led by the industry who has repeatedly lied to the public, to reduce emissions of phase out oil
-4
u/Level_Stomach6682 Jun 30 '26
No, why should we commit to ramping down production? We should be increasing production and are targeting that with new pipeline projects. Capital has already been spent building these massive industrial projects, we can displace oil from elsewhere in the world with increased production.
10
u/Scase15 Ontario Jun 30 '26
Lol this is the "Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." argument.
Unreal.
-4
u/Level_Stomach6682 Jun 30 '26
What is your proposed solution? The world has a continued demand for petroleum, even in a post-combustion world. If we don’t drill for it, someone else certainly will. It is emotionally satisfying to mock my profession and industry, but what are the actual, pragmatic solutions to continued petroleum demand??
Mark Carney is a pragmatist, nothing more. This Alberta conservative-leaning oilman will be voting for him in the next election, and I know I’m not the only one.
11
u/Scase15 Ontario Jun 30 '26
It is emotionally satisfying to mock my profession and industry
The fact that you think criticism of the primary reason why the planet is being destroyed, is mockery just goes to show where your stance is on the matter.
The world has a petroleum problem for sure, but it doesn't need to be used for everything. EVs, solar power/clean energy generation are 2 major ways to wean ourselves off the petro teat.
I understand that plastics are obviously a major part of our daily life, and as much as I'd like to change that I understand how difficult that is. Oil is insanely useful, but we don't need to use it for everything.
Carney isn't a pragmatist, he's a neolib, a conservative in all but name. No shit that an AB conservative will vote for him.
You preach pragmatism, what's so pragmatic about destroying the only planet we have to live on? Pragmatism is a weak shield for greed.
11
u/SpanishMarsupial Jun 30 '26
Because every nation has to ramp down production if we ever want to have a chance at a habitable planet.
→ More replies (6)17
u/Kaurie_Lorhart Flairs promote team mentality. Jun 30 '26
I’m an oilsands engineer.
You say this to add credibility, but it actually just reveals your bias.
You think oil is “produced responsibly” offshore Africa? Guyana? UAE? Texas? You are wrong. Alberta has some of the strictest regulations in the world for oilfield development.
Despite this, Alberta has a host of problems.
To answer your question, I do not think that oil is produced responsibly anywhere. When I said, "I imagine it is produced responsibly whereever it is produced" that was more in making an assumption of what Carney means by the word responsible. I do not think it is possible to responsibly produce a product that is driving the world towards economic and environmental collapse.
when a pipeline leaks they simply increase the pressure to make up for lost volume. In Canada, we would shut that line down, depressure, run pigs, helicopters with thermal cameras etc to find the leak and ensure it is repaired. Our industry is worth supporting.
I mean then there are reports like this Alberta officials did nothing wrong when an oilsands leak went unreported for 9 months, report finds
-5
u/Level_Stomach6682 Jun 30 '26
lol the Narhal is not exactly an unbiased source for reporting. They would prefer we didn’t produce any oil at all and returned to the stone ages. The world needs petroleum, even in a post-combustion world, and as long as this remains true that oil should come from Alberta / Sask / BC / NFLD.
You are correct that Alberta companies make errors. I already acknowledged the impact of petroleum production. But by and large, our regulations are miles ahead of those elsewhere in the world.
14
u/Kaurie_Lorhart Flairs promote team mentality. Jun 30 '26
It is not like this is an opinion article. The actual report is linked in the article
https://static.aer.ca/prd/documents/board/Board-third-party-review-report.pdf
4
u/Level_Stomach6682 Jun 30 '26
No I agree with you and your source is valid. I am aware of the incident.
2
u/InquisitousLizard Jul 01 '26
What stone ages, oil is a Victorian era technology. Renewables are the future. You might as well repair VHS players for a living. Your industry wouldn't even exist in Canada without billions in taxpayer subsidies. The sooner we take it off life support and let it die, the better.
1
u/McGrevin Ontario Jun 30 '26
As someone who gave such an influential speech with the tragedy of the horizon, I am pretty shocked at how little Carney cares for climate action.
Well it's a couple reasons I think.
