Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Lana Payne highlights how Kevin O'Leary's obliviousness to inequality makes him a relic. But Linda McQuaig notes that however distant O'Leary may be from the public, he's not that far removed from all too many Conservatives.

- Gerald Caplan points out that even a campaign where the Cons managed to earn the committed disapproval of up to 70% of the country doesn't seem to have led anybody to learn any lessons. And Michael Harris reacts to the Cons' sudden attempt to deny the existence of the record they were so desperately defending just months ago.

- Emily Badger responds to the poisoning of Flint by asking whether the U.S. would have accepted similar damage to more privileged segments of the population. And Rachel Browne observes that this weekend's shootings represented just the latest tragedy for La Loche - if the first to receive sustained outside attention.

- Al Jazeera reports on the alarming - and continuing - buildup of plastic waste which stands to outweigh all the fish in our oceans within a few decades.

- Finally, Marvin Shaffer is the latest to discuss why revenue-neutral carbon taxes only ensure that we don't take steps to mitigate the long-term damage done to our planet:

While we are already experiencing some impacts and costs of climate change, the most extensive and significant costs will be borne by future generations. So if we are going to pay a tax in recognition of the costs we are imposing on future generations, those payments shouldn’t be returned to us in the form of income or sales tax breaks.

Any reasonable notion of equity would demand that carbon tax revenues be directed to measures that benefit those who will be bearing the costs of what we do. They should be dedicated to measures that will help offset the emissions we are generating, prepare for and mitigate the climate change impacts we know we are causing, and support the research that ultimately will be needed to reduce the impacts and costs of what in all likelihood will be increasing concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere far beyond what our targets call for.

There are legitimate concerns about the inefficient use of earmarked funds. But that calls for vigilance in the manner in which funds are invested so that we do the best we can for the future generations. It doesn’t support the redirection of funds to the present generation at the expense of those who will bear the costs of what we do.