Canadians Are Already Over Carney

[ironstone]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

AI says...

Canada: Climate change, combined with geopolitical factors, is a primary driver behind a projected food price increase of 4% to 6% for 2026 in Canada.

While there is no single percentage for total food inflation attributed solely to climate change, researchers warn it could increase food prices by up to 3.2% every year globally.

By contrast, the carbon tax has been found to have "essentially no impact" (near 0%) on food prices, as farmers are largely exempt from direct costs that would be passed to consumers.

 

That seems to suggest that Canada is getting hit at least twice as hard by climate change compared to the other G7 nations.🤨

[Legato]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

AI says...

Canada: Climate change, combined with geopolitical factors, is a primary driver behind a projected food price increase of 4% to 6% for 2026 in Canada.

While there is no single percentage for total food inflation attributed solely to climate change, researchers warn it could increase food prices by up to 3.2% every year globally.

By contrast, the carbon tax has been found to have "essentially no impact" (near 0%) on food prices, as farmers are largely exempt from direct costs that would be passed to consumers.

 

AI Overview

While extreme weather driven by climate change—such as droughts affecting crop yields

—contributes to specific food shortages and price spikes, many analysts argue it is not the primary driver of overall high Canadian food inflation. Instead, factors like interprovincial trade barriers, regulatory costs, supply chain issues, and carbon pricing are frequently cited.

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, ironstone said:

That seems to suggest that Canada is getting hit at least twice as hard by climate change compared to the other G7 nations.🤨

It shouldn't be surprising I suppose, Northern and Southern latitudes and climates are changing faster.

Kinda throws a kink into the idea climate change will turn all of Canada into farmland.

 

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Legato said:

AI Overview

While extreme weather driven by climate change—such as droughts affecting crop yields

—contributes to specific food shortages and price spikes, many analysts argue it is not the primary driver of overall high Canadian food inflation. Instead, factors like interprovincial trade barriers, regulatory costs, supply chain issues, and carbon pricing are frequently cited.

Notice where my AI says climate change is amongst the primary drivers and yours says it's not the primary driver? That matters.

That said, climate change driven food inflation is a driver that will continue to grow whereas the others may wax and wane.

You'll see that reflected over time in AI overviews as it becomes less deniable that climate change is the primary driver not just of food inflation but just about everything that's driving us off a cliff.

[I am Groot]

[LinkSoul60]

 

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Or legitimate news, which that was. It wasn't an editorial. 

Again you have to lie to make your point.  And you post an actual propaganda site on your own. Pathetic. 

And you just posted proof i'm right. 

From your own source -

Overall, we find that emissions pricing at $80 per tonne could potentially increase the cost of domestically produced food by approximately 0.8 percent on average.

 

So, .8 percent inflation directly to the food industry. That's actually higher than i said 

But that's JUST at the production level. 

And we're about to hit 95 dollars a tonne. 

So when you add up ALL the levels the actual COMBINED CUMULATIVE cost is over 2 percent, more like 3 percent if these numbers are correct 

SO YOU JUST PROVED THAT MOST OF OUR EXCESS FOOD INFLATION IS FROM CARBON AND ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES. 

Boom - thanks for proving my point kid   been a while but you lefies always eventually post proof i'm right for some reason LOLOLOL 

 

Clearly math isn't your thing...  You're far better though at picking things out of your ass to suit your ridiculous arguments.  

Why can't you process what you read for the way it was intended to be interpreted rather than reading it the way you want it to be.  Do you struggle with the meaning of words, or do you get confused when too many of them are next to each other?  

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So, .8 percent inflation directly to the food industry. That's actually higher than i said 

But that's JUST at the production level. 

And we're about to hit 95 dollars a tonne. 

So when you add up ALL the levels the actual COMBINED CUMULATIVE cost is over 2 percent, more like 3 percent if these numbers are correct 

 

What is this.... You picked this out of your ass and I can only wonder if you even took math in school, in any grade.  

Where did you pull this from - 'it's JUST at the production level'?  The author plainly says 'While we abstract from general equilibrium responses, our analysis suggests emissions pricing in Canada has only a modest effect on food costs' or 'QUANTIFYING THE EFFECT OF EMISSIONS PRICING ON CONSUMER PRICES'.  There is no mention of 'JUST at the production level'.  What don't you understand about either of those comments from the report?  This one and any other that can be found says the same....it's less than 1%. 

