PM Carney considers Canada a 'leader in climate change’
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
Carney still considers 'Canada a leader on climate change,' as government scraps EV mandate
February 5, 2026
After announcing his government would scrap Canada's electric vehicle mandate on Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney was asked whether he still considers himself to be a leader on climate change. Carney said his government is looking to put in place a new electricity strategy and tighten greenhouse gas emissions standards — but is giving industry 'flexibility' on how they achieve that.
February 5, 2026
After announcing his government would scrap Canada's electric vehicle mandate on Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney was asked whether he still considers himself to be a leader on climate change. Carney said his government is looking to put in place a new electricity strategy and tighten greenhouse gas emissions standards — but is giving industry 'flexibility' on how they achieve that.
So does scrapping EV mandate make Mark Carney a climate change denier?
David Clement
Feb 5, 2026
Another Justin Trudeau-era policy, the EV mandate, has been scrapped. That’s great news for consumers, because ultimately the market should decide the vehicles we buy, not Ottawa claiming some moral high ground. But while this is obviously a good move, let us not forget what came to those who opposed these Trudeau-era climate measures over the last decade.
For the better part of nine years we were told that the consumer carbon tax was not just good policy, but a moral imperative. To question a policy like the emissions cap at the time was questioning climate science itself. We were told that the electric vehicle mandate was civilization’s last hope. Anyone who dared to suggest that these policies were economically ruinous weren’t just wrong. They were immoral, and wanted the world to burn.
Everyone remembers the lectures, from MPs like Mark Holland who equated opposition to these policies to climate denial, shameless selfishness, and a planetary negligence that bordered on being criminal. “What is the cost? It is to give up the future of the planet,” Mark Holland said at the modest suggestion that fuel taxes be paused for the summer to ease travel and vacation costs for Canadians.
Liberal partisans were just as insufferable, throwing accusations of being in the pocket of “big oil” and sacrificing the future for our kids. But now, apparently things have changed. Prime Minister Mark Carney has arrived and reversed, paused, or repealed all of it. Apparently the moral high ground taken to defend those policies wasn’t really that high after all.
And the same Liberal MPs who spent nearly a decade questioning the morality, intelligence, and basic decency of those on the other side are now cheering. The cognitive dissonance here would be remarkable if it were not so pathetically predictable.
So what does all of this reveal? Well it reveals that it was always a sham. No, not global warming, that is very much real, but the policies, sanctimony and moral theatre were always about political posturing.
And just for a moment consider the serious implications of these climate policies if the Liberals of less than a year ago were correct. If these climate policies were in fact essential for the survival of the planet, well our new Prime Minister is condemning us all to hellfire. If they really were non-negotiable moral necessities, well then their reversal represents us collectively turning our backs on the planet. But of course, they were always subject to the shifting winds of electoral polling and economic reality.
What makes this truly outrageous is the treatment of those who saw this years ago. The people who rightfully warned that an EV mandate before infrastructure or consumer demand existed was madness. They were treated as moral fugitives. But now we’re just supposed to simply accept that the prime minister’s pragmatic reversals are wise governance? The same Liberal party that spent the better part of a decade painting its opponents as enemies of the future are now the party of sensible recalibration?
The Trudeau era wasn’t merely a series of bad policies. Bad policies happen all the time at every level of government. The Trudeau era was an exercise in using the language of crisis and urgency to stifle debate and paint those across the aisle as villains. The reversal of these climate policies doesn’t show that the Liberals have really learned anything. It just shows that they never really believed in their rhetoric in the first place.
So yes, it is good news that economically destructive policies like the EV mandate are being abandoned, but I surely won’t forget being called a planet killer for suggesting what Prime Minister Carney is now doing. Will there be apologies? Likely not. That is the way of the righteous, who when reality comes striking down on their moral high ground simply declare victory and move on as if their previous position never existed. Everyone should see, and call out, this maneuvering. Or at least anyone who is paying attention.
