Jen, I really enjoy your articles. They are funny and scathing at the same time. This was my favorite part and it really sums up all the blatant hypocrisy right now.
"Oil is a morally compromised product, and that compromise touches everyone who extracts and consumes it. Reducing this problem to the caricature of the black-hearted Texas oil baron is just scapegoating. It's an attempt to ameliorate the collective guilt we possess for living in car-dependent suburban tract housing with a hefty camper van that allows the family to escape to weekend adventures in the wilderness."
I hate that we are so dependent on oil but, until we develop better technologies, it's a necessary evil. It would be nice to see more people reduce their oil consumption, but it doesn't appear to be happening. Once restrictions are lifted, people will resume their yearly trips down south (of which far too many seem to feel entitled to). And, to those that travel close to home, great, but do you really need such a huge trailer or RV?? The purpose of camping is to get away from home, not to bring it with you.
#1: you got drunk on one (shared) bottle of wine? When I lived in AB, that wouldn't even qualify as drinking. #2: you then compounded this by adulterating innocent alcohol with tea? What kind of a monster are you?
Jen nearly hit upon my favourite point about children's propaganda is that: It Does Not Work.
Captain Planet and the Lorax and several others were all that was warping the fragile little minds of impressionable children who are now 40+, and they all went out and bought vans and SUVs instead of the subcompacts that were going to be the only cars soon, when I was in engineering during the 1970s oil crisis.
But, no: when the price of gas went back down, everybody got 2400 sf houses instead of 1600, and the average vehicle weight went up 30%.
Some indoctrination. Perhaps it did indoctrinate them to blame "corporations" instead of themselves, but the corporations have pretty thick skins.
The education system in Canada takes care of the brainwashing or indoctrination of the children already, the film just supports their version to make sure it’s placed permanently in their malleable little minds. It ensures generations of the same thought processes to secure a different outcome to the country and the governing of the country.
As an Albertan I am tired of the constant beating down of our industry and the war against the Tar Sands. It is a legitimate and actual fact that a war is being waged and not against Texas, Norway, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or Africa, its strictly against Canadian oil. This is why they canceled Keystone XL, its why that Line 5 will be shut down, and also why Jane Fonda has launched a campaign against Line 3 as well. Its not Texas oil that is being decried, as no other oil suffers from the destruction and misinformation sold by environmentalists that Canadian oil seems to attract. The environmental movement admits it lies to push their message and due to that they are winning. If we don't stand up for truth and reality, who will? Even in our schools the children are taught the evil of oil but are not told about what it has done for society and how it has improved every area of our lives. Films such as Bigfoot only solidify what they are taught. Critical Theory is not teaching children objective thinking and does not allow for one to even consider what is good about anything in our world today, including democracy and capitalism. Its one sided drivel that anyone teaching such horror should be ashamed of. If fighting for truth and reality embarrasses you, then it is you that has a problem and was obviously taught through the critical theory educational system. Journalism itself has lost all objectivity for the reasons I state above and the very fact that Environmentalist are running our Governments in many Provinces and our Federal Government should cause all Albertans anxiety. There intent is similar as is their thought process on Canadian oil and they too are attempting to destroy the industry. That is as long as it does not effect Ontario and Quebec. The hypocrisy and ignorance of those in powerful positions is extremely dangerous. If the oil and gas industry in Canada goes down, so shall the entire country. The costs to import what we need will be astronomical and unaffordable just as are Trudeau's taxes which will only continue to rise. What is happening needs to be fought in anyway possible or we will be having some seriously cold, cold winters. Global warming seems to disappear come January regardless of what the scientists say. If you think electric anything will fair better price wise, your wrong. It will be come the new oil of society and you will pay for it at a much higher rate than any oil and gas today as it will cost triple to make it viable for the whole country. Meanwhile all this destruction for 1.5 percent of the entire worlds emissions. That is a whole lot of destruction for what will make absolutely no difference in the worlds emissions as they will continue to rise. Do we do nothing, no but what is happening is due to misinformation that has caused the war against Canadian oil. We are not the villains of world emissions, in fact quite the opposite, but we are targeted as such. We must fight back as we will be the big losers, not those spreading misinformation or outright lies, as most do not live in the colder areas of this country or in Canada. They moved to warmer climates or they would not be destroying oil and gas here.
