The Liberals have kneecapped the carbon tax. Now we need walkable cities more than ever
If we want people to pollute less in their day-to-day lives, we should build more traditional, walkable neighbourhoods—the kind of neighbourhoods this country was built on.
So me walking to work is going to solve the problem of the elites flying to Barbados for the afternoon? Give your head a shake. While you’re at it stop shaking down my middle class life to fund your petro-fueled elitism with my paper straws. Back in 2020 the Harvard Business Review definitively showed “In fact, only 100 investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies are responsible for around 70 percent of the world’s historical GHG emissions.” Individual actions have minute – dare I say – neglible impacts on climate change. Us walking to work while Elon flies is the author’s solution, really?
31st October 2023 at 9:10 am
DAllen
What the heck? Did Trudeau put you up to writing this article. Apparently people still don’t get it. That’s exactly what the pressure and federal government overreach want to accomplish – to control us into small areas from which we are not allowed to leave, right along with the social credit system of little rewards for approved behaviours. Think people! Examine everything that’s going on and put it together.
31st October 2023 at 12:31 pm
Rcurran
For some reason I thought the Hub was an “awake” not “woke” journalistic organization. Now it appears the Hub is more WEF. What you’re describing is 25 minute cities. All you left out was “you’ll own nothing and be happy”. The Hub is obviously on board. Trudeau will be thrilled to have someone actually suggesting what has been in the works for sometime. My respect for the Hub just went through the floor!
31st October 2023 at 4:36 pm
David Graham
You hit it on the nose when you said ther are many different ways to reduce carbon footprint. The Liberal way only sees one way.
31st October 2023 at 9:32 am
Cindy
No we don’t want 15 minute cities. Getting rid of the carbon tax has absolutely nothing to do with pollution. It’s just another liberal money grab. If you listen to our have taken any science classes you should know we need carbon. No carbon, no plants so that means no people.
31st October 2023 at 12:30 pm
Stephen Peszel
So, the writer is in favour of making life more affordable for all and displays his urban bias, the people who live “in the country” don’t count, can’t use transit, rely on cars or trucks, but that is their fault for not living in the cities? He has a love for the carbon tax and is tied to the ethos that it is good for everybody, I assume that if we disagree with the tax we must hate the environment. There is no benefit to having a carbon tax except to make people like him feel good that “something has to be done” and those who can least afford it should pay. Selling of carbon offsets, which is part of this save the planet scheme is just a huge shell game that the big producers play so they can continue to pollute. The focus is all wrong. We never hear the other side of the argument. And the Hub, with its political bent, will not likely publish such heresy. Why do I read this stuff? My blood pressure is high enough as it is. And I have just polluted my brain with The Ramblings of this supposedly informed writer. Isnt it great that we have so many self assigned experts to call on.
31st October 2023 at 9:45 am
Richard Courtemanche
Same as the Liberals, all a scam.
31st October 2023 at 12:44 pm
Tim
The carbon tax on heating oil is an economic stop gap for folks that have limited options to heat with. Nobody uses heating oil if natural gas is at their door step. The increase in grants for heat pumps that is available to all Canadians in partnership with the provinces will allow for folks to move to a hybrid or electric heat pump that will reduce consumer heating bills and carbon
31st October 2023 at 7:13 am
Foon
Sorry but Trudeau-Guilbeault-Wilkinson are too dumb to be making these life changing decisions on behalf of individuals and should not be intervening in imposing their worldview on the rest of us. This fixation on what they ignorantly call carbon pollution is unsound, unjustified and unwise. They are paying the price politically for imposing these unnecessary costs on our budgets to meet some mythical unscientific objective they have for the planet. Every cost they impose on us makes everything more expensive without some tangible benefit. China and India undo everything we do in a year in less than a week of their internal operations. Do what we can but not to this extent.
31st October 2023 at 8:45 am
David
👍
31st October 2023 at 9:34 am
Rob Tyrrell
The removal on home heating oil is BOTH justifiable, for the reasons you suggest, and blatantly political.
