Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
|
Not surprising this came from Guilbault, who likely got the excerpt provided by a Liberal diehard, and regurgitated without any context of the discussion at hand in said video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnkMnARr-yc
So now that we have some context added in, you will note in the climate change podcast that Danielle Smith has several opinions, which honestly are very moderate and the video itself was very informational and productive (watch without political blinders and you may see this)
A few of her opinions:
There is political consensus that carbon pricing is the best method of combating climate change
Renewables are great, but wind is unreliable and a poor option to depend on (Danielle Smith far prefers hydrogen and nuclear, and wishes to have a hydrogen car in the future)
43 minutes in is where her comments come in which is a question about the structure of taxes and the effectiveness of rebates such as the one the federal government implemented. Danielle Smith even states that due to not commuting (in 2021 where this whole pandemic thing occurred seemingly forgetten) that she herself as a family saw more money coming in than coming out (as most would have experienced in 2021). As Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the U of Guelph explains, the tax the way it's implemented is not optimal, doesn't reduce the distortions with the implementation of the tax, and that the tax as implemented (with rebates not provided to businesses according to McKitrick) is not revenue neutral as a result of other impacts on the economy. The video also talks about net zero carbon emission, which explains how it eventually will mean mass reduction of fossil fuel use but that the technology just hasn't made it feasible without repercussions. Also conveniently omitted is the part at 1:16:00 where the question arises about how high carbon tax can cause an additional 22 billion deficit due to the effects it would have on the industries it targets as stated by McKitrick.
It may also be a shocker for some to learn that carbon tax was not quite the hot ticket issue in 2021 as we had a few other pressing priorities at the time, most notably cost of living and inflation was not running away yet. If we recall O'Toole came out to support a carbon tax as well in 2021. Opinions change as realities start to set in, which is why Liberal poll numbers are in the tank compared to 2021, 2019, 2015. The April 1 2024 carbon tax hike is extremely unpopular, yet polls suggest that carbon pricing in some form is still widely supported by Canadians. It's clear that it's not carbon tax or carbon pricing itself being an issue, it's the increases, high visibility that doesn't account for cost of living concerns. The reality of 2024 as we see yet another increase on carbon tax is far different than the 2021 reality where the carbon tax was significantly less.
Unfortunately, as Liberals showed with their carbon tax carve out for heating oil to pander to their base in Atlantic provinces, the carbon tax has proven to be politically incentivized where convenient. Canadians rightfully see the carve out, where natural gas is taxed while home heating oil is not as unfair and unjustified. As such, it's become a political rod of controversy which politicians and Canadians will rally against.
So while the myopic ones are looking at this video and regurgitating it as a "gotcha Marleina!", the reality is quite different and I don't see see a particular change of stance of opinions but a change of conditions. But don't let reality stop good old partisan mudslinging and parroting tweets from a radical environmentalist posting a video of someone who was out of politics at the time of that video offering positive personal anecdotes.
"Marleina likes carbon taxes nyah nyah!"
