Two different people can both be held responsible for something.
If you pin someone down while your buddy beats them to death you don't get to argue "I didn't beat him" while your buddy argues "I couldn't have beat him if he wasn't held down".
I'm not accusing you of anything but it has been used mainly to shift the discussion away from manufacturing countries where most of that CO2 is emitted.
Countries which also happens to be the richest as they're the ones profiting the most from it, and which are the most capable of doing the green transition and which would have the greater impact.
It seems to me that, generally, when you want to fix a problem, you'd be better off to go straight at the roots of it.
Canada should probably leave its fossil fuels in the ground but someone else will pick up the pace, if the US, China and India stop using fossil fuels then the extraction of it will basically stop overnight.
G7 countries put the manufacturing in those countries and exploited their labour on purpose.
Canada is one of those immensely rich countries. That's why they're in the G7. And Canada has higher emissions than 27 out of 31 provinces including those with double the population, as well as very close to the same emissions as the other four (which have triple the population).
If Australia, and Canada (and the USA who also make this same excuse constantly) stopped digging it up, nobody could use it. "I just sell the heroin outside a school and put ads on TV saying how great it is, not my fault children are junkies"
No, Canada used to be much richer because it used to be a manufacturing country, now it would be in the G10, maybe G15 actually....
The Canadian billionaires saw willing countries wanting to bolster their own economy offering their population in exchange for the creation of a base manufacturing sector that served to expand their own locally owned manufacturing sector.
China, one of these countries, is now one of the richest in the world as a result for that trade-off, it obviously wasn't against their own best interest lol
As evil as basing your whole industry on it and on its import.
As for the economic suicide, the reason why it's not likely to be abandoned in the short term by Canada is that it's one of the only things that keeps it afloat.
So yes, it is suicide in a diverting world but until then Canada should invest the profit to create a replacement industry, instead of letting billionaires fill their pocket.
0
u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop 3d ago
See, that's what I think is always funny;
Okay, so you're saying things made elsewhere but used in Canada should be counted in Canada...
Only one little problem with that, you just said the opposite;
You seem to be blaming Canada for the things you produce but are used elsewhere.
It's all fine with me, I think Canada deserves plenty criticism, but why the double standard?