31st October 2023 at 8:25 am
Michael F
From what I have read the measure is for 3 years and instead of being ‘blatantly political’ perhaps it’s an example of a government showing flexibility and responding to constituents. I usually agree with your posts and find them thoughtful, this is a touch cynical.
31st October 2023 at 1:19 pm
Paul Haliburton
These are some of the same old planning theories that urban planners have been pushing for decades.
LRT’s are turning into a boondoggle; for example Ottawa’s LRT has never worked properly and it doesn’t appear as if it ever will. Even this morning I read that LRT’s trains in Ottawa were delayed and continue to suffer from other operational issues despite the system being in operation for well over a year. These problems are pushing commuters right back into their automobiles. It has been reported that the new CEO of Ottawa Carleton Transportation who was brought in to straighten out the mess has been applying for other jobs. Does she feel the system is beyond repair?
Would someone want to live in a residence next to a commercial or industrial facility operating 24/7 where children playing road hockey dodge heavy vehicles rumbling down their streets. If we want such a scheme to work we will need to keep children off the streets by passing by-laws preventing them from playing road hockey and other street games. Such airy fairy urban planning schemes will require more regulations. It doesn’t sound like an ideal scenario to me.
31st October 2023 at 9:42 am
M. Campbell
We live in Etobicoke. We are seniors. We shop in two large grocery stores. The closest is 2.7 k’s
away. Our gas station is 2.9 k’s away. Our dentist can be reached by subway. My husband’s two specialists cannot. Our families live in MIssissauga, Vaughan, and Innisville respectively. Only two of our six nieces and nephews can get to work using public transit. All four of our grand-nieces and nephews are into extra cirricular activities that involve equipment and travel.
Walkable cities may be lovely to think about but we are not Europe. We have always had lots of space to spread into. We have snow.
A day to day life that is carbon free simply not as achievable as many seem to think.
31st October 2023 at 9:17 pm
A. Chezzi
We need to move away from one size fits all solutions. That means there has to be diversity in policy so Danielle Smith and Scot Moe have to accept the fact that policy may not be designed or implemented the same in the Maritime as in the West. It seems Smith and her like are willing to talk as long as Ottawa does what they want. I would like to see from the Con a comprehensive environmental plan not just slogans such as axe the tax. Poilievre talks about incentives to industries which cut emissions but it seems to be voluntary so if industry doesn’t nothing changes.
Walkable cities have been proposed but they have also been attacked by people opposed to any change. These opponents argue that is the left, especially Trudeau, who are trying to control people. Once again, conspiracy theorists raise fear and rage but I don’t hear Con speak out against fear and rage.
We need change and we need it now otherwise we are doomed as a species. I guess change will happen only when a catastrophe hits. Wild fires, floods, hurricanes are the canary in the tunnel but we don’t seem to be paying attention.
31st October 2023 at 9:05 am
David
When you use divisive policies to win votes, nobody wins. Moe is right on.
31st October 2023 at 9:39 am
Rob Tyrrell
The crafting of neighborhoods that encourage low carbon use would have so many more benefits than reducing the residents’ carbon footprints. We should indeed install more gates in the “zoning fence”, allowing communities to pick this low hanging fruit.
31st October 2023 at 8:30 am
Brampton Resident
Brampton, Ontario was famously planned and built as a city to perfectly conform to these walkable, low-carbon, equal mix of commcerial/industrial/residential, “work where you live” city ideas… even Bramptonites don’t want to live there.
The only people promoting these “walkable city” ideas are people who are never going to live in one of these “walkable cities”.
31st October 2023 at 9:09 pm
Steve
Try walking around your neighbourhood when it’s -30 degrees and the sidewalks are a skating rink. Even getting to a bus stop is a challenge. I’ll take a car over the alternative any winter.
31st October 2023 at 2:23 pm
Michael F
Much the same as yesterday’s article on mandates, I see that conspiracy theries are alive and well in conservative circles. It didn’t take long for the boogeyman WEF 15 minute cities and social credit crap to show up.