Hardly an environmentalist here, used to live in Alberta but you've just kind of shown why the rest of Canada seems to discount you. I could go back and forth with you but we'll leave it at just two points: Point A: It's rich when certain Albertans complain about how people in other parts of Canada vote for their own interests while getting defensive if anybody questions how they protect their interests. Point B: Your vote hasn't been in play for my entire life (and I'm in mid mid 40's. Conservatives don't need to woo you, Liberals and NDP federally can't rely on you. You lament that Ontario and Quebec take up a lot of oxygen...fair enough, but their votes are up for grabs so of course parties are going to pander to them.
Long story short, a lot of this is of Alberta's own making and it is hard to feel sympathy when you constantly look for others to blame.
My first reply was invalid as I wrote two replies to the main article by the author but my first one did not get posted. My first reply blamed the oil companies as well for not standing up for the misinformation when it began. Either way I won’t go back and forth with you either as you are uninformed. I have little time for those who fail to be informed on Alberta or the oil and gas industry. I must assume you are reading misinformation. I will not discuss any subject where the individual or entity is full of misinformation be it a media outlet, an environmental group, politician, or yourself. It would be a complete waste of my and your time.
Thank you for proving my point so eloquently Marylou. I post that you have to accept that voters in other parts of the country are going to vote to their priorities and that Alberta votes so reliably Conservative that nobody needs to pay attention to their views to win and you start discussing how I'm uninformed on oil and gas. I never once shared my position on oil and gas and my view on it is inconsequential to your original post. But yes, I'm a horrible Truck driving non-Albertan who votes for my priorities in elections, something that is 100% worth demonizing. You have every right to vote the way you want to and to support the policies and politicians who you wish. But then don't sit there and lament when Ontario and Quebec get the lions share of attention because that is where seats are won. Speaking politically only, If I was a party leader, Orange, Red or Blue, why am I wasting any political energy in the Prairies when 90%+ of the seats are dark blue and there is zero prospect of changing that? Nothing anybody does in Alberta is going to win them an election. That's no my fault and the situation doesn't change until Albertans themselves change that.
But tell me again how I'm misinformed on a topic I never brought up...
I interpreted the "political energy of the prairies" as meaning the O&G industry. What did you mean?
I absolutely stand behind my comment. How would the political priorities of AB and SK compromise Laurentian prospects outside of pride? Climate action is allegedly the great divide, but the indisputable facts are:
1) Canada accounts for a miniscule percentage of global emissions
2) Discouraging production of O&G within Canada's borders will only incentivized it else were. Molecules of carbon dioxide shifted from a Canadian source of origin to a non-Canadian one will have zero climate impact
3) Reducing consumption of fossil fuels, by for example tolling the 401, would reduce global emissions, but no politician will go there
Political strategists thrive on conjuring division. Liberal strategists are simply much more effective
Not 'advice' Doug, Politics 101. If I have a pool resources and nothing I do will change the outcome of an election, then why do I need to spend any of it in that area? That's a universal truth. You are entitled to do what you want, just don't act shocked when say Erin O'Toole starts parroting Central Canadian priorities in advance of an election.
The "War Room", public inquiry into anti-Alberta campaigns etc. would be better focused on ligitigating the likes of Ecojustice, Jane Fonda etc.when they make outrageous claims about the environmental impacts of Alberta's oil industry. The oilsands and pipelines are lazy targets for eco-groups as the public at large won't take the time to validate the claims. The "War Room" was set up to fail. Activists don't target driving SUV's, eating meat and other carbon intensive, but familiar activities, for a reason.
Hah! People who care about our planet and its climate don't just 'target Alberta'. Actually the planet will be fine... we and our current animal co-inhabiters won't .... climate will just move back TOWARDS a few hundred million years ago when all this fossilized carbon was taken from the air by plants and began its fossilization ....... towards when AB was an 'inland sea' and the rockies didn't exist and there were trees on Ellesmere island.
Enroute, the rise in atmospheric kinetic energy will give us bigger storm systems, greater extremes of hot (and cold), wet (and dry)
You hadn't noticed that by 2035 GM plans to go 'all electric'..... that's part of that movement as well.
The eco activists sure tried to block energy infrastructure in the Middle East, Texas, Russia and Norway. Elizabeth May couldn't phase out the 401, one of the world's widest and busiests enablers of climate change, soon enough. That activists honed in on Alberta as an easy target is not surprising: land locked, dependent on a single customer, subject to a complex and uncertain regulatory regime. What is surprising is how readily Albertans' alleged compatriots threw the province under the bus.