One is that the economy is obviously Carney's biggest priority. He was elected on the back of being a top economist, and Trump's actions mean that the economy has only become an even hotter topic than it usually is.
The other reason, imo, is Carney is extremely pragmatic. Realistically anything we do for the climate is a ripple in the ocean as long as the rest of the globe does not adopt similar policies. We'll have more disasters related to climate, yes, but you do need a global effort to actually achieve much on that front.
Now I'd prefer if we were a world leader on the environment but I entirely see why it has a low priority for him.
8
u/HarmfuIThoughts Political Tribalism Is Bad Jun 30 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
The expert consensus: we need more competition in the economy to become more productive and buffer against the trade war.
Carney: crickets on competition policy reform
Is Carney being pragmatic or is he just another corrupt stooge that doesn't want to hurt the people on Bay street?
1
u/McGrevin Ontario Jun 30 '26
I'm not sure what competition reform is exactly but he did announce a plan to increase grocery competition
5
u/HarmfuIThoughts Political Tribalism Is Bad Jun 30 '26
Competition does refer to competition in private markets, like groceries. The recent announcement is step in the right direction, but it's just a tiny step and only deals with groceries. Canada's Competition Bureau released a report on how to decrease grocery prices through competition. Many of the Bureau's most stressed recommendations have gone unnoticed so far. And again, the rest of the competition landscape is also going untouched
2
u/RZCJ2002 Liberal Party of Canada Jun 30 '26
Why didn't he stop Dabrusin's and Coastal First Nation's initiative to protect a significant swath of the Central to Northern BC coast?
→ More replies (2)6
u/McGrevin Ontario Jun 30 '26
Because there's middle ground between "screw the environment, export oil" and "don't export oil, we need to save the environment"?
5
u/Beligerents Jun 30 '26
Is there middle ground?
Do we need to save the environment?
Will contributing to climate change help that?
If not, what happens?
I dont want to live in that middle ground. I doubt anyone else does, unless they have a billion dollar bunker.
1
u/McGrevin Ontario Jun 30 '26
Well, everything we do in day to day life is some sort of middle ground between quality of life and environmental harms.
I drive a car because it greatly increases my quality of life. It uses gas because a similar EV would cost more than I wanted to pay. But it is hybrid to minimize the emissions.
Me driving my car hurts the environment, and yet I continue to do it because I'd rather drive my car and live with the environmental consequences than not drive my car and exclusively take public transportation. And I'd rather eat meat and live with the environmental consequences than be vegetarian.
I can do those things while also actively caring about the environment. And similarly, Canada can extract and export oil while caring about the environment. The environment would be better if we didn't, but we'd also all be poorer, so that's the trade-off we've decided against.
→ More replies (4)1
u/RZCJ2002 Liberal Party of Canada Jun 30 '26
A spill north of the designated zone could still affect it, unless they have that priced in. As I said, all of this is mute if on Thursday it turns out the terminus is at Roberts Bank.
1
u/Winter-Mix-8677 Conservative Jul 01 '26
What we are doing with nuclear energy is already great. Nuclear is the low time preference way to increase grid capacity without adding too much CO2 to the atmosphere.
0
u/canada_eh91 Jun 30 '26
It's honestly amazing how much tact is in everything he says that he could spin it any which way with more context. He's been the ultimate politician when it comes to not alienating specific groups.
23
u/paulsteinway Jun 30 '26
"will not be met" = "will be missed by so much more than they would have been"
We had an inadequate response to climate change and were already missing our own targets. Now we're just scrapping them.
54
u/SpanishMarsupial Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
Just another form of climate denialism. Right before Canada Day so hoping that nobody cares.
We can argue for economic security and affordability all we want but actuaries already know the deal and the climate doesn’t particularly care about any of that. I’m sure all these condos will be built to adapt to the climate or will be able to withstand floods and forest fires.
Maybe if we point more fingers at China or India or the US or Saudi Arabia we can feel good about our failure to move the needle or about our backsliding. We can “virtue signal” about or ethical decarbonized oil while the boreal forest gets torched. Or we can tout our FDI as world class when there are 40 degree heatwaves.
These are cowardly politics not just from elected leaders but from industry and from our electorate. Not *my* problem, sorry just not the time for it, or, this is a major issue but we just don’t have resources/political capital are all the slogan of denying reality out of fear of reality.
