Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashartus
The goal shouldn't be starving in the dark, but rather reducing climate change while still maintaining the economy. Also why should we expect to live a lifestyle that people in other countries can't?
Mitigating climate change while not destroying the economy may not be easy. Fighting the effects of climate change will likely be worse though. That's why we need to start acting now and in a meaningful way, not just saying we're going to hit some target in 30 years but have no plan for doing that.
A lot of big oil and gas companies are completely on board with climate change action. What they want is a seat at the table so they can come up with solutions that still allow them to be profitable, and for the process to be fair.
|
Now we're talking. That's a stance I can accept as something to debate my side against. I appreciate that you're coming from a position of acceptance in the notion that an immediate transition to reducing climate change is likely to lower our standard of living, and that the real question is to find the right balance (I have no idea where in the middle it exists, but accept that it is in fact in the middle). But now we're getting pretty off topic and should dig up the diversify thread to continue this in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashartus
I don't think we'll get any meaningful action from the Conservatives. On the other hand I'm not convinced the NDP will do enough to protect the economy. So while overall I haven't decided yet who to vote for, on this particular issue the Liberals are the only party that I think are likely to hit a reasonable balance.
|
I'm inclined to believe the same from a spectrum perspective. I think deep down I lie in liberal territory. But to vote for them I need two things: 1) stronger inclusion of the West in their roots, and 2) a better leader. I vehemently dislike the idea of Trudeau as our leader. Is some of that due to the CPC campaign machine, sure. To say otherwise would be naive. But if I dig deeper than that I truly believe I'd feel the same regardless. The Liberal party desperatly needs to find a good leader and launch him/her with the funds and strategy necessary to combat the CPC attack strategy onslaught that brought Dion and Ignatief down before they hardly got out of the gate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
My thoughts in bold.
|
Great thoughts. To get back to government and not an off topic pure energy economics / climate change debate, you bring up an interesting point. Profit driven corporations controlling O&G extraction is hardly going to bring change. They're legally obligated to maximize profit and the time value of money will almost always dictate a dollar from oil & gas today over a few more dollars from other energy sources at some ambiguous point down the road. That's where government comes in with royalty frameworks and diversification incentives. I am completely onboard with diversification if it means no slowing of oil and gas as a result. I'm pretty sure my stance on the whole matter is to increase royalties (not right now while we're in trouble) and use some of that money to incent other industries. As an aside, if it were me, that industry would be nuclear.