Of course GM and other automakers are attempting to replicate the Tesla hype machine in hopeful attempts to inflate their stock prices.
What threw AB under the bus was the series of short-sighted populist, convenience driven-climate change denying governments who, instead of growing the HSTF and using it (as Peter Lougheed wanted) to diversify away from the damaging and dying industry. .......... and there are still a tonne of people afraid to take action (opposing even the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which has been proven to reduce consumption and simultaneously grow the economy (due to being revenue neutral... ie.... giving back to people to put into the rest of the economy)
Texas is a write off. They even believed their idiot (or crooked) governor saying that it was the "green" sources that failed rather than their gas. (solar and wind are used in Antarctica for fuck sake.. and solar works better in cold weather.
No. GM et al are aware that the majority of educated people (including capitalists like me) know that fossil-fuel consumption is going to kill our economies, if not in my life time (I'm almost 70) but certainly in my kids' and grandkids'.
That 'under the bus' comment show's that you're a dupe of the soup of disinformation being propagated by the UCP-on party.
1) Viewing climate change as a battle between "believers" and "deniers" implies a religious element. Should the heretics who disagree with a conviction be burned at the stake?
2) Government cannot diversify the economy, as government is horrible at picking winners. AB is a great example as every attempt to diversify has been a resounding failure, from Alberta Opportunity Company and Vencap under Lougheed, to Gainers and MagCan under Getty to Northwest Value Partners under Stelmach. Even when government does pick a winner, such as Novatel during the Lougheed and Getty eras, it still manages to run it into the ground. New ventures are inherently risky and government lacks the agility to take decisive actions as the market changes. The best approach is to create an environment of reasonable taxation, and clear and consistent regulation to attract entrepreneurial people
3) Lougheed was the first to plunder the Heritage Fund by classifying illiquid investments in government assets such as hospitals, as assets
4) Building up wealth funds is a great idea on the surface. In practice, it creates easy targets for other governments and public sector unions. How can a government, for example, claim that it can't afford raises for public sector employees when it is sitting on a wealth fund? Again, AB is a great example. It built up ~$18 in its Sustainability Fund. When nat gas royalties tanked post 2008 due to competition from shale gas, rather than restrain spending, it plundered the entire fund in only 6 years
5) Texas' electricity system failed as it schedules against suppliers known as QSE's (Qualified Scheduling Entities). Note well the word "Qualified". To participate in the market, these suppliers need to demonstrate a high level of reliability. The fact that so many did not is due to either insufficient requirements by ERCOT, or poor enforcement of those requirements. Generalizing the failure of TX's electricity grid to the state's ability to build pipelines is a poor attempt to exploit recency bias. California suffered widespread power outages last summer due to wild fires. Is that evidence that its regime for energy regulation is a failure?
5) Finally we agree on something: CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels might have severe economic impacts. Jen Gersen stated it best: " There is a moral component to which industries we’re choosing to “transition.” The oil sands are greenhouse gas intensive. They look ugly. They’ve been the subject of years of protests and exposés. They’re a scapegoat, a channel for all the guilt and anxiety that we Canadians feel about our greenhouse-gas intensive lifestyles. Shut down the oil sands and avoid the much harder questions about why they exist. " https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-so-many-albertans-are-giving-up-on-their-country/
Canada has only 1.5% of all world emissions. That is nothing to feel guilty about considering the size and climate in which we all live. In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut ( a large portion of the country) they have little else but fossil fuels to heat their homes. There are no pipelines, few roads, and frozen water for the majority of the year, hence the building of ice roads to move products at a much more reasonable cost. I am not aware of any form of green energy that could sustain the amount they need unless they have fossil fuel back up. If there is a failure in the grid, your talking about lives lost, food ruined, and the infrastructure destroyed by frozen lines or water mains exploding, depending on the amount of time the power grid is down, which can become extremely costly to home owners, businesses, and Government. This already happens continually in the capital of Yellowknife and the power is run off diesel generators. It takes a raven to settle on the line in the wrong place and the grid goes down. So, its already a problem as are the costs. To put in a new power grid would be extremely costly and still they would need fossil fuel back up. The summer is long and light for many hours so battery storage would be needed to store what they get in summer to last through the long winters when the sun does not come above the horizon for long, if at all. At 40 below or more there is no wind and its wrapped in ice fog. So I like that people are fighting for the environment but to destroy your own sources of oil and gas and then import them is absolutely ludicrous. I fail to see how removing the oil from the land, its all ready there and has been forever. They did not create the oil sands it was put there by nature. They are just removing the oil from it. Does it look pretty? No, but its better to have our own sources of energy and energy security than depend on regimes with absolutely no human rights or environmental policies. I read the thread and I would love to see all those activists protesting in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Africa, China and Russia. Seriously the majority of these activists and other people pushing this have no idea about three quarters of this country. BC just decided they would not destroy their metallurgical or coal exports of which they are the largest exporter of in North America. They also will not stop their exports of natural gas as it is far better that China uses that than the alternatives. That's how you cut emissions. Not by destroying your own wealth, jobs, and reality, to which the majority of the zealots are lacking in. Their actions and those of many politicians will come to the detriment of all Canadians and not slow emissions one bit. In fact they will increase in places like Africa, India and China.