31st October 2023 at 1:22 pm
Raj Bharati
Refreshing to hear some old-school environmentalism instead of today’s climate catastrophism and industrial policy masquerading as environmentalism. I don’t share the author’s view that better urban planning has much to do CO2 global emissions (much less “improving” the climate), but it would improve our quality of life and leave more of our landscape available for nature. I’d love to a see a return of traditional walkable neighbourhoods with corner shops and local parks. But today’s environmentalists will hijack this dream with ugly high-rise dystopias and tell us we need to live like this to appease the climate gods.
Comments (21)
So me walking to work is going to solve the problem of the elites flying to Barbados for the afternoon? Give your head a shake. While you’re at it stop shaking down my middle class life to fund your petro-fueled elitism with my paper straws. Back in 2020 the Harvard Business Review definitively showed “In fact, only 100 investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies are responsible for around 70 percent of the world’s historical GHG emissions.” Individual actions have minute – dare I say – neglible impacts on climate change. Us walking to work while Elon flies is the author’s solution, really?
What the heck? Did Trudeau put you up to writing this article. Apparently people still don’t get it. That’s exactly what the pressure and federal government overreach want to accomplish – to control us into small areas from which we are not allowed to leave, right along with the social credit system of little rewards for approved behaviours. Think people! Examine everything that’s going on and put it together.
For some reason I thought the Hub was an “awake” not “woke” journalistic organization. Now it appears the Hub is more WEF. What you’re describing is 25 minute cities. All you left out was “you’ll own nothing and be happy”. The Hub is obviously on board. Trudeau will be thrilled to have someone actually suggesting what has been in the works for sometime. My respect for the Hub just went through the floor!
You hit it on the nose when you said ther are many different ways to reduce carbon footprint. The Liberal way only sees one way.
No we don’t want 15 minute cities. Getting rid of the carbon tax has absolutely nothing to do with pollution. It’s just another liberal money grab. If you listen to our have taken any science classes you should know we need carbon. No carbon, no plants so that means no people.
So, the writer is in favour of making life more affordable for all and displays his urban bias, the people who live “in the country” don’t count, can’t use transit, rely on cars or trucks, but that is their fault for not living in the cities? He has a love for the carbon tax and is tied to the ethos that it is good for everybody, I assume that if we disagree with the tax we must hate the environment. There is no benefit to having a carbon tax except to make people like him feel good that “something has to be done” and those who can least afford it should pay. Selling of carbon offsets, which is part of this save the planet scheme is just a huge shell game that the big producers play so they can continue to pollute. The focus is all wrong. We never hear the other side of the argument. And the Hub, with its political bent, will not likely publish such heresy. Why do I read this stuff? My blood pressure is high enough as it is. And I have just polluted my brain with The Ramblings of this supposedly informed writer. Isnt it great that we have so many self assigned experts to call on.
Same as the Liberals, all a scam.
The carbon tax on heating oil is an economic stop gap for folks that have limited options to heat with. Nobody uses heating oil if natural gas is at their door step. The increase in grants for heat pumps that is available to all Canadians in partnership with the provinces will allow for folks to move to a hybrid or electric heat pump that will reduce consumer heating bills and carbon
Sorry but Trudeau-Guilbeault-Wilkinson are too dumb to be making these life changing decisions on behalf of individuals and should not be intervening in imposing their worldview on the rest of us. This fixation on what they ignorantly call carbon pollution is unsound, unjustified and unwise. They are paying the price politically for imposing these unnecessary costs on our budgets to meet some mythical unscientific objective they have for the planet. Every cost they impose on us makes everything more expensive without some tangible benefit. China and India undo everything we do in a year in less than a week of their internal operations. Do what we can but not to this extent.
👍
The removal on home heating oil is BOTH justifiable, for the reasons you suggest, and blatantly political.
