I think both points are defensible based on the facts. Carney appears to be quite clever, and has an impressive depth of knowledge when it comes to finance and economics. I feel that these are desirable qualities in a political leader. He's had quite a career and there's no shortage of examples of his speech and writing available to demonstrate that he has some capacity for independent thought within the bounds of his areas of expertise. He's not some ideologically blinkered Calgary School economist, he's the real thing. He's capable of giving a good speech and might even have what it takes to steer the government into doing a decent job of implementing his plan. I don't claim to be capable of guessing exactly how much good it would do, but at least it's aiming in the right direction.

Nonetheless it's certain that such a politically palatable scheme which bankers and economists can feel comfortable with will not produce the radical transformation of society that is demanded if we're to avoid the worst of climate change. More disruptive and forceful action than that would be required to get anywhere close to net zero carbon in the time available.

What's proposed might be enough to keep Canada looking internationally respectable for a little while, and many will argue that it's the best that can be done. If Jagmeet Singh, as suggested in the article, suddenly develops the ability to persuasively argue otherwise, coming up with a detailed, credible, and politically acceptable plan that puts Canada at the forefront of the revolution that will save the world from itself, it will be a welcome miracle. Failing that, Carney would be a competent manager of the unsustainable economic status quo while we await its inevitable end to be brought about by more ambitious nations, by a new great war, or by nature itself.