I was highly entertained by your review. Thanks for suffering through the children's movie. I sometimes wonder why it is that conservatives are always talking about liberal snowflakes & tears, and yet they go crazy over shit like this. I guess we are ALL highly offended by everything, not just the illiberal-left. ;)
Difference between Conservatives and Liberals (you can no longer call them Liberal) is Conservatives don’t cancel people just because they don’t agree with them nor do they try to regulate or legislate speech. Liberal (libertarian stands for freedom) and freedom of speech and thought, is no longer what we have in Canada. Calling Trudeau a Liberal is like calling Castro or Maduro a Liberal. There is little difference today between them.
Jen, I really enjoy your articles. They are funny and scathing at the same time. This was my favorite part and it really sums up all the blatant hypocrisy right now.
"Oil is a morally compromised product, and that compromise touches everyone who extracts and consumes it. Reducing this problem to the caricature of the black-hearted Texas oil baron is just scapegoating. It's an attempt to ameliorate the collective guilt we possess for living in car-dependent suburban tract housing with a hefty camper van that allows the family to escape to weekend adventures in the wilderness."
I hate that we are so dependent on oil but, until we develop better technologies, it's a necessary evil. It would be nice to see more people reduce their oil consumption, but it doesn't appear to be happening. Once restrictions are lifted, people will resume their yearly trips down south (of which far too many seem to feel entitled to). And, to those that travel close to home, great, but do you really need such a huge trailer or RV?? The purpose of camping is to get away from home, not to bring it with you.
#1: you got drunk on one (shared) bottle of wine? When I lived in AB, that wouldn't even qualify as drinking. #2: you then compounded this by adulterating innocent alcohol with tea? What kind of a monster are you?
Other than that, tolerably ok piece.
LOL. If half a bottle of wine doesn't get a young woman at least alittle drunk, I wouldn't want her liver... or her mind. (I know you're not serious)
Oh man, I forgot about the smoogies.Even though that song was rattling around in my head,I never knew where it came from.
Jen nearly hit upon my favourite point about children's propaganda is that: It Does Not Work.
Captain Planet and the Lorax and several others were all that was warping the fragile little minds of impressionable children who are now 40+, and they all went out and bought vans and SUVs instead of the subcompacts that were going to be the only cars soon, when I was in engineering during the 1970s oil crisis.
But, no: when the price of gas went back down, everybody got 2400 sf houses instead of 1600, and the average vehicle weight went up 30%.
Some indoctrination. Perhaps it did indoctrinate them to blame "corporations" instead of themselves, but the corporations have pretty thick skins.
The education system in Canada takes care of the brainwashing or indoctrination of the children already, the film just supports their version to make sure it’s placed permanently in their malleable little minds. It ensures generations of the same thought processes to secure a different outcome to the country and the governing of the country.