For a laugh I'd be curious to hear how you got to 2 and almost 3%, but I'm sure you have no idea how either... 🤡

I heard this quote from Mark Twain that made me laugh, and is so applicable to you - "Never argue with stupid people.  They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience"

 

BTW.... still waiting for the cite of Carney's $1Billion 2025 expense summary, please send. 

 

 

 

[LinkSoul60]

11 hours ago, Legato said:

t excludes the additional costs associated with clean fuel regulations, refrigeration units, empty backhauls, secondary distribution routes and warehousing operations. When those factors are included, the financial impact across the food supply chain could easily be three or four times higher.

 

Another pull out of your ass attempt to make this report or any other that are findable incorrect because they didn't include what you're saying.  Unqualified economists everywhere, should have called you...  Understand what you see, not what you want to believe.  

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It shouldn't be surprising I suppose, Northern and Southern latitudes and climates are changing faster.

Kinda throws a kink into the idea climate change will turn all of Canada into farmland.

 

The search engine I use also says that food production in Canada has increased by 150-200% since 1970, or about 2.5-3 times what it was back then. This is referring to crop/livestock outputs.

It also says that food production has increased at a faster rate than population growth during the same period. 

Food production has grown faster than population in Canada since 1970.

Key numbers:

Population: ~21.6 million (1970) → ~39.6 million (2021) ≈ +83%.
Agricultural/food production (broad output indices and aggregate tonnes/value): roughly +150% to +200% since 1970 (about 2.5–3×).
Conclusion: per‑capita food production has increased — total production rose substantially more than population (production growth ≈ 1.8–2.4 times the population growth). If you want exact percent change for a specific measure (tonnes of crops, livestock, FAO Food Production Index, or constant‑dollar agri‑food value), tell me which and I’ll fetch the precise sourced figure.

So it seems logical that the greatly increased cost of food in Canada cannot be blamed on climate change alone since we've been producing more per capita.

Sticking with 1970,  production costs for Canadian farmers have risen substantially in real (inflation‑adjusted) terms since 1970 — roughly 3–6× higher depending on the measure.

Higher costs on farmers, governments have something to do with that, more regulations, fuel taxes, industrial carbon taxes on the equipment they need= higher prices which helps explain how we got to where we are today.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Clearly math isn't your thing...

 

 

 

Every single time you say something like that it turns out that you're the mentally deficient one but lets take a look.,,

 

 

Quote

 You're far better though at picking things out of your ass to suit your ridiculous arguments.  

You mean facts. Yes

Quote

Why can't you process what you read for the way it was intended to be interpreted rather than reading it the way you want it to be.  Do you struggle with the meaning of words, or do you get confused when too many of them are next to each other?  

In other words why don't I read things the way that you see them through your rose colored liberal infested glasses instead of seeing them in the clear light of day without your weird political interpretations?

Because I'm sane. The facts and figures I gave you and the information I provided you with is not political. They're just facts and figures

 

Quote

What is this.... You picked this out of your ass and I can only wonder if you even took math in school, in any grade.  

Wow you're having an absolute complete men tal breakdown aren'T you😂😂😂😂  This is actually starting to get pretty funny

 

Quote

Where did you pull this from - 'it's JUST at the production level'?  The author plainly says 'While we abstract from general equilibrium responses, our analysis suggests emissions pricing in Canada has only a modest effect on food costs' or 'QUANTIFYING THE EFFECT OF EMISSIONS PRICING ON CONSUMER PRICES'.  

And dalhousie study showed where they and many others were wrong in that.

 

Quote

BTW.... still waiting for the cite of Carney's $1Billion 2025 expense summary, please send. 

Uhhh i did send that. Along with a link.  I believe others did too.  Someone broke it down even further than me

here's a quick ai that you could have looked at ANY TIME,  So i know you're lying. 

cost of carney's travel 2025 - Google Search

Prime Minister Mark Carney has incurred significant travel expenses since taking office in March 2025, with costs exceeding $772,000 for in-flight catering and accommodation on international trips as of early 2026

Now the "exceeding" part is interesting, apperently there's about 30 million or so in such expenses still being processed. 

