Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Fair enough and thanks for the reasonable reply. I’ll point out though that based on some of the other replies to that discussion it actually does look like concern for those costs could be legitimately something people could be concerned about with Notley just agreeing to sign up for them. The point of posting it in a place like this is that good people can in fact come in and verify whether those crazy costs of $87 billion are accurate or not and or just call outright BS. I haven’t seen anyone debate that it might not be a problem at all though. Anyway, I’m being a bad dad and need to watch my kid now.
|
Well another problem with your original post is the premise that Notley has already committed/is guaranteed to just rubber stamp any plan without any further consideration or due diligence. Which seems incredibly unlikely.
We know where the world of energy generation is evolving. We can cover our ears + stamp our feet, or we can be at the forefront of the change, or something in between. I don't know exactly what Notley said about this, but that would be an important detail for the discussion, and parsing her words would probably be the most important first step before we fuss over the policy details (because it may not matter)
Your points about not having time for all of this is totally fair. But you probably spent 5-10 minutes regurgitating a low value email...seems like it would be better to just source a link and then the hive can help chew the food