As an Albertan I am tired of the constant beating down of our industry and the war against the Tar Sands. It is a legitimate and actual fact that a war is being waged and not against Texas, Norway, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or Africa, its strictly against Canadian oil. This is why they canceled Keystone XL, its why that Line 5 will be shut down, and also why Jane Fonda has launched a campaign against Line 3 as well. Its not Texas oil that is being decried, as no other oil suffers from the destruction and misinformation sold by environmentalists that Canadian oil seems to attract. The environmental movement admits it lies to push their message and due to that they are winning. If we don't stand up for truth and reality, who will? Even in our schools the children are taught the evil of oil but are not told about what it has done for society and how it has improved every area of our lives. Films such as Bigfoot only solidify what they are taught. Critical Theory is not teaching children objective thinking and does not allow for one to even consider what is good about anything in our world today, including democracy and capitalism. Its one sided drivel that anyone teaching such horror should be ashamed of. If fighting for truth and reality embarrasses you, then it is you that has a problem and was obviously taught through the critical theory educational system. Journalism itself has lost all objectivity for the reasons I state above and the very fact that Environmentalist are running our Governments in many Provinces and our Federal Government should cause all Albertans anxiety. There intent is similar as is their thought process on Canadian oil and they too are attempting to destroy the industry. That is as long as it does not effect Ontario and Quebec. The hypocrisy and ignorance of those in powerful positions is extremely dangerous. If the oil and gas industry in Canada goes down, so shall the entire country. The costs to import what we need will be astronomical and unaffordable just as are Trudeau's taxes which will only continue to rise. What is happening needs to be fought in anyway possible or we will be having some seriously cold, cold winters. Global warming seems to disappear come January regardless of what the scientists say. If you think electric anything will fair better price wise, your wrong. It will be come the new oil of society and you will pay for it at a much higher rate than any oil and gas today as it will cost triple to make it viable for the whole country. Meanwhile all this destruction for 1.5 percent of the entire worlds emissions. That is a whole lot of destruction for what will make absolutely no difference in the worlds emissions as they will continue to rise. Do we do nothing, no but what is happening is due to misinformation that has caused the war against Canadian oil. We are not the villains of world emissions, in fact quite the opposite, but we are targeted as such. We must fight back as we will be the big losers, not those spreading misinformation or outright lies, as most do not live in the colder areas of this country or in Canada. They moved to warmer climates or they would not be destroying oil and gas here.
Hardly an environmentalist here, used to live in Alberta but you've just kind of shown why the rest of Canada seems to discount you. I could go back and forth with you but we'll leave it at just two points: Point A: It's rich when certain Albertans complain about how people in other parts of Canada vote for their own interests while getting defensive if anybody questions how they protect their interests. Point B: Your vote hasn't been in play for my entire life (and I'm in mid mid 40's. Conservatives don't need to woo you, Liberals and NDP federally can't rely on you. You lament that Ontario and Quebec take up a lot of oxygen...fair enough, but their votes are up for grabs so of course parties are going to pander to them.
Long story short, a lot of this is of Alberta's own making and it is hard to feel sympathy when you constantly look for others to blame.
My first reply was invalid as I wrote two replies to the main article by the author but my first one did not get posted. My first reply blamed the oil companies as well for not standing up for the misinformation when it began. Either way I won’t go back and forth with you either as you are uninformed. I have little time for those who fail to be informed on Alberta or the oil and gas industry. I must assume you are reading misinformation. I will not discuss any subject where the individual or entity is full of misinformation be it a media outlet, an environmental group, politician, or yourself. It would be a complete waste of my and your time.
Thank you for proving my point so eloquently Marylou. I post that you have to accept that voters in other parts of the country are going to vote to their priorities and that Alberta votes so reliably Conservative that nobody needs to pay attention to their views to win and you start discussing how I'm uninformed on oil and gas. I never once shared my position on oil and gas and my view on it is inconsequential to your original post. But yes, I'm a horrible Truck driving non-Albertan who votes for my priorities in elections, something that is 100% worth demonizing. You have every right to vote the way you want to and to support the policies and politicians who you wish. But then don't sit there and lament when Ontario and Quebec get the lions share of attention because that is where seats are won. Speaking politically only, If I was a party leader, Orange, Red or Blue, why am I wasting any political energy in the Prairies when 90%+ of the seats are dark blue and there is zero prospect of changing that? Nothing anybody does in Alberta is going to win them an election. That's no my fault and the situation doesn't change until Albertans themselves change that.
But tell me again how I'm misinformed on a topic I never brought up...
We can agree to disagree which is the reason for places such as this.
How is diminishing the oil and gas industry in the interest of voters outside AB and SK, other than a juvenile demonstration of Tall Poppy Syndrome?
Not sure where I said anything about the Oil and Gas Sector. You're projecting your own issues onto me.
I interpreted the "political energy of the prairies" as meaning the O&G industry. What did you mean?