From what I have read the measure is for 3 years and instead of being ‘blatantly political’ perhaps it’s an example of a government showing flexibility and responding to constituents. I usually agree with your posts and find them thoughtful, this is a touch cynical.
These are some of the same old planning theories that urban planners have been pushing for decades.
LRT’s are turning into a boondoggle; for example Ottawa’s LRT has never worked properly and it doesn’t appear as if it ever will. Even this morning I read that LRT’s trains in Ottawa were delayed and continue to suffer from other operational issues despite the system being in operation for well over a year. These problems are pushing commuters right back into their automobiles. It has been reported that the new CEO of Ottawa Carleton Transportation who was brought in to straighten out the mess has been applying for other jobs. Does she feel the system is beyond repair?
Would someone want to live in a residence next to a commercial or industrial facility operating 24/7 where children playing road hockey dodge heavy vehicles rumbling down their streets. If we want such a scheme to work we will need to keep children off the streets by passing by-laws preventing them from playing road hockey and other street games. Such airy fairy urban planning schemes will require more regulations. It doesn’t sound like an ideal scenario to me.
We live in Etobicoke. We are seniors. We shop in two large grocery stores. The closest is 2.7 k’s
away. Our gas station is 2.9 k’s away. Our dentist can be reached by subway. My husband’s two specialists cannot. Our families live in MIssissauga, Vaughan, and Innisville respectively. Only two of our six nieces and nephews can get to work using public transit. All four of our grand-nieces and nephews are into extra cirricular activities that involve equipment and travel.
Walkable cities may be lovely to think about but we are not Europe. We have always had lots of space to spread into. We have snow.
A day to day life that is carbon free simply not as achievable as many seem to think.
We need to move away from one size fits all solutions. That means there has to be diversity in policy so Danielle Smith and Scot Moe have to accept the fact that policy may not be designed or implemented the same in the Maritime as in the West. It seems Smith and her like are willing to talk as long as Ottawa does what they want. I would like to see from the Con a comprehensive environmental plan not just slogans such as axe the tax. Poilievre talks about incentives to industries which cut emissions but it seems to be voluntary so if industry doesn’t nothing changes.
Walkable cities have been proposed but they have also been attacked by people opposed to any change. These opponents argue that is the left, especially Trudeau, who are trying to control people. Once again, conspiracy theorists raise fear and rage but I don’t hear Con speak out against fear and rage.
We need change and we need it now otherwise we are doomed as a species. I guess change will happen only when a catastrophe hits. Wild fires, floods, hurricanes are the canary in the tunnel but we don’t seem to be paying attention.
When you use divisive policies to win votes, nobody wins. Moe is right on.
The crafting of neighborhoods that encourage low carbon use would have so many more benefits than reducing the residents’ carbon footprints. We should indeed install more gates in the “zoning fence”, allowing communities to pick this low hanging fruit.
Brampton, Ontario was famously planned and built as a city to perfectly conform to these walkable, low-carbon, equal mix of commcerial/industrial/residential, “work where you live” city ideas… even Bramptonites don’t want to live there.
The only people promoting these “walkable city” ideas are people who are never going to live in one of these “walkable cities”.
Try walking around your neighbourhood when it’s -30 degrees and the sidewalks are a skating rink. Even getting to a bus stop is a challenge. I’ll take a car over the alternative any winter.
Much the same as yesterday’s article on mandates, I see that conspiracy theries are alive and well in conservative circles. It didn’t take long for the boogeyman WEF 15 minute cities and social credit crap to show up.
Refreshing to hear some old-school environmentalism instead of today’s climate catastrophism and industrial policy masquerading as environmentalism. I don’t share the author’s view that better urban planning has much to do CO2 global emissions (much less “improving” the climate), but it would improve our quality of life and leave more of our landscape available for nature. I’d love to a see a return of traditional walkable neighbourhoods with corner shops and local parks. But today’s environmentalists will hijack this dream with ugly high-rise dystopias and tell us we need to live like this to appease the climate gods.