The pressures are not real, they're entirely social constructs.
The easiest fix is for the government to just tax carbon emissions, like Canada, and turn turn the cost way up. The market (Corporations) will change very quickly if it's cheaper not to pollute.
Will it hurt people? Yes. Costs will go up, but pollution will go down. That's the tradeoff.
You should find out who regulates doctors in your province and call them. If these are true, the doctor needs to be investigated immediately.
In the meantime, a second opinion on the new situation is probably in order. If it can be done via tele-health that would be the easiest, if not get her to brave the lines for a walk-in clinic.
You realize there are people in North America who do not own cars, right?
I made ethical consumption choices by looking at my three largest personal (and family) pollution sources.
First is Home heating/cooling. If you rank pollution sources, this is the single largest for most north American people. Now here I got lucky, my area uses almost 100% hydro electric power, so I switched to using a heat pump from a natural gas furnace. Now I no longer directly burn fossil fuels, and my grid is almost 100% pollution free as well. If I had not lived in this area, I would have chosen to install solar panels to offset my energy use as much as possible, and possibly participated in a green energy purchase program. It costs more, but the whole point is that if this were easy, it would already be done. You need to give something up to reduce your pollution, and in this case that thing you're giving up is some extra money.
Heat pumps are a no-brainer in this category, Smaller homes pollute less, multi-family homes with shared walls pollute less, homes with better insulation pollute less. There's choices here for everyone. They just either cost extra money, or give up some of your lifestyle.
2nd most pollution, transportation, I bought an EV a few years ago, which while it does have pollution for production over it's lifespan will have significantly fewer emissions than an equivalent ICE vehicle. Again, my electricity here is almost 100% green, or could be in almost every area.
I wasn't willing to go car free because of how far I live outside of a city, and I accept the pollution that results from my choice here. When I lived in the city, I used to have a bus pass AND a car, and I'd frequently leave the car in the driveway to take the bus for many trips.
Transportation can be addressed in so many ways, moving closer to the things you need, mass transit, EVs, etc. Again, Money or Lifestyle costs.
3rd most pollution, food, I cook with significantly less meat than average, we aren't vegetarian, but we almost never eat beef(which is a massive pollution source even compared to other meats) and our portion size for meat from pork and chicken is more for flavor than nutrition. A single pack of bacon in a lentil/vegetable stew covers 10 dinner servings, compared to a single 5 person breakfast, and I bulk out the protein with the lentils. We eat tofu 4-5 times a month, prepared in various ways, etc. Using less meat actually saves you money, alternative protein sources like beans, tofu(which is beans), and lentils are FAR cheaper. We also buy a lot of our produce from our local area(less transportation pollution) and preferably with less fertilizers (heavy pollution source)
Overall, does it cost more money or reduce your lifestyle to pollute less? Yes. That's the choice that consumers make.
You want to have no pollution AND keep your lifestyle the exact same, but it doesn't work like that. Pollution makes things cheaper, that's why companies do it. They wouldn't bother if it was more expensive. Nobody is sitting in a boardroom going: "Man, this coal costs far more, but we need to fuck the environment a little harder so lets keep using it"
You're thinking about this wrong, you choose your lifestyle.
You simply aren't willing to give up your lifestyle to avoid emissions. It's clearly possible to live a less polluting lifestyle, there are billions of people polluting almost nothing compared to Western averages, their lifestyle just doesn't have as many conveniences as yours.
There are North American people who have chosen to live ultra-simplistic lives who pollute almost nothing as well.
That's a choice YOU make. It may not feel like you made a choice, but you do so every day by not changing your behaviors.
The reason why the top polluters in the world are oil and gas companies is because you buy oil and gas directly to drive your car or heat your house, or you buy electricity generated by oil and gas. The metals in your vehicle? Mining companies pollution. The food on your plate? Agricultural companies polluting. Even the shirt on your back burned bunker fuel to get from Bangladesh to your house.
If you think you aren't directly responsible for corporate pollution, you're a fucking moron.