I absolutely stand behind my comment. How would the political priorities of AB and SK compromise Laurentian prospects outside of pride? Climate action is allegedly the great divide, but the indisputable facts are:
1) Canada accounts for a miniscule percentage of global emissions
2) Discouraging production of O&G within Canada's borders will only incentivized it else were. Molecules of carbon dioxide shifted from a Canadian source of origin to a non-Canadian one will have zero climate impact
3) Reducing consumption of fossil fuels, by for example tolling the 401, would reduce global emissions, but no politician will go there
Political strategists thrive on conjuring division. Liberal strategists are simply much more effective
Why does Alberta attract so much out of province "advice"? Perhaps Canadian attitudes need to evolve past Aug 31, 1905.
Not 'advice' Doug, Politics 101. If I have a pool resources and nothing I do will change the outcome of an election, then why do I need to spend any of it in that area? That's a universal truth. You are entitled to do what you want, just don't act shocked when say Erin O'Toole starts parroting Central Canadian priorities in advance of an election.
You're my favourite, Marylou.
I prefer the depiction of Big Foot from the Six Million Dollar Man.
That being said, the UCP is still a better choice than the NDP.
The Big Foot who's main agenda was to throw big rocks at Steve Austin was a whole lot more authentic than Wokefoot Ecowarrior
Well done, Jen. (again)
Alberta does not deserve to become a laughing stock, but that 'War Room" is making it so.
The "War Room", public inquiry into anti-Alberta campaigns etc. would be better focused on ligitigating the likes of Ecojustice, Jane Fonda etc.when they make outrageous claims about the environmental impacts of Alberta's oil industry. The oilsands and pipelines are lazy targets for eco-groups as the public at large won't take the time to validate the claims. The "War Room" was set up to fail. Activists don't target driving SUV's, eating meat and other carbon intensive, but familiar activities, for a reason.
Hah! People who care about our planet and its climate don't just 'target Alberta'. Actually the planet will be fine... we and our current animal co-inhabiters won't .... climate will just move back TOWARDS a few hundred million years ago when all this fossilized carbon was taken from the air by plants and began its fossilization ....... towards when AB was an 'inland sea' and the rockies didn't exist and there were trees on Ellesmere island.
Enroute, the rise in atmospheric kinetic energy will give us bigger storm systems, greater extremes of hot (and cold), wet (and dry)
You hadn't noticed that by 2035 GM plans to go 'all electric'..... that's part of that movement as well.
The eco activists sure tried to block energy infrastructure in the Middle East, Texas, Russia and Norway. Elizabeth May couldn't phase out the 401, one of the world's widest and busiests enablers of climate change, soon enough. That activists honed in on Alberta as an easy target is not surprising: land locked, dependent on a single customer, subject to a complex and uncertain regulatory regime. What is surprising is how readily Albertans' alleged compatriots threw the province under the bus.
Of course GM and other automakers are attempting to replicate the Tesla hype machine in hopeful attempts to inflate their stock prices.
What threw AB under the bus was the series of short-sighted populist, convenience driven-climate change denying governments who, instead of growing the HSTF and using it (as Peter Lougheed wanted) to diversify away from the damaging and dying industry. .......... and there are still a tonne of people afraid to take action (opposing even the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which has been proven to reduce consumption and simultaneously grow the economy (due to being revenue neutral... ie.... giving back to people to put into the rest of the economy)
Texas is a write off. They even believed their idiot (or crooked) governor saying that it was the "green" sources that failed rather than their gas. (solar and wind are used in Antarctica for fuck sake.. and solar works better in cold weather.
No. GM et al are aware that the majority of educated people (including capitalists like me) know that fossil-fuel consumption is going to kill our economies, if not in my life time (I'm almost 70) but certainly in my kids' and grandkids'.
That 'under the bus' comment show's that you're a dupe of the soup of disinformation being propagated by the UCP-on party.
1) Viewing climate change as a battle between "believers" and "deniers" implies a religious element. Should the heretics who disagree with a conviction be burned at the stake?