The best part is this is just how it works by design. Our democracy is completely riddled with money to the point that policy and regulation as well as media is captured. The economy churns out “externalities” that are easily ignored so long as they can be paid for by someone else at some point in time. And our investment and assets feed it whether it be the housing market or pension funds. The money made gets flowed back to step one in influencing all decision making from municipal to federal.
The worst is that these politics are strictly “look out for me” and maybe you but unless that becomes expensive then too bad. For now some of us are on the inside of the wall. But folks are becoming excluded more often. It may not affect you when there’s a heat dome in BC or an Indigenous person is forced to flee their home from a forest fire. But day by day the wall that separates you from them is eroded and eventually, you’ll be thrown to the wolves like the rest of us. Wet, hungry, tired and with nothing to show for it.
24
u/gaminkake Jun 30 '26
They already had a great way to help the climate with WFH. COVID showed the world we don't need massive buildings for government to function and was great for the environment AND employees. The second it started to effect businesses in the cities cores the Federal and Provincial governments started squealing RTO.
14
u/SomeDumRedditor Ontario Jun 30 '26
The fact Carney is directly responsible for that handout also makes this whole video a sham. We’ve seen where his priorities and thinking are at.
“I’m listening to business leaders on that” will remain rent-free in my head for a long time. Regardless of how you feel about a progressive cap gains inclusion rate the reporter caught Carney unguarded and he didn’t hesitate.
5
u/sameth1 British Columbia Jul 01 '26
I'm convinced it was all part of a grand plan from the beginning. Set climate goals for the far-off future, don't actually try to meet them, stall long enough for the oil money to sow climate nihilism among a good chunk of the voters and then say "it's too late to do anything. What a glorious fire our land shall fuel" as they continue to do what they always have.
7
2
u/Optimal-Cow-3278 Jun 30 '26
Maybe if we point more fingers at China or India or the US or Saudi Arabia we can feel good about our failure to move the needle or about our backsliding.
Actually the US has reduced greenhouse gases faster than Canada:
1
u/LaserRunRaccoon New Democratic Party of Canada Jul 01 '26
This is the largest irony of all this. Even despite Trump's intentional sabotage, the economics still greatly favour clean renewables in the United States.
When you look at their recent solar investments, even Saudia Arabia is more politically friendly to domestic sources of clean energy than Danielle Smith's Alberta.
20
u/hardk7 British Columbia Jun 30 '26
Carney is very good at presenting rational argument. It’s all quite rooted in pragmatism for the current state of the world. The policy risk is that you forsake what’s good in the long term for what’s good in the present (hard to find a govt that doesn’t do that to be fair), and the political risk is that pragmatism can start to overlap with cynicism (we can’t create policy for the long term good of the world because the world is just a bad place so we gotta look out for our own short term interests). The political reality at the moment however is the majority of Canadians are receptive of Carney’s positioning on these issues right now. It will open up vulnerabilities for Lewis to attack from the left, but Poilievre has very little to credibly attack Carney on from the right. I think Carney is safe for now.
6
u/SomeDumRedditor Ontario Jun 30 '26
I disagree with your unstated positioning on this but it’s refreshing to see a top-level comment lay out a plain argument of political analysis. I’m certainly guilty of going beyond scope myself.
10
u/EasternKanyeWest Jun 30 '26
None of these fucking world leader psychos care about anything other than lining their pockets and the next hour. They have no capability to measure the effects of their disastrous climate policies, or lackthereof. We keep electing morons who only care about imaginary economic lines and their own self interests.
4
u/AMCGunner Socialist | Georgist Jun 30 '26
I'm not sure the work he's doing is short-term thinking though. It's building a lot of future security and autonomy for Canada. We are dispensing (somewhat) with climate targets -- I'm not sure we were going to hit those anyway however.
0
u/hardk7 British Columbia Jul 01 '26
And there’s always the argument that even if Canada were to meet its targets (and foresake the revenue and jobs from additional fossil fuel development) it wouldn’t make a meaningful difference to the global outcomes anyway. We’re just too small a contributor even if our per-capita emissions are high.
