Well this is a demonstrably bad take. There are a multitude of ways—other than raising the price on carbon pollution—in which the gov’t can deliver a green recovery without micromanaging “winning” technologies. Contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism is just lazy. 1/ #cdnpoli
Building codes set energy performance benchmarks. Ditto vehicle emission standards. But gov’t, through stimulus, can enable more retrofits and more clean vehicle sales. The same goes for various industrial sectors—cement, steel, etc. Nobody is suggesting picking specific tech. 2/
Looking at recovery strictly through a lens of job creation, a green recovery delivers more effectively. With the co-benefit of reduced pollution—helping fight climate & reducing healthcare costs. See: smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/w… & mckinsey.com/business-funct… 3/ 
As McKinsey notes, pairing push (regs) & pull (funding) is the optimal approach to stimulus. In other words, the fed gov’t should continue to pursue regs (Clean Fuel Standard, model building code, new vehicle emission regs etc.) alongside any bailouts/stimulus. 4/
Politically, this approach might just achieve a broad consensus. Aggressively ↑ the price on carbon pollution? Doubtful. Canadians support aligning #climateaction & economic recovery. cleanenergycanada.org/poll-canadians… Let’s not squander the opportunity for a #resilientrecovery 5/5