No corporation pollutes except to produce goods or services for human consumption, or for other businesses that provide goods or services for human consumption.
Every gallon of gas burned is to power a vehicle to move you, or the goods you purchase.
Every natural gas line leads to a house, of a business that sells things to houses.
Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.
The UN doesn't officially recognize Palestine as a country, so they can fuck right off with their assessment. It's unlikely Palestine will ever be allowed to be a country.
Based on official treaties from 1949, the west bank should be Jordanian, and the Gaza strip should be Egyptian
Israel conquered both of those places again in 1967, and neither Egypt nor Jordan want them back at this point.
So politically speaking, they are conquered parts of Israel at the moment.
Again, all of this comes down to "when are we no longer allowing borders to change"?
Palestine is not a country, they aren't likely to become a country, they're free to try to become a country, but they're also likely to fail and the consequences of attacking Israel to try to become a country are clearly visible in Israel's retaliation.
Israel should not be expected to give up land to local populations just because they want it. If all of Israel has a vote to give it to them, sure, go ahead and form a new country but that's not how this situation is going to happen.
I feel the same way about Quebec independence. If they vote to leave by themselves, the answer is no. If the whole countries votes to allow them to leave, then no problem. If they were to attack Ontario in retaliation for failing to be allowed to leave, we shouldn't just give in, we should do the exact same thing Israel is doing.
I bet most Americans feel the same way about Native groups, what if one wanted to break off from the US and take a chunk of land to have 100% control. Not just most control, but 100% separate recognized country with 0% US jurisdiction. They wouldn't like it. If those tribes then attacked nearby US cities with rockets, the same population would immediately demand the military go in to deal with it. Despite those tribes having far more historical title to the land than Palestinians do (something like 95% of Palestinians were born outside of Palestinian territories or are only 1st generation Palestinians)
From an international perspective, and there's a treaty defining them, the borders of Israel include both of those places.
Israel was created by the same group that broke up Germany because it was part of the ottoman empire before that, and the ottoman empire was destroyed as part of the losers of the war.
Again, I'm not saying the Palestinian people don't have a right to complain or even fight back, but if they lose, they lose. It's not their land, they lost the war 75 years ago. Israel has been letting them stay, but if they want to be assholes about it they're going to get evicted.
I'm not arguing against fighting back for Palestinians, they can go ahead, but people shouldn't be upset when Israel fights them back and kicks their ass. Again, it's Israel's territory. It has been for over 75 years.
And still I ask, what year was the last year we should allow borders for countries to change.
Israel conquered that area in the late 40s. It's theirs. If they should have to give it back, should Germany also be allowed to attack its neighbours be given back land that was taken from it after WW2 when the borders were redrawn?
It's stupid that the general population simultaneously thinks that war is bad and people should give back their land, while not recognizing that their borders were established by war too and they were not the original inhabitants.
The majority of Canadian retirees are supporting their adult children financially, which they say is having a negative impact on their own finances, a new report has found.
My parents have no negative impact on their finances, they can still afford to travel internationally 2-3 times a year for multiple weeks at a time, and yet they would be included in that percentage.
This makes the headline very misleading, since it implies that 60% of retirees are experiencing a negative impact upon their finances.
Instead, I'd like to see the percentage of retirees who think they are experiencing a negative impact upon their finances. That number would be more useful in determining what to do about the situation.
There's a ton of other reasons why the US is a bad baseline.
A) They let in far fewer immigrants per capita in the first place
B) The US collects incoming taxes on foreign income for it's citizens, even if you lived outside the US while you earned it.
C) In some cases it's harder for US citizens to work or live abroad. For example working holiday visas are only available to Americans in a handful of countries, where Canada has agreements with more than a dozen countries.
It says this includes things like helping with grandkids schooling.
My parents started a university savings account for my kids the day they were born because they wanted to, I hardly consider it "supporting" me and my wife in any way. The kids won't need it for a decade still, and we could cover their costs without it just fine.
Helpful, sure, but the headline is misleading at best if it's including that in the 60%.