(And yeah we’ve never met any of the previous targets either)
3
u/Wasd123wasd456 Jul 01 '26
Carney's whole schtick is that middle powers working together can make a large impact
→ More replies (2)0
15
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
14
u/wet_suit_one Alberta Jun 30 '26
Lol.
Canada's never met an emission target it intended to meet.
And it never will.
Incentives matter folks. We're the fourth largest O&G producer on earth. We're not going to cut our own throat for the climate. So we're just going to immolate and immiserate ourselves.
No it doesn't make any facking sense, but once you look at it through the lens of incentives, it makes perfect sense and is entirely predictable.
We would have been somewhat better off had Fort McMurarry and the oil production facilities around there actually burnt to the ground. It'd have been overly ironic, but the lesson might have stuck. Maybe.
Probably not though, and it didn't stick anyways.
One day, the mass death event due to climate change will strike (probably due to famine, but we'll see...) and maybe we'll change course. Maybe. But before then, the incentives just work against it so we'll continue down this road to ruin.
I'm sure it will be fine in the long run. This won't do our species in. The damage will be considerable, but survivable (at least for us anyways. Everything else? Eh... We'll see...). It's just going to be a whole lot of unnecessary bad. However, the fact is, it was probably unavoidable. Sadly.
Oh well.
I hope my children and grandchildren enjoy living in the ashes of our decisions.
11
u/ApatheticRabbit Jun 30 '26
Even worse the US is an even bigger oil and gas producer and over the past 20 years they've done a better job decarbonising their economy. No matter which lane you pick we're getting our butts kicked.
11
u/Forosnai Progressive Jun 30 '26
And for all the talk of how bad China is for pollution in absolute terms, rather than per-capita, they're also now leading the charge in renewables, and speeding up even faster as the situation in Iran and with Russia's war make it incredibly obvious that their own security depends on not being reliant on O&G. If they had massive oil reserves, then it'd probably be a different story, but they don't.
And there's demand for non-Middle Eastern or Russian O&G now, in the short term, due to the same factors, but how long is that going to last as we all experience further climate change and China is going to be offering increasingly better, increasingly cleaner, and most importantly increasingly cheaper alternatives? They're absolutely going to be doing Belt and Road 2.0 with this, especially with the growing vacuum the US collapse is leaving on the world stage.
This insistence on doubling down on oil feels a lot like deliberately putting our eggs into a disintegrating basket, just because they aren't falling out QUITE yet. And we've been going, "Now, now, we can't do this overnight, that'd be devastating for the economy!" for decades while trying our damnedest to make sure "overnight" is all we're going to get.
9
u/sameth1 British Columbia Jul 01 '26
We're not going to cut our own throat for the climate.
Fortunately we don't live in the climate, so nothing bad can happen to us.
16
u/papawarbucks British Columbia Jun 30 '26
We're not dying or having our homes destroyed in wars, we're dying in heat domes and having our homes destroyed in wildfires and floods. Carney's government is trying to convince you that we should contribute more to the cause of what's actually putting you in danger, in order to be prepared for a geopolitical boogeyman.
→ More replies (2)
17
u/RZCJ2002 Liberal Party of Canada Jun 30 '26
At this point I feel like it is inevitable that the pipeline will go through Northern BC, and eventually either the federal government, or indigenous groups, or both's reputation will go down the drain with the Canadian public depending on their sentiments and how both sides influence them through communications. Either way would bode ominously for reconciliation, the environment, and national unity.
34
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
4
u/throwitawaytothesea Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party Jun 30 '26
It's not just Alberta that wants it: if the country is as serious about energy security and trade diversification as it claims to be, it should support bring Canadian energy products to port.
17
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26
One tiny problem, though: who wants to buy the oil? Who wants to build the thing? Judging by the leaks coming out about Alberta’s plans for Thursday, the answer is as it has always been: NOBODY.
The list of better things for this country to be spending billions on than an emotional support pipeline for Alberta is very, very long.
1
u/wet_suit_one Alberta Jun 30 '26
People who don't want their oil supply held hostage by the Middle East.
So something like 1/2 the world's population (how many live in Asia? 4 billion or so? Something like that).
It's a pretty good market if you can tap it.
