Someone @ Someone @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

328

Joined

2 yr. ago

The jail time would be hard if you were arbitrarily picking officers or trying to prove what each one did or didn't do, but I'm sure a law could be written laying out a chain of command/criminal responsibility. And instead of increasing a single scapegoats sentence for multiple offences it could be distributed among the c suite / board.

Not everything is black and white. I can agree with the idea of a carbon tax while also acknowledging how it can feel less fair to different people in different areas.

I am also on Vancouver Island and I completely agree with you. I work at 2 different locations and either one my commute to work is about 45 minutes by car, by bus it is actually impossible. One location has the nearest bus stop 6km away (all 90km/h highway with narrow shoulders) while the other would drop me off at the front door, the schedules don't line up though and I'd have to leave my house for work before I got home the day before. It's theoretically possible to do in about 2 hours, but only with perfect connections and they only line up right in the middle of the day. Not to mention it would require tickets for 2 separate transit systems which add up to almost the same as gas. Housing prices are so insane here too, that moving anywhere (whether it's one house over, right beside work, or anywhere in-between) would cost me more in monthly rent than I'd pay in gas if I drove a Hummer to work.

But what comes first?

The carbon tax disincentive came first, and I think most reasonable people would agree it made sense whether it cost them personally or not. The problem is that for a lot of people the disincentive keeps growing while the alternatives haven't improved at all.

Unfortunately a lot of people don't live in cities at all, let alone the dense parts with the service like you describe. EVs may not be the answer overall, but for many people across the country they're the only viable first step away from ICE vehicles.

Right now with affordability the way it is, it feels like we're getting a lot of stick without much carrot.

I should've clarified I meant used under $10k. There will always be a segment of the population that can't/won't buy new just like on the high end there will always be the types of people who can't keep a new car more than a year or 2.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Should the fact that people like trucks take away from the unaffordability of every other vehicle? I'm sure if you only counted EVs since the rivian and lightning were released you'd see a similar proportion of trucks. Until you can get decent condition EVs under $10k there will be a group of people who are simply priced out of the market.

I would love to be more environmentally friendly but unfortunately the financial cost of entry is too high. The answer isn't to keep making gas more unaffordable, it's already way more expensive to drive an ICE car than an EV. The issue is the people the carbon tax hurts the most are precisely the same people who can't afford to buy something electric. There have got to be other ways to incentivize the switch for people who can afford it (and therefore don't really notice a few extra bucks to fill up) while not overly punishing those who can't. Maybe we should be putting a tax on new ICE vehicles proportional to their pollution, and put that towards a means tested/non-luxury ev subsidy so that they become viable to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford a new car.

Would that not also encourage people/companies to pay down as much debt as possible? I'm sure that would help level out the playing field a bit too.

Exactly, you can throw all the incentives you want at me and I'd be happy to switch today, but my landlords don't care because they're not the ones paying the carbon tax.

There's one store (I think it's Walmart but I'm not 100% sure) that will put the price per unit on everything, but in one product category you might have price/100g, price per individual item (1 cookie), price per sub-packaging (sleeve of crackers in a box), or it'll count the entire product as 1 of 1 units.

Exactly, I don't know the actual statistics (as the OC didn't provide any) but if they actually are paying in more than they're receiving it means they have a lot more workers than retirees. Sounds like a good deal when factoring in other provincial costs like healthcare for example.

Yeah, Norway is one of the world's top oil producers, but also the leader in EV adoption by far.

It also sounds like the shortage is itself causing the burnout. Some are raking in the OT and making good money but it's not worth it if you don't have any time off or even time to see your family after work. At most jobs if there's no one to relieve you you go home and they run short, maybe reduce services or close early. You can't do that at a hospital, their options are lots of mandatory overtime or to find literally any other job that's guaranteed a better work life balance.

I guess I'm just coming from a point of frustration. The area I grew up in wasn't a tourist area or otherwise very desirable to anyone who didn't come from the area (long commute to anywhere with decent jobs). I've noticed in the last few years that it's been a combination of people being priced out and moving further and further from cities, as well as a ton of properties being converted to Airbnbs. I understand that not everyone can live where they want, but I think it's reasonable to be frustrated when the place you lived your whole life becomes unaffordable to those with history there, and the people who can afford property don't even want to live there themselves.

We build more new units per quarter than all the Airbnb listings that exist across Canada. Banning them would not free up any sort of significant supply.

Are there any statistics on that that are more granular than "across Canada"? I'd imagine some areas (coastal BC, small touristy towns, prime downtown locations, etc.) Would make up a higher share of Airbnbs than their share of new construction.

Hey don't call that thick cut ham crap Canadian or bacon. We eat regular bacon up here. Ham sucks.

Finally someone's brave enough to say the truth about ham.

The only reason I enjoy eating ham on meat lovers or Hawaiian pizza is because it's pizza and it doesn't disassemble well.

It's also a question that doesn't ask about the law, but it sounds close enough that it makes sense in the same sentence. Would I want to know if my kid decided to change their pronouns or name? Absolutely. Do I think their teacher should be legally required to tell me about it, let alone ask me for permission first? Absolutely not. I would hope my kid would want to tell me themself, and if not that's my issue to deal with and not the government's.

As you said, it's absolutely a loaded question, and with that wording I'm honestly surprised it's not higher than 78%. What kind of parent wouldn't want to know what's going on in their child's life?

Edit: I am ashamed to admit I based my facts off the previous comment, and after reading through the link the questions seemed like they may have been slightly more clear. That being said, I support knowing, I do not support this law or any other requirement for the teacher to inform me or ask my permission.

I think you could argue that the market is slowing or declining, I disagree now but I could be swayed.

Saying the market is crashing though is like saying you crashed your car when you hit a pothole. Sure, if you look at a big car crash in the past someone may have blown a tire in a pothole before causing a pileup, but millions of people hit potholes every day and most are nothing more than a momentary slowdown.

I'm not saying a housing crash couldn't be coming, but it's unreasonable to infer that one is happening based on the data you showed.