1. I do not understand why…

1. I do not understand why your party considers any attempt to create a new economy, improved living conditions (less pollution) and jobs using non-polluting green technology to be an unacceptable use of "taxpayers money".

Cap and Trade was paid for by COMPANIES offsetting the pollution credits (e.g. carbon) among each other. It was up to them to decide how to pay for it. IT WAS NOT A TAX. The money raised was to be put towards projects that made Ontario more resilient towards "bad weather" (since the word Climate seems to create a knee-jerk reaction where you stop listening) and would have created a whole new industry with good jobs. Each province could decide how to spend the money.

How is it better for people to maybe save a few dollars on products they purchase now than saving much more in the NEAR future on energy costs or fewer asthma attacks, heat-related illness or less flooding?

For Example, this means that schools that were going to have upgrades so they could function using cheaper energy costs and have better indoor air quality will not be able to be do so. I haven't heard of any funding going towards that to make up for the loss of funding provided by Cap and Trade. It the work is to be done it will STILL have to come out of "taxpayer money".

2. Why would your government rather pay enormous penalties and use TAXPAYERS MONEY to pay for lawsuits for cancelling an enormous number of projects already underway or to fight the Federal Government who has international treaties to consider? At the very least, couldn't you have left those already approved to be completed? Did you enjoy making the people who had jobs working on these projects unemployed? I haven't heard any sympathy or funding for them.

3. Cities are much more energy efficient and use less municipal resources per person, allowing them to provide more services to their residents than suburban sprawl. Rather than choosing to improve services for suburban areas with the funds generated by Cap and Trade you seem to prefer to starve cities of the funds they need (austerity) and present it as a fight against "the Elites". People who live in cities are not "Elites", they are regular people who do not like being pitted against everyone else. We will not reap huge benefits when you sell off publicly owned property and services. We will end up paying more for less while the real Elites who buy what should be public resources will benefit the most.

4. Please do not sell the Greenbelt! I'm sorry but you can't be trusted not to do this since you so easily reneged on your promise to continue the Basic Income trial and you showed that really want to. Once natural areas, farmland and other green spaces are gone it is almost impossible and very expensive to try to recreate them. Green spaces provide so many services (clean water, flood control, mental health benefits, a place for other species that deserve to survive, etc) and are already reduced from what they should be. (17% according to the UN).

5. Do you have any plans at all to try to mitigate the effects of "bad weather", depleting natural resources and more pollution? It's long past the point where it can be prevented but surely something can be done to deal with it before it becomes catastrophic, or is it "not your problem"?

If you think by not paying now you will have an advantage, think very seriously about that. Maybe it won't be your government that has to pick up the pieces, but the problems won't go away. I do hope that the global community decides to place a tariff on those who do not pay their way to mitigate the damage caused by carbon and other resource overuse and destruction. It's only fair.