Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
|
It’s late, but I only managed to get through two of the links. The Guardian article just says subsidies but again no detail on what that means. Then it goes onto say that climate change is about preserving human life. That’s just hysterical and wrong at this juncture and the notion of which is dispelled by reading through the climate change reports issued by the UN, which I have. So it’s tough to take the Guardian seriously here and in general their slant and bias does lead me to wonder how such a blatantly biased news org can be relied on for this subsidy topic.
Similar to the second link, which gets into how Canada falls down on “transparency “ of what the subsidies actually are, if any. I believe what people may be interpreting as subsidies are in fact capital development expenses and capital exploration expenses which are not oil and gas specific but applied to all types of industry capital investments. So it’s disingenuous to suggest that CDE and CEE are oil and gas subsidies.
I’ll try to read through your other links tomorrow. I’m not saying what you’re saying isn’t true I just rarely see the actual specifics and back up of what people mean when they say subsidies and it sounds a bit high level and buzzwordy to me. Terms used to rile people up. I wonder how Albertans, Saskatchewan and others would like it if the oil truly did stop, and royalties truly did stop, and Canada’s wealth from oil and gas truly did stop. Have people thought about that?
What does energy do for modern life and access to basic human necessities for “preserving human life”? I see things like famine, people freezing to death, etc. As equally troubling problems as climate change. Access to food is particularly important, no?
The problem with climate change is that if we deal with it properly people will die and if we don’t people will die. So, the way I see it, people are going to die. And that is obviously horrible, but I don’t see how we get around it.