No city can just build alternatives if they don't know where the demand is.
Before a city can justify building anywhere,there needs to be demand. Both sides need to increase in stride.
Viable, but not perfect alternatives do already exist, and if more people use them they will get better, that is exactly what putting a price on carbon does.
It's not a black hole. It's nearly completely paid back to Canadians evenly such that most Canadians get more back.
What's also neat is that every single province could do exactly what you're suggesting. All the federal government mandated was a price on carbon, each province could implement whatever system they wanted.
Like everything these days, our worst problems are at the provincial levels, and people don't seem to understand or realize that.
What part wasn't worth it? You said it's not worth it, then made it sound worth it.
The ROI is 10-25 years based on the electricity prices you locked in at the start.
With regular inflation, and general increases in the electricity rates, over the long run you're going to save money. The return might not be investment market level returns, but if you can justify the up front costs it's unlikely to not come out ahead.
I would rather have 20 services, all with access to most of the same content.
Some services give you the option to pick and choose which media packages you want.
These services are now able to compete on a mostly even ground in terms of content, and instead there is an incentive for them to provide a good user experience.
This would also encourage the media companies to stop licencing their content exclusively or as upfront large blocks, and instead per/stream style licensing could show up (where a content owner is paid based off how much their content is watched).
This would then encourage media companies to produce content people want to watch, rather than the last 10 years where the priority is to have larger libraries of exclusive content (even if that content isn't good).
None of that is a given if content companies didn't also own the streaming companies, but it's is the sort of market that had the best version of Netflix (before they were making content their user experience was much better).
Maybe so. But once again this isn't actually a tax. Conservatives can call it a tax, and it's clearly working to confuse people and muddy the water. But it's isn't a tax, so cleaning up the tax code is a completely different problem
The carbon tax isn't a traditional tax, the money collected is pooled and paid back out evenly to households.
This means as long as a household is producing less carbon than the average, they get more money back from the rebate then they paid into it.
High income people still currently produce significantly more carbon than poorer households. The last time I looked at the numbers, something like 60% of households got more money back from the program, and nearly all poorer households fall into that.
Yes there are likely outlier poorer households who also produce way more carbon, but when looking at the system overall they are the exception and could likely fix their situation by changing their behaviour.
To reiterate, this is not a tax because the income doesn't go into the governments income, reducing the income tax has no impact on government revenue. The majority of poorer households get more money back from the carbon rebate system.
Ending the carbon tax now would result in them having less money available.
That doesn't actually help them.
It's a typical conservative talking point. Take a complex system, make it sound simple, pitch a simple solution (that in reality won't fix anything and actually usually makes thing worse), people who don't understand the complex system latch onto the simple solution, then when the simple solution is implemented it doesn't fix anything but no one questions why.
We see his with conservatives time and time and time again, it's sooo frustrating. I wish the economy was as simple as they claim it is.
We're still looking at a monopoly from the perspective of accessing particular content.
We would all be more happier if the video streaming platforms operated closer to the music platforms where all platforms had mostly the same content, and we just got to pick the experience we want.
As is there is no choise if you're looking for something in particular, which is pretty similar to a monopoly.
Are they stronger due to changes by the current government? Or are they stronger because the economy is weaking and more and more people are rembering that forming/joining unions can help improve their working conditions?
Lol, I read the title, and the first thing I thought was how on other platforms something like this would be flooded with boys posting things like "keep him" or "stay there", but I'm glad comments are more mature on Lemmy, but clearly there are still a few people who struggle writing anything meaningful.
With 300 inspectors, they would need to in inspecting 650 beds a year, or 2-3 beds a day.
I wish the article went into more details on how these inspections work, because those numbers do seem low, and I doubt a facility would be pleased having an inspector there 4-6 months every year...
Only if companies are paying more for what you're seeing.
The classic example would be loosely related games showing at the top of search results because some paid for them to be sponsored posts. Or something like that
None of those give any connections to the drop in sales and then being inclusive.
The whole economy has been slowing down and people have less spare money. Did you know that when people have less money to spend the first thing they stop spending money on are luxuries.
No city can just build alternatives if they don't know where the demand is.
Before a city can justify building anywhere,there needs to be demand. Both sides need to increase in stride.
Viable, but not perfect alternatives do already exist, and if more people use them they will get better, that is exactly what putting a price on carbon does.