How does it send a clear message if the change can be undone if the opposition party comes in power at any point in the next 14 years?
The people (i.e. voters) overwhelmingly support action to limit climate change. That's the reason those laws are politically viable in the first place.
Once enacted, trying to undo them after being in place for 4 years will not only be difficult procedurally but politically suicidal.
It won't happen unless the political party in question has so much electoral buffer that they can ignore what 70%+ voters think about the subject.
Furthermore, if you believe that the climate is changing for the worse then every year will be even more devastating than the one before.
Power cables and roads in Oregon melting due to extreme heat? Next year even more cables and roads will melt.
Every year the public support for climate action will grow and opposition to it will become even more politically suicidal.
In the abstract, sure, but if (hypothetically) 13 years from now people are staring down a 5 figure price increase will they still support it?
The only analogy I can think fitting is the condo building collapse in Miami where the condo board and residents were wringing their hands over $15 millions of dollars of work that needed to be done right up until catastrophic failure. While arguably unaffordable, it would’ve been cheaper than the deaths of 150+ people.
While lamentable, I don't see why people will react any different re: climate policy. Of course people will say 'Yes I support policy to prevent condo collapse.' These same people will, as demonstrated, say 'No do not spend my money to prevent condo collapse.'
A poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs research found that 57 percent of Americans would vote for a $1 fee added to their monthly electricity bill to “combat climate change,” but only 28 percent would agree to pay an additional $10 per month.
The question began with $1, then $10, and rose after that in $10 increments, but a majority of those polled opposed every amount more than $1. By the time the figure reached $100 per month, just 16 percent said yes and 82 percent said no.
Here’s an example alternative proposal: a $10/gallon gas tax, with all proceeds distributed to everyone evenly. If you use less gas than average you win, if you use more than average you lose.
2/3 of Americans oppose increasing gas taxes https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gas-tax-poll-090412
which leads to political realities such as "Democrats have turned solidly against gas taxes" in 2021 https://thehill.com/homenews/house/559063-democrats-have-tur...
Meanwhile, we have people fantasizing about banning things and massive gas tax increases, but the only way to make that politically popular is to ban only in the distant future and to avoid fuel tax increases.
Seriously, what's popular is more research and support for cheaper alternatives. There is a consensus around that, and only around that. Anyone outside that consensus is in a small minority.
If, at that point, any competitor has seen their development programme through, and you haven't, especially if they've also got some local manufacturing - your company is dead. These deadlines aren't moving backwards.
Well, yes, that's how all democracies on the planet function. It's a feature that has pros and cons, but it's the system we are working under. Let's rally behind this kind of "good" and keep making our voices heard so it sticks, rather than apathetically complaining about the state of things.
The elder Trudeau served just under 16 years total.