May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But that's a big part of our problem isn't it? If we keep going on with this mentality of focusing entirely on our resource industry, we're just going to keep repeating the same mistakes we've been making for the last 40 years. Furthermore, what do you think the economy and job situation is going to look like if we continue to do nothing and the more cataclysmic effects of climate change finally come home to roost? We seem to have a big problem with passing economic debt onto future generations, but no problem passing ecologic debt onto them.

I agree that the big players need to do their part, but I disagree with sitting on the sidelines until they do. If everyone has to take it on the chin eventually, and they will one way or another, why not get the train rolling and aggressively search for alternative solutions? I can almost guarantee any short term pain now is going to pale in comparison to what's coming down the line in the future.

And this just from a personal perspective for me, but I think waiting on others to do the right thing before you do is just poor form ethically speaking. For instance, I don't check to see how much others are donating to charity before I decide how much to donate. I'm aware we're talking very different scales here, but I think the principle should still stand.

And I'd agree with you except for the fact that I see people taking it as far as they can over and over again and then people that eventually have to change at the end get to do it without all of the consequences.

We can forge the path except that the path doesnt need forging. We know where it is and we know where it goes but why the hell should we be the ones walking down it alone assuming all of the risk?

Now, romantically speaking I'd agree to being the guy that walks the lonely path and all that other BS, but not on this one, on this one someone else has to walk this path first because I'm tired of being the punching bag for moral victories.

Yeah, its like being the Oilers, sure it was a moral victory but we still lose. This time let someone else take it in the teeth.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

And I'd agree with you except for the fact that I see people taking it as far as they can over and over again and then people that eventually have to change at the end get to do it without all of the consequences.

We can forge the path except that the path doesnt need forging. We know where it is and we know where it goes but why the hell should we be the ones walking down it alone assuming all of the risk?

Now, romantically speaking I'd agree to being the guy that walks the lonely path and all that other BS, but not on this one, on this one someone else has to walk this path first because I'm tired of being the punching bag for moral victories.

Yeah, its like being the Oilers, sure it was a moral victory but we still lose. This time let someone else take it in the teeth.

Well except there are other countries already forging a path on this one. It may not be the big guns, but it doesn't mean we'd be walking it alone. And regardless, this isn't one of those things where if we sit on the sidelines out of principle we won't get our teeth kicked in at the end. If nobody does anything, then everyone loses, so sitting on the sideline out of principle is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

the only way to meet the Paris Targets is to destroy Canada's economy.

And not just the energy based economy either.

Plus you would pretty much have to take every car off of the road.

Oh and cancel winter, we would need to do that too.

And do you really think that if Canada did this that every one would

a) hang their heads in shame and clean it up

b) take advantage of Canada's actions economically by ramping their resource selling to take the place that Canada would leave?

Isn't it time for countries like China, and the US to maybe stop being the biggest hypocrites on the planet and actually lead instead of demanding that everyone else do it first?

Such a defeatist attitude. I'm not saying let's kill the economy. I am saying let's exhaustively explore all of our options before we give up.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But that's a big part of our problem isn't it? If we keep going on with this mentality of focusing entirely on our resource industry, we're just going to keep repeating the same mistakes we've been making for the last 40 years. Furthermore, what do you think the economy and job situation is going to look like if we continue to do nothing and the more cataclysmic effects of climate change finally come home to roost? We seem to have a big problem with passing economic debt onto future generations, but no problem passing ecologic debt onto them.

I agree that the big players need to do their part, but I disagree with sitting on the sidelines until they do. If everyone has to take it on the chin eventually, and they will one way or another, why not get the train rolling and aggressively search for alternative solutions? I can almost guarantee any short term pain now is going to pale in comparison to what's coming down the line in the future.

And this just from a personal perspective for me, but I think waiting on others to do the right thing before you do is just poor form ethically speaking. For instance, I don't check to see how much others are donating to charity before I decide how much to donate. I'm aware we're talking very different scales here, but I think the principle should still stand.

Fair enough, but to be competitive in other industries we're then going to have to reduce our costs.

We can't really compete in terms of mass industry and manufacturing when other nations are paying pennies on our dollars.

Technology, maybe, but other nations are already heavily invested in it and again can do it far cheaper then us.

Alternative energy, it seems that most countries are doing that internally, and I don't see as it being a global thing, unless its something like building nuclear power plants or windmills, but that's pretty specific and its not going to generate the money that this economy needs.

Frankly economics is simple, if you have something that someone else wants or needs you sell it to them. Canada is resource rich, so sell sell sell.

Its wise to invest in your economy and research other avenues to make money, but Canada's primary is going to be the exploitation of its resources.

I think right now the biggest thing that really bugs me is that we have these climate change discussions and conferences, where you have fools and idiots setting these targets with no thought in terms of how logical and attainable that target is.

Its almost that they throw a dart at a board that's labels simply "Oooh factor"

our target is 25% below 20015 figures in 15 years.

Oooohhh, that's agressive, good for you Canada, how you gonna get there.

We're gonna do stuff, lots of stuff

Good on ya Justin, glad your back.

Then the deadline hits

Hey Canada you're not even close to your target.

Yeah, whatever, lets have another conference and lets really bