Should the federal government subsidize the production and consumption of renewable energy sources?

I believe that renewable energies would be a good thing if they weren't so expensive and our government would need to spend money it doesn't have on renewable energy sources

Yes only if the the gouvernement takes in consideration the amount of pollution the business is producing and their intentions.

So basically if Opposite Day then renewable is not renewable and then whole energy sphincter will to boom like big bang

The federal government should use revenue from carbon taxes and related to invest in R&D and efficiency improvements to hydro and energy storage systems

Not entirely. Some investment should be made, but companies should be provided incentives to become increasingly eco-friendly, especially on an international scale with regulations.

for me its hard because we need for save the planet but the materials for this ones are hard to get and you have to mine for get the minerals for that

yes but limit

I do not understand what this entails

no we should try to make it easier to get

I am uneducated on this promt.

Provide more incentives for renewable energy production

It should subsidize only to the extent that is reasonable both the parties.

It depends on the type of energy

Since capitalism can only favour ecological devastation through extraction and the term renewable means less than nothing regarding sustainability, probably.

Yes but it should not be the main focus of the federal government and should not take away from other programs that directly affect Canadians at the present time.

Yes, but they need to use the vast wealth our country could have from our resources to develop and become a world leader in renewable energy.

To a certain degree. Renewable energy is good but we shouldn't completely move away from fossil fuels. I believe Nuclear is also a very clean energy source.

yes but they should also lower regulation on the production and consumption for large corporations and other companies sso that our country can take advantage of our vast resources however it should be reasonable

This would be on a not for profit basis.

It should find more education on nuclear energy and more nuclear energy facilities

im in between due to the fact you still mine rescuorces for batteries like how you mine for coal.

NO, if someone's own energy the government should not be controlling that and how much energy people use it's none of the government's business.

Yes, but also subsidize nuclear energy.

Yes, but the subsidies should not be extremally large. That money is better spent elsewhere, such as providing more funding for education and health care.

same answer as the previous 2

If the project works then yes.

It depends on the circumstance that the energy is being used for

Yes, but work up to the conclusion not just “go cold turkey”

Develop a long term strategy that allows fossil fuels to be eliminated over time

More renewable needed

No, hybrid energies should be subsidized.

Nationalize it NOW

Yes, but it should not need a great deal of money.

Yes, because electricity can't be created and everything that is run by electricity will be shut down.

No. Subsidize nuclear and natural gas power sources.

Yes, to a certain extent.

Should invest in nuclear rather than the renewable options

They should subsidize the expansion, but if the company would be bankrupt without the government then they shouldn't

Yes, and nationalize all energy.

Not their money they're spending usually.

Yes, but only energy production.

Only if the government is receiving part ownership

By increasing the deployment of renewables, subsidies have played a role in reducing reliance on fossil fuels. This is very important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and restricting global temperature rise.

do not know what this means

yes but slowing introducing it into towns and cities

Yes the government needs to help renewable energy get on its feet to create the proper infrastructure otherwise it will take to long to get the ball rolling

Yes, but think it through properly, dont make a repeat of the solar and wind programs.

Temporarily but government subsidies should not become nessicary for these companies to function

yes, but help the people become more energy efficient and not let the money go to big companies.

Government should nationalize large-scale renewable energy production and facilitate small-scale access to electricity grid.

use both gas and electric or make electrical vehicles more cheaper and easier to recharge

depends on the amount of solar power being used

If there are more viable solutions, it is healthy to have a mixed system. You cannot switch everything over in one fell swoop.

IN ways other than handing out cash - there should be tax related subsidies where they can save instead of pay.

Only if it’s cost efficient

RES are too ineffective, nuclear is cost effective and safer than it is made out to be.

Only for buildings. No more solar farms or giant windmills.

Yes, but only at a reasonable extent. Depending on the company and the necessity of the product

Again, stop asking silly questions and start taking serious steps to ensure that our planet remains capable of supporting healthy life.

No, they should only subsidise research and development.

yes but it depends on the type of energy

The government should only encourage and incentives anything they want to accomplish. Anytime the government gets involved in vertically everything it becomes a mismanaged mess.

Yes, but with clearly defined time and financial limits.

Somewhat but not wholly

Only for major companies

Depends on reasonable economic fundamentals.

Yes, but only until fossil fuels are no longer used in society

Does the government have money to subsidize this, I don't think so. This mean they will be taking it from the people, and some of us are struggling to get by as it is.

For a period of time

No, focus on nuclear energy

At what environmental cost? Electric vehicles are good (hydrogen cells are better), but where do you think the material for those deep cycle batteries comes from? Does that extraction not produce as much, if not more, environmental damage?

The government should subsidize the decision of homebuyers to install solar panels on their rooftops but should not subsidize big business.

The government should concentrate on nuclear power while reducing power sources that produce GHG emissions. R&D on Thorium. Expand the power grid capacity and subsidize people's home renovations to convert to electric heating.

This should be a joint responsibility of the government and private industry…. Incentives

With limits but not throw money away on products which have not been evaluated that it will not harm the environment in other ways like windmills like we have now.lots of metal waste, fuel consumption in transporting them as well as how it affects wildlife and human health and it is way to heavily subsidized.

On a provincial level

As long as it is within Canada

Yes, I think this would be a good way incentivize citizens and companies to transition to cleaner energy sources which is more sustainable for the future. (There should be a specific period for this Ex: Subsidy for a period of 10 years).

The government should use more renewable sources. I don't understand the question but I just agree with this.

Government should help with the infrastructure to get started

If it’s truly beneficial

I do support this to the extent that Canada's energy production is diversified. Having Canadian power grids run solely on renewable energy can lead to problems. Also I do support the use of nuclear power being that compared to (say) fossil fuels and such, nuclear power is very clean by comparison.

No. We need to go nuclear. It has the lowest carbon footprint.

Short term until they can be used more efficiently.

I think we should stop subsidies the production and consumption of non renewable energy instead.

Give the energy companies a timeline to change over to clean energy. If they don't do it fine them until they do

Yes as a catalyst to promote green energy. Funding decreases over time.

Yes provided that it is a viable, safe, and effective choice

Yes in a limited capacity with an end date and a refund amount built in after successful launch

In part with the private and public sectors

No but we need more renewable energy

No, they should investigate and support whatever carbon neutral energy production is sensible (i.e. nuclear and/or renewables)

Yes, and stop all subsidies for oil and gas

No, money should not be given to corporations as an incentive. Corporations should promote the production and consumption of renewable energy sources of their free will.

Only if these renewable energy sources for not effect the water.

No, the government shouldn't be influencing the energy market or any market for that matter.

No, the government should be influencing the energy market or any market for that matter.

Renewable energy's like solar and wind are often more polluting over their whole life cycle, from production to disposal, than oil energy sources

FREE ENERGY to the public