This does NOT include things like security, the cost of the airplane, etc etc.  When you include that it starts to get insane and into the tens of billions. Here's what ONE flight to egypt cost:

"A, reported trip to Egypt cost roughly $736,466 due to the need to rent a private jet (Bombardier Global 5000) and comprehensive security, which includes RCMP costs."

Now this information was private provided to you before and I'm sure you saw it.

So you're at the point where if you don't like what you hear you just demand people repeat it again and again. 

 

Let's recap. When you consider all of the factors and the fact that carbon tax stacks unlike other taxes, the federal carbon taxes add about 2 to 3% to the cost of food inflation. And in fact if you took that away we'd be right at about the same food inflation as our allies, tiny bit high but not much.

And it is costing an insane amount of money for carney to fly around and do these deals, which so far have produced somewhere in the neighborhood of about a little less than a billion dollars a year in possible revenues for us

 

Why don't you ask for the information a few more times? I'm sure it'll change if you just keep repeating yourself often enough. What a twat

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

So it seems logical that the greatly increased cost of food in Canada cannot be blamed on climate change alone

No one said it was but climate change is certainly a far bigger driver than the picayune amount intended to mitigate it.

But why are you bothering to throw numbers around when you think it's all bullshit?

Edited March 22 by eyeball

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Every single time you say something like that it turns out that you're the mentally deficient one but lets take a look.,,

 

 

You mean facts. Yes

In other words why don't I read things the way that you see them through your rose colored liberal infested glasses instead of seeing them in the clear light of day without your weird political interpretations?

Because I'm sane. The facts and figures I gave you and the information I provided you with is not political. They're just facts and figures

 

Wow you're having an absolute complete men tal breakdown aren'T you😂😂😂😂  This is actually starting to get pretty funny

 

And dalhousie study showed where they and many others were wrong in that.

 

Uhhh i did send that. Along with a link.  I believe others did too.  Someone broke it down even further than me

here's a quick ai that you could have looked at ANY TIME,  So i know you're lying. 

cost of carney's travel 2025 - Google Search

Prime Minister Mark Carney has incurred significant travel expenses since taking office in March 2025, with costs exceeding $772,000 for in-flight catering and accommodation on international trips as of early 2026

Now the "exceeding" part is interesting, apperently there's about 30 million or so in such expenses still being processed. 

This does NOT include things like security, the cost of the airplane, etc etc.  When you include that it starts to get insane and into the tens of billions. Here's what ONE flight to egypt cost:

"A, reported trip to Egypt cost roughly $736,466 due to the need to rent a private jet (Bombardier Global 5000) and comprehensive security, which includes RCMP costs."

Now this information was private provided to you before and I'm sure you saw it.

So you're at the point where if you don't like what you hear you just demand people repeat it again and again. 

 

Let's recap. When you consider all of the factors and the fact that carbon tax stacks unlike other taxes, the federal carbon taxes add about 2 to 3% to the cost of food inflation. And in fact if you took that away we'd be right at about the same food inflation as our allies, tiny bit high but not much.

And it is costing an insane amount of money for carney to fly around and do these deals, which so far have produced somewhere in the neighborhood of about a little less than a billion dollars a year in possible revenues for us

 

Why don't you ask for the information a few more times? I'm sure it'll change if you just keep repeating yourself often enough. What a twat

You cite an opinion with no percentage amounts noted so decide to make up your own percentages.

You pull out some costs and next thing you know it's a $1B dollars.

You can't even count to 10 and you're saying 'because' in trying to justify how your little cranium gets to 2 -3% carbon tax inflation. 

You are a monumental idi!ot!  I have no idea how old you are but whatever the age....how you made it this far is beyond me.  You can be this stùpid when you're away from the computer, are you...

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

No one said it was but climate change is certainly a far bigger driver than the picayune amount intended to mitigate it.

But why are you bothering to throw numbers around when you think it's all bullshit?