2) Government cannot diversify the economy, as government is horrible at picking winners. AB is a great example as every attempt to diversify has been a resounding failure, from Alberta Opportunity Company and Vencap under Lougheed, to Gainers and MagCan under Getty to Northwest Value Partners under Stelmach. Even when government does pick a winner, such as Novatel during the Lougheed and Getty eras, it still manages to run it into the ground. New ventures are inherently risky and government lacks the agility to take decisive actions as the market changes. The best approach is to create an environment of reasonable taxation, and clear and consistent regulation to attract entrepreneurial people
3) Lougheed was the first to plunder the Heritage Fund by classifying illiquid investments in government assets such as hospitals, as assets
4) Building up wealth funds is a great idea on the surface. In practice, it creates easy targets for other governments and public sector unions. How can a government, for example, claim that it can't afford raises for public sector employees when it is sitting on a wealth fund? Again, AB is a great example. It built up ~$18 in its Sustainability Fund. When nat gas royalties tanked post 2008 due to competition from shale gas, rather than restrain spending, it plundered the entire fund in only 6 years
5) Texas' electricity system failed as it schedules against suppliers known as QSE's (Qualified Scheduling Entities). Note well the word "Qualified". To participate in the market, these suppliers need to demonstrate a high level of reliability. The fact that so many did not is due to either insufficient requirements by ERCOT, or poor enforcement of those requirements. Generalizing the failure of TX's electricity grid to the state's ability to build pipelines is a poor attempt to exploit recency bias. California suffered widespread power outages last summer due to wild fires. Is that evidence that its regime for energy regulation is a failure?
5) Finally we agree on something: CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels might have severe economic impacts. Jen Gersen stated it best: " There is a moral component to which industries we’re choosing to “transition.” The oil sands are greenhouse gas intensive. They look ugly. They’ve been the subject of years of protests and exposés. They’re a scapegoat, a channel for all the guilt and anxiety that we Canadians feel about our greenhouse-gas intensive lifestyles. Shut down the oil sands and avoid the much harder questions about why they exist. " https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-so-many-albertans-are-giving-up-on-their-country/
Canada has only 1.5% of all world emissions. That is nothing to feel guilty about considering the size and climate in which we all live. In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut ( a large portion of the country) they have little else but fossil fuels to heat their homes. There are no pipelines, few roads, and frozen water for the majority of the year, hence the building of ice roads to move products at a much more reasonable cost. I am not aware of any form of green energy that could sustain the amount they need unless they have fossil fuel back up. If there is a failure in the grid, your talking about lives lost, food ruined, and the infrastructure destroyed by frozen lines or water mains exploding, depending on the amount of time the power grid is down, which can become extremely costly to home owners, businesses, and Government. This already happens continually in the capital of Yellowknife and the power is run off diesel generators. It takes a raven to settle on the line in the wrong place and the grid goes down. So, its already a problem as are the costs. To put in a new power grid would be extremely costly and still they would need fossil fuel back up. The summer is long and light for many hours so battery storage would be needed to store what they get in summer to last through the long winters when the sun does not come above the horizon for long, if at all. At 40 below or more there is no wind and its wrapped in ice fog. So I like that people are fighting for the environment but to destroy your own sources of oil and gas and then import them is absolutely ludicrous. I fail to see how removing the oil from the land, its all ready there and has been forever. They did not create the oil sands it was put there by nature. They are just removing the oil from it. Does it look pretty? No, but its better to have our own sources of energy and energy security than depend on regimes with absolutely no human rights or environmental policies. I read the thread and I would love to see all those activists protesting in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Africa, China and Russia. Seriously the majority of these activists and other people pushing this have no idea about three quarters of this country. BC just decided they would not destroy their metallurgical or coal exports of which they are the largest exporter of in North America. They also will not stop their exports of natural gas as it is far better that China uses that than the alternatives. That's how you cut emissions. Not by destroying your own wealth, jobs, and reality, to which the majority of the zealots are lacking in. Their actions and those of many politicians will come to the detriment of all Canadians and not slow emissions one bit. In fact they will increase in places like Africa, India and China.
I was highly entertained by your review. Thanks for suffering through the children's movie. I sometimes wonder why it is that conservatives are always talking about liberal snowflakes & tears, and yet they go crazy over shit like this. I guess we are ALL highly offended by everything, not just the illiberal-left. ;)
Difference between Conservatives and Liberals (you can no longer call them Liberal) is Conservatives don’t cancel people just because they don’t agree with them nor do they try to regulate or legislate speech. Liberal (libertarian stands for freedom) and freedom of speech and thought, is no longer what we have in Canada. Calling Trudeau a Liberal is like calling Castro or Maduro a Liberal. There is little difference today between them.
I was talking about little-l liberals and little-c conservatives, which is why I didn't capitalize them. Have a great day!
I appreciate that and I sorry I did not catch it. You have a good day as well. Cheers