If Godek tackles this issue through a pragmatic lens that takes into account the economic and human-cost, I’ll be right there to support her. If it’s done through the same rhetoric and virtue-signalling as you see in other cities, I’ll be disappointed.
Calling it a "Climate Emergency" does not fill me with faith. From a simple marketing perspective, I think she’d have a lot more people on board if this was called a “Diversification Emergency” or “Energy Emergency”, as that’s really what needs to be emphasized and solved from a local perspective. In Calgary’s case, this needs to be less about saving the planet, and more about how we can recalibrate our standing as an Energy capital, so we can take advantage of today’s realities in a way that helps both our economy and the environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Aside from being a stupid, meaningless bit of moral grandstanding, that approach actually concerns the hell out of me.
|
The calls to "trust the science" is consistently touted when the subject of climate change comes up. And generally, I believe trusting the science and numbers is always the way to go (I say generally, as often the sources of any "science" should always be looked at with healthy skepticism). However I find that too often the science gets ignored when looking at
how we best tackle these climate challenges, or what some of the real trade-offs (which often come with real human consequences) are to these actions.