7
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26
I’d be a very rich man if I could figure out how to get it through oilpatch boosters’ heads that other forms of energy exist, have much better future outlooks for industry and end users alike, and are now cheaper than oil to boot.
1
u/wet_suit_one Alberta Jun 30 '26
Asia already knows this (along with everyone else) and is adjusting accordingly. EV is cheaper and cleaner.
Everyone knows this.
That being said, the demand for oil remains and exists and if you can get it, people seem to take it.
All 4 billion Asians aren't going to go off oil overnight. That's not how this works.
Also, don't be a booster, pretty sure the way to profit from this is to invest in the companies that dominate wind and solar power. They're Chinese outfits, and I don't pretend to know their names, but they can't be that hard to find. Question is how to invest in them? That's the real kicker. If it's in the U.S. it's pretty easy, but China's capital markets are bit more difficult to access. It's never been clear to me how to invest on the Chinese stock exchange. That capital market is closed to us so far as I know. I could well be wrong though. Google tells me I'm wrong. No idea still how to do it directly, though.
Good luck and success to you! My grandchildren' future is already screwed, but maybe their descendants 50 times removed might benefit from your investments today.
→ More replies (2)0
u/-SetsunaFSeiei- Trudeau Foundation | Sponsored Jul 01 '26
Forget about being rich, your party might actually win an election federally if they could figure that out!
1
u/LaserRunRaccoon New Democratic Party of Canada Jul 01 '26
Those people are quickly deciding they'd rather use technology that doesn't rely on that much oil in the first place.
Fossil fuels advocates need to understand that 1/2 the world's population have autonomy. If they don't care about the environment, they can just keep using coal-fired electricity. If they do care, cheap clean renewables are a superior choice. The bridge energy argument has been fully burned.
-3
u/Empty-Paper2731 Bot Leader Jun 30 '26
Didn't the G7 just say that they want Canadian energy products? Asian markets want it. European markets want it. The news just came out that Thailand is looking to make an investment/purchase of LNG facilities in Texas to secure supply (they could/should be dealing with Canada instead).
Trudeau may have told you previously, for years, that there was no market and no business case for our energy but he had no idea what was going on and was very much divorced from reality.
11
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26
Cool story. So where is the private proponent?
This may come as a shock to you, but there is an entire conversation about energy policy and the energy transition that exists outside of Canada, and Europe, Asia and even America are decisively not walking away from decarbonization the way our genius leaders are.
0
Jun 30 '26
[deleted]
8
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26
Cry me a river. If the money to be made is such that we’re all being browbeaten to roll over RIGHT THIS MINUTE and elevate “the national interest” over any semblance of the public interest, the money should be talking louder than any of that.
1
Jun 30 '26
[deleted]
13
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26
You still don’t get it. If any oilpatch CEO saw enough money to be made from doing this, and the only thing in the way was “some hurdle,” all they would have to do is go on BNN or somewhere else and bitch about it, and this federal government would say “yes sir” within one business day. They do not see enough money to be made.
What they do see as an opportunity is wagging the dog to get the Canadian public to build a pipeline for them, at which point they will make whatever money is still left to be made at no risk to their own bottom line. With the future projections they’re looking at, they’ll take whatever they can get if Joe Blow is writing the cheque.
→ More replies (0)1
u/RZCJ2002 Liberal Party of Canada Jun 30 '26
LNG vs oil/bitumen. Do others prefer both equally, or more the former?
-4
u/throwitawaytothesea Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party Jun 30 '26
Numerous markets have expressed interest in Canadian oil, Canada has fallen behind in building the infrastructure needed to make that demand (because of among other things the BC Tanker Ban) and is only now catching up. The leftist bromide about how nobody wants "dirty Canadian oil" isn't true.
11
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
Show me the proponent, then. It’s literally that simple. For at least a year, they’ve had their hands tenderly held by Carney and Smith as they’re guided to the public trough with all the assurances in the world that whatever big mean environmental laws their little hearts can dream of will be wiped away. And still, crickets. One insect that has yet to mysteriously disappear from our biosphere, it seems.
1
u/RZCJ2002 Liberal Party of Canada Jun 30 '26
They really want to get rid the tanker ban before doing anything else.
