Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I’d be much more supportive if the analysis looked at risk of drought, extended growing seasons, expansion of farming areas, long term water supply just in terms of Alberta. It’s possible that between the benefits to our oil industry and the advantages that climate change has in some areas of Alberta that Alberta is better off doing nothing.
Or if they just came out and said Alberta’s inability to meaningfully change climate change means we won’t regulate C02 and that tariffs from the EU won’t change that.
There are reasonable intelligent cases to be made that Alberta shouldn’t fight climate change because we disproportionately benefit from the activities that need to be curtailed. I wouldn’t support such a position but a position could be built.
Instead we get nonsense.
|
If climate change was better for Alberta(and it could be) wouldn't making that policy decision be nothing more than a FYGM to the rest of the world?