David Clement
Feb 5, 2026
Another Justin Trudeau-era policy, the EV mandate, has been scrapped. That’s great news for consumers, because ultimately the market should decide the vehicles we buy, not Ottawa claiming some moral high ground. But while this is obviously a good move, let us not forget what came to those who opposed these Trudeau-era climate measures over the last decade.
For the better part of nine years we were told that the consumer carbon tax was not just good policy, but a moral imperative. To question a policy like the emissions cap at the time was questioning climate science itself. We were told that the electric vehicle mandate was civilization’s last hope. Anyone who dared to suggest that these policies were economically ruinous weren’t just wrong. They were immoral, and wanted the world to burn.
Everyone remembers the lectures, from MPs like Mark Holland who equated opposition to these policies to climate denial, shameless selfishness, and a planetary negligence that bordered on being criminal. “What is the cost? It is to give up the future of the planet,” Mark Holland said at the modest suggestion that fuel taxes be paused for the summer to ease travel and vacation costs for Canadians.
Liberal partisans were just as insufferable, throwing accusations of being in the pocket of “big oil” and sacrificing the future for our kids. But now, apparently things have changed. Prime Minister Mark Carney has arrived and reversed, paused, or repealed all of it. Apparently the moral high ground taken to defend those policies wasn’t really that high after all.
And the same Liberal MPs who spent nearly a decade questioning the morality, intelligence, and basic decency of those on the other side are now cheering. The cognitive dissonance here would be remarkable if it were not so pathetically predictable.
So what does all of this reveal? Well it reveals that it was always a sham. No, not global warming, that is very much real, but the policies, sanctimony and moral theatre were always about political posturing.
And just for a moment consider the serious implications of these climate policies if the Liberals of less than a year ago were correct. If these climate policies were in fact essential for the survival of the planet, well our new Prime Minister is condemning us all to hellfire. If they really were non-negotiable moral necessities, well then their reversal represents us collectively turning our backs on the planet. But of course, they were always subject to the shifting winds of electoral polling and economic reality.
What makes this truly outrageous is the treatment of those who saw this years ago. The people who rightfully warned that an EV mandate before infrastructure or consumer demand existed was madness. They were treated as moral fugitives. But now we’re just supposed to simply accept that the prime minister’s pragmatic reversals are wise governance? The same Liberal party that spent the better part of a decade painting its opponents as enemies of the future are now the party of sensible recalibration?
The Trudeau era wasn’t merely a series of bad policies. Bad policies happen all the time at every level of government. The Trudeau era was an exercise in using the language of crisis and urgency to stifle debate and paint those across the aisle as villains. The reversal of these climate policies doesn’t show that the Liberals have really learned anything. It just shows that they never really believed in their rhetoric in the first place.
So yes, it is good news that economically destructive policies like the EV mandate are being abandoned, but I surely won’t forget being called a planet killer for suggesting what Prime Minister Carney is now doing. Will there be apologies? Likely not. That is the way of the righteous, who when reality comes striking down on their moral high ground simply declare victory and move on as if their previous position never existed. Everyone should see, and call out, this maneuvering. Or at least anyone who is paying attention.
This is Carney's baby, this WEF policy. People lack critical thinking skills if that believe in this scam. Carney is a charlatan and him and many other globalist "elites" are getting rich off of this.
Canada is a global leader of
All down to the demonizing of a trace inert gas measure in parts per million.
The same gas which is absolutely essential for all life on the planet.
Last edited:
You get up to $1,800/year on food for a family of 4, but a $5,000 rebate on an EV purchase.
Make it make sense.
Make it make sense.
From eating food your body creates methane gas which goes into the atmosphere creating climate devastation.
that will never make sense
unless you factor this into the equation
then it makes sense
Since your high school science diploma is so much better than everyone else's, then I have three questions for you;
1. What are Canada's carbon emissions, as a percentage of the worlds?
2. According the the Paris climate accord of a 30% reduction in carbon emissions, for all signatory countries, by date X.
What would the drop be for the year, for Canada, as world percentage?