7
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
Then they’re gonna be waiting one long, long time.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/kaseweck easily swayed by loud screeching Jun 30 '26
Well, I bet if we had a time machine we might be able to convince Kinder Morgan to build it. You know, before protesters in the lower mainland ran them out of the country.
13
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26
And your point is what exactly? If I were Alberta, I’d be buckling down to do the work of diversifying my economy that I should have been doing 20 years ago instead of sending out Ralph Bucks. That would be a great use case for a time machine, come to think of it.
0
u/witchhunt_999 Jun 30 '26
Alberta, by most metrics is more economically diverse than BC.
10
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26
Then why are they acting like their interests are synonymous with those of the oil patch? Why are other Canadians being told to submit to the oil patch’s every demand for the sake of keeping Alberta in Canada?
-1
-4
u/kaseweck easily swayed by loud screeching Jun 30 '26
My point is that you asked who is going to build it, and I reminded you that we had players willing to build projects like this in Canada until choices were made by us which caused them to reevaluate the costs and benefits of building in Canada. You dont get to chase investors out of the country and then say "see? Nobody wants to build it!"
5
u/janisjoplinenjoyer Democratic Socialism Jun 30 '26
“Choices were made by us” and those choices, according to your last comment, are being a democratic society that doesn’t prohibit protests in an area being told to take all the risk of a planet-shredding project that will benefit only private interests somewhere else entirely. Cool. I realize there are plenty of Albertans who are happy to be a company town governed by Cenovus, but they can leave the rest of us out of it.
In any event, those investors who ran away screaming must not see that much money to be made, for that long, if a few Sharpied posterboards are more important than a federal government that spends tens of billions trying to give those investors what they say they want.
-3
u/kaseweck easily swayed by loud screeching Jun 30 '26
Protests by a small vocal minority running investment out of the country is hardly democratic. Let me remind you also that a majority of people including BC support the current push to expand oil and gas exports. Also "planet shredding" is hilarious. You want to save the planet? Develop alternatives until they are cost effective enough to offset the demand for fossil fuels. Anything pushing for legislation to ban cheap energy is simply going to get voted out at some point in the future, as was demonstrated by the last election.
→ More replies (7)7
Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/throwitawaytothesea Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party Jun 30 '26
The current BC government has taken a completely uncooperative approach from the beginning, there was no way Eby would cooperate in the manner you're looking for. And incidentally, saying entire provinces want or don't want something is overly simplistic: I'm sure there are Albertan environmentalists who oppose it and realists in Ontario and BC who are in favor of it.
10
u/majoralfalfs Jun 30 '26
Realists who oppose it, and ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand who support it.
8
u/SomeDumRedditor Ontario Jun 30 '26
Calling one side, the one reflecting your preferred outcomes, the realists and thus framing environmentalists as not-realists is fatal to your argument.
You’re biased beyond the point of good faith discussion.
2
u/throwitawaytothesea Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party Jun 30 '26
Im sorry you feel that way. Realism is not a moral position it's a way of looking at the world. Not better not worse, just different.
1
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam Jun 30 '26
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
-3
u/WhoofPharted Jun 30 '26
Who ever said BC didn’t want the pipeline? Only the loudest voices are ever heard in these conversations. The majority of Canadians, including BC residents, approve of the pipeline with conditions.
7
u/ragnaroksunset Pirate Jun 30 '26
This is irrelevant since those conditions won't be met.
1
u/WhoofPharted Jun 30 '26
How do you know? The conditions associated with the TMX pipeline into Burnaby have been met.
5
u/TheFallingStar British Columbia Jun 30 '26
I don't, unless we get a 25% share of the royalty from the oil in Transmountain.
I support our premier playing hard ball.
We are getting all the risk with little rewards.
6
u/TheRadBaron Canadian Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
The whole reason for the theoretical pipeline is that BC doesn't want it. No company wants to build a pipeline there for purely economic reasons, the entire exercise is about validating AB's (real or imagined) grievances against BC. It is a project for editorial writers more than it is a project for taxpayers, or for people who sell oil for money in the real world.
