Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
Okay, so I guess I would want to get specific. What is a "labour" position on Environmental policy?
In my opinion, the labour position on environment would be to side with environmental scientists to say that we are in a climate crisis. The best thing for the labour movement would be an aggressive energy transition strategy as it would create the most jobs and those jobs would have more longevity than the fossil fuel jobs that are in heavy decline.
It is basically the same plan that a "green" might have but it is labour focused. Is that acceptable because it is "pro-labour" or unacceptable because it is "pro-environment"?
|
The pro labour position on the environment would be to maximize employment today by maximizing carbon intensive industries while they are still acceptable while ensuring the country is transitioning to greener industries over time.
Essentially you wouldn’t care about the emissions internally accept as to pay lip service to international trade while at the same time targeting industries for future growth.
You wouldn’t acknowledge climate science but from an emissions rules point of view you wouldn’t acknowledge climate acknowledge that what Canada does doesn’t matter. (I don’t like this position but it is the pro labour one)
So pro-pipeline, pro-solar, pro-nuke, pro-gas, pro-wind.