3. Here's a breakdown of the Laurentide Ice Sheet; "Laurentide Ice Sheet, principal glacial cover of North America during the Pleistocene Epoch (about 2,600,000 to 11,700 years ago). At its maximum extent it spread as far south as latitude 37° N and covered an area of more than 13,000,000 square km (5,000,000 square miles). In some areas its thickness reached 2,400–3,000 metres (8,000–10,000 feet) or more. The Laurentide Ice Sheet probably originated on the Labrador-Ungava plateau and on the mountains of the Arctic islands of Canada, and it centered over Hudson Bay. As it spread, the glacial ice mass appears to have combined with other ice caps that had formed on local highlands in eastern Canada and in the northeastern United States."
What happened to the Laurentide Ice Sheet?
Simple enough that even someone that passed high school science could answer easily.
But, I'm not silly enough to argue with someone who's been socially programmed.
Canada is not even responsible for 2% of the world's carbon emissions. Some peg it between 1.5% - 1.6% and I've even seen it listed as high as a whopping 1.8%
So, a 30% reduction sounds sexy and like we're really making a difference, so I'll use the higher figure of 1.8%. That will equate to a drop of 0.0054% of the 1.8%, bringing Canada's world carbon emissions to (drum roll please) 1.7945%!!! That's a target set to be reduced, not hourly, but recorded over a year. And, China blows that reduction away, and then some, in an hour. So who's making money here off of the carbon taxes and credit shuffling?
As for the Laurentide Ice Sheet, I won't leave you in suspense. It melted...
Yes, you read that right and it was up to 4 kilometers thick in some areas, but I believe the the average was 2-3 kilometers thick. The timeline shows us that human kind had zero effect on this massive glaciers melting. That's the Hmmmm moment, where someone with even the slightest bit of science in them says; Yes, I see what you're saying. Taxing something natural will have no effect on the outcome.
Fun facts about the Laurentide Ice Sheet; The earth that it covered is still rebounding from the immense weight of it. We had mountains that were higher than Everest. It had an huge impact on climate and weather and disrupted the weather and climate worldwide, for quite some time.
People gotta eat every day, most people buy cars every 5-10 years or so and its a big ticket item. So yes it makes sense, and you do not... as per normal. Also the 1800 for food for a family of 4 is just to help with food inflation. A family of 4 gets wayyyyyy more then that. Factually wrong, logically confused as per usual
Can I point out one piece of misinformation in your comment.
Franky doesn't have a high school diploma. They gave him a certificate like they did all kids who rode the short bus to school.
Quite the whataboutism tantrum, dirk.
Does that mean you agree with larue that CO2 levels can't effect the climate?
That's amusing, did you get a SSHRC grants for a thesis on how to troll the libs, the joys of incel life or misinformation as mediation?
Or did your degree come from the back of a matchbook?
Though I think it more likely that you studied here:
it makes absolutely zero sense
the government as absolutely no business being involved in the purchase decisions of Canadian consumers
if you want a commie govt, Cuba and China will welcome you
you have zero right to impose that nightmare on Canadians
Last edited:
Whataboutisms are good for the mind, to ponder issues, complex or otherwise.
Now, I'll expand on the thought process as I see it and in paraphrasing it down to the way you see it. CO2s effect on climate is purportedly bad for the environment, according to the "science."
But what do these "scientists" really know?
The earth wasn't in, and never found the perfect equilibrium, where climate is stable and predictable. The chaos theory is apropos in this field, as climate is always in flux, as is the earth. Like the Laurentide Ice Sheet, the earth goes through changes and this, this is one of them. Real science is focused on working with change. While alarmists and charlatans like Carney and the WEF, look for opportunity to exploit from fear. That's part of social engineering/programming.
So yes, Larue is correct.
Work with change, not fear, while getting bilked by global elitists opportunists, who strive for control. Nothing more and nothing less.
that is nonsense, the govt has to ensure cars are safe, and meet minimum standards. How can a consumer know if a car has really poor accident protection for example.