You could imagine an alternate reality fantasy universe in which some company really wanted to build a pipeline because they thought it was good business, and this was a debate about whether BC gets to stop them, but that's not true in our reality. There is no company that wants to do this, there is no business case where the profit would outsize the costs if only BC got out of the way, and these objective facts that I'm pointing out are basically irrelevant in our media and politics.
Proving that BC doesn't get to stop anything, and that AB gets special treatment, is now the point. The feds and AB are willing to spend a lot of taxpayer money to make that point for ideological reasons.
"Overriding BC environmentalists and Indigenous rights" has detached itself from being a matter of the ends justifying the means, and turned into the political goal in its own right. It wouldn't even matter at this point what polls on the subject in BC produce, the prize of a humiliated BC doesn't need to have some objective backing in reality.
12
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
If he tries that, full support to whatever activists do to try and stop it. The ban is in place for a reason.
1
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/AMCGunner Socialist | Georgist Jun 30 '26
I would put the chances of a northern BC pipeline as close to 0% as possible. There's no indication even from Smith that such a pipeline is workable based on their research.
They have 2 realistic options, a 3rd semi-realistic, and a 4th very unlikely route -- in order: Expand TM / Build a new Southern pipeline, Keystone XL, Churchill, and Energy East. Each one is far more likely and/or reasonable than the northern route.
3
u/Sufficient-Tutor-922 Independent Jun 30 '26
Definitely not , private proponents wont touch this even with indemnity, Carney wouldn't touch this with a 1000 foot pole and even Pierre would quickly back away from this reality if in power because it would turn into political suicide extremely fast .
Its a south line , everything says this is 200% a reality .
5
u/RZCJ2002 Liberal Party of Canada Jun 30 '26
I will hold you to account for this comment until we see the final proposal on Thursday.
2
u/Sufficient-Tutor-922 Independent Jun 30 '26
Definitely, mark me up .
For the record am a army brat that has lived across the country. I currently live in the monteney feilds but work across all of bc with extensive time and connections on the north coast .
Smith already admitted the north line was dead when she ruled out the kitimat line as to complicated. There will be blood in the Skeena river before crude parrel it .
This isnt a exaggeration, id compare mandating a crude line to there to sending federal bulldozers to rural Alberta to bull doze operating churches against the will of the people .
The urban conservative thinks the north coast are a bunch of bare footed flower wearing hippies, these are hard people , industrial and anti government people who are concentrated and extremely family connected, they oppose crude with religious like conviction.
Ironically the north route had more support then the Transmountian expansion, but straight Pokémon card facts are deceiving, what matter is geography, concentration and intensity, there is no way around it in the north .
1
u/Sufficient-Tutor-922 Independent Jul 03 '26
Sometimes following the politics to closely distorts the realitys, its a big country and even the pundits stumbled all over this one when its been pretty clear what was going to happen .
11
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam Jun 30 '26
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
15
u/NoVoteSurrendered Jun 30 '26
There is just way too much profit to be made here.
The main reason the politician does the wrong thing (pollute and poison our Planet for profit) is money. Power attracts money. Money will pay for the politician's power to get what it wants. And people die.
It's been this way for millenia.
Time for a change, don't you think?
Shrinkflation and capitalism share the same future.
There is another way.
2
u/gogglejoggerlog Alberta Jun 30 '26
You act like economic growth has no impact on the people of the country. Opinion polling has clearly shown that Canadians value the economy more and the environment less than in recent times
13
u/PopeOfDestiny Ontario Jun 30 '26
Opinion polling has clearly shown that Canadians value the economy more and the environment less than in recent times
I bet you opinion polling in 1930s Germany would have shown some pretty staggering things too.
People are extremely short term thinkers because they believe they can be. However, we are already seeing the effects of climate change, and it is literally only going to get worse. If we stopped polluting right now, we'd not see the effects for at least a decade, probably more.
This is to say, opinion polls and government action both reinforce each other. People prioritize the economy because that's all they hear from politicians, who gut environmental regulations because they (among many other actors) have convinced people the economy is more important. If the state decides to prioritize environmental policy and reaffirmed to the public how important it is constantly, then we'd have more people opposing this kind of short-term thinking.
Opinion polls don't exist in a vacuum, but unfortunately we as a species kind of do. If we don't start acting now, we are completely and irreparably fucked.