Nope. Other way around

And what the kid posted proved that what you just said was a little complete lie. Which does explain why you didn't bother posting any of your own stats

[Legato]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Notice where my AI says climate change is amongst the primary drivers and yours says it's not the primary driver? That matters.

That said, climate change driven food inflation is a driver that will continue to grow whereas the others may wax and wane.

You'll see that reflected over time in AI overviews as it becomes less deniable that climate change is the primary driver not just of food inflation but just about everything that's driving us off a cliff.

Poppycock

[Legato]

11 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Another pull out of your ass attempt to make this report or any other that are findable incorrect because they didn't include what you're saying.  Unqualified economists everywhere, should have called you...  Understand what you see, not what you want to believe.  

I don't subscribe to your doom and gloom nonsense. The sun is not shining where you cobbled that together.

Edited March 22 by Legato
stuff

[ironstone]

Our resident 'downvote king' hard at work again😏

[Legato]

8 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Our resident 'downvote king' hard at work again😏

That's okay, let him have his temper tantrums, we all get a laugh.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And what the kid posted proved that what you just said was a little complete lie. 

No it didn't.

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Which does explain why you didn't bother posting any of your own stats

No it doesn't. I already explained everyone is capable of finding this information in their own.

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, Legato said:

Poppycock

I accept your surrender.

[LinkSoul60]

48 minutes ago, Legato said:

I don't subscribe to your doom and gloom nonsense. The sun is not shining where you cobbled that together.

No, you subscribe to the School of Id!ocy's weekly newsletters.  As an alumni I'm sure they provide good reading pleasure for you.

Doom and gloom... WTF are you talking about?  We're talking about the impact of industrial carbon tax in the price of food.

 

[ironstone]

World wide food production since 1970: 

From FAO/World Bank–style measures (food supply or Food Production Index per capita):

Change since 1970: global food production per capita (caloric food supply/food production per person) rose roughly 20–40% between 1970 and the 2010s–2020s depending on the exact measure and end year. A common estimate: calories available per person increased by about 25–30% from 1970 to ~2019–2020.
Has it kept pace with population growth? Yes: total food production grew faster than population, so per‑capita food production and average calorie availability increased. However, the gains were uneven: many low‑income countries started from much lower baselines and some regions (sub‑Saharan Africa) lagged; food access, distribution, and waste mean higher per‑capita production did not eliminate hunger everywhere.

global food production per capita has increased since 1970 (measured as calories or food available per person). The rise is driven largely by gains in Asia, Latin America, and parts of Africa; growth slowed or plateaued in many high‑income countries in recent decades.

Interesting that food production has risen in Asia, Latin American and parts of Africa, yet there is still mass migration to the West from these places that apparently are producing more food than ever.

[Legato]

20 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No, you subscribe to the School of Id!ocy's weekly newsletters.  As an alumni I'm sure they provide good reading pleasure for you.

Doom and gloom... WTF are you talking about?  We're talking about the impact of industrial carbon tax in the price of food.

 

of which you are the prominent author.

mixed you up with eyeballs, difficult to tell the difference, pissing in the same pot and all that.

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

of which you are the prominent author.

mixed you up with eyeballs, difficult to tell the difference, pissing in the same pot and all that.

The most accurate comment I've seen you make.... 'mixed up'.  No shît...

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No it didn't.

 

Of course it did.. You just can't do math. But I think we were all quite well aware of that

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No it doesn't. I already explained everyone is capable of finding this information in their own.

Sure because you love to send people on wild goose chases from information that doesn't exist. But the real data has already been posted and it says you're wrong 100%.

Your inability to cope with reality does not change the math or the facts No matter how much you might which otherwise

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No, you subscribe to the School of Id!ocy's weekly newsletters.  

 

Awwww triggered leftie is triggered and can't make an argument    LOL

Why are you like this? You're wrong, it' s obvious, the data has been provided, the math has been done for you, the facts make sense even if you think about it quickly (billions in taxes affects price is pretty easy to believe) and  yet you still cling desperately to something that's obviously a lie.  Why? 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I accept your surrender.

Surrender? Uhhhh .... You realize @Legato said "poppy"..c0ck,    He wasn't offering to go out on a date with you or something.  Sorry if he got you excited by mistake  (always the lefties assume gay sex when they lose an argument.)