I think there's some gap between the ideal of not imposing costs on future generations (agree!!) and political choices about how to get there and how the costs are shared between current generations. Despite evidence the carbon tax is more efficient than other measures, it's not obvious that the government is acting like it believes it (even aside from regional pandering). Especially on housing, we've seen a big change in the kinds of development being pushed that picks winners, pre-determines the appropriate trade-offs, and restricts choice about how to adapt--all things that in other contexts are seen as a disadvantage of direct regulation. Particularly, the push for density over allowing cities to grow as populations grow assumes that it's going to be housing (and mostly housing for new buyers/renters) that adapts more than transportation does. This seems like an odd choice in a world where hybrid work seems here to stay, where electric vehicles will reduce emissions somewhat, and where the carbon tax itself is likely to shift people's choices both about where they go and how they get there.
I do appreciate that the fact that housing built now bakes in certain trade-offs for the long-term, plus land-use considerations, makes it different in at least some ways from other kinds of consumer choices. But, while I personally support the carbon tax, I can see how it becomes a hard sell when it's in practice not coming as a substitute for more onerous measures but on top of them.
"And with 1 in 5 Canadians owning more than one property"
It took 3 people to write this and none of them thought this stat was odd, it's 1 in 5 Canadian property owners, not all Canadians. Congratulations on your poor reading comprehension. There's hardly any information in this 'article' either. Don't quit your day jobs lol.
I think there's some gap between the ideal of not imposing costs on future generations (agree!!) and political choices about how to get there and how the costs are shared between current generations. Despite evidence the carbon tax is more efficient than other measures, it's not obvious that the government is acting like it believes it (even aside from regional pandering). Especially on housing, we've seen a big change in the kinds of development being pushed that picks winners, pre-determines the appropriate trade-offs, and restricts choice about how to adapt--all things that in other contexts are seen as a disadvantage of direct regulation. Particularly, the push for density over allowing cities to grow as populations grow assumes that it's going to be housing (and mostly housing for new buyers/renters) that adapts more than transportation does. This seems like an odd choice in a world where hybrid work seems here to stay, where electric vehicles will reduce emissions somewhat, and where the carbon tax itself is likely to shift people's choices both about where they go and how they get there.
I do appreciate that the fact that housing built now bakes in certain trade-offs for the long-term, plus land-use considerations, makes it different in at least some ways from other kinds of consumer choices. But, while I personally support the carbon tax, I can see how it becomes a hard sell when it's in practice not coming as a substitute for more onerous measures but on top of them.
"And with 1 in 5 Canadians owning more than one property"
It took 3 people to write this and none of them thought this stat was odd, it's 1 in 5 Canadian property owners, not all Canadians. Congratulations on your poor reading comprehension. There's hardly any information in this 'article' either. Don't quit your day jobs lol.
Thanks for catching that typo!