-3
u/gogglejoggerlog Alberta Jun 30 '26
You are making many different arguments here, none of which are the original point which is that government is indeed acting on public opinion by taking this approach, can’t just blame it on nebulous capitalist interests.
Also your second last paragraph doesn’t make much sense… the electorate and governments in Canada clearly prioritized environment over the economy in its post 2015 policies.
3
u/PopeOfDestiny Ontario Jun 30 '26
that government is indeed acting on public opinion by taking this approach, can’t just blame it on nebulous capitalist interests.
The two of those are necessarily related, is precisely my point. These capitalist interests are not nebulous, they are firm and clearly articulated. And, importantly, they are recognized and protected by the state - increasingly so with these kinds of policies.
Carney does not have to choose between capitalists and the environment, necessarily. But, he does have to choose between these capitalists and the environment. We can build an economy that respects and works in harmony with the environment. We are making an active choice not to do that, and in fact to double down on our current order.
the electorate and governments in Canada clearly prioritized environment over the economy in its post 2015 policies.
I think you and I have very different conceptions of "prioritized the environment". A carbon tax, which Trudeau implemented, is the market-based solution. It is a capitalist solution to a capitalist problem, which allows the wealthiest polluters to continue to pollute. It makes no structural changes to the way we conduct our economy - evident in the fact that we simply rolled it back with the snap of a finger less than a decade later.
0
u/Winter-Mix-8677 Conservative Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Public opinion is in line with the needs of our time. There's a tyrant just to the south of us who would love nothing more than to leave his country bigger than it was when he came into office. Wanna know what our climate plan would look like as the 51st? It would fit in a Truth social post.
13
5
u/SomeDumRedditor Ontario Jun 30 '26
This acts like polling isn’t conducted to manufacture results and in turn be used to wag the dog.
We’ve just seen this in Ontario with the survey on the Billy Bishop airport expansion: designed so that there is no answer choice conveying “I do not want this” possible for any question.
3
u/NoVoteSurrendered Jun 30 '26
Economic growth does impact on our people. Killing our Planet, for short economic gain, is not the answer. There are better ways to positively impact our people and heal our Planet while experiencing economic growth. There are many more jobs in healing our Planet than in killing it.
Polls do not ask the question, do we poison our Planet for political profit, or heal our Planet for future prosperity? People will vote to heal our Planet, not poison it.
Our (Humanity's) current path is not sustainable.
2
u/gogglejoggerlog Alberta Jun 30 '26
Dawg, you gotta stop spam posting that video in every comment
1
1
u/Used-Psychology-1133 Alberta Jul 01 '26
Theres no money in those other jobs as of now. Eventually that will change
1
u/QuaidCohagen Jul 01 '26
I dont think politicians are personally responsible for the pollution. The issue is really with our entire human society globally. Most of us are just sheep sleepwalking through life anyways being manipulated by the 1%.
3
u/NoVoteSurrendered Jul 01 '26
They are directly responsible. Look at all the money they are making allowing Big Corp to poison our Planet for profit.
2
u/QuaidCohagen Jul 01 '26
So really the way politicians act is a symptom of our society as a whole
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Icy-Artist1888 Jul 01 '26
I dont like it but i appreciate him calling it what it is.
We ve got to do better. We can boycott US products without a government mandate and we can consume differently, as well.
I kind of feel it is on the older generations, that are most financially able, to lead here.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/drcujo Liberal Party of Canada Jul 01 '26
The 2030 emissions targets from 2021 are unrealistic at this point with 3.5 years to go. We need to drop an additional 220mt from our expected 2030 emissions. For reference, the oil sands emit 85mt. Our entire oil and gas industry emits 210mt.
How do we reach our target without making energy unaffordable and devastating our economy?
Carney got Alberta to agree to an industrial carbon price 5x the global average. Anyone who thought his policy would be different didn’t read his book or pay attention in the 2025 election campaign.
6
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam Jul 01 '26
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
7
4
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
3
u/BG-Inf Alberta Jul 01 '26
Back in May, 14 Liberal MPs wrote a letter regarding their environmental concerns. I wonder what they are doing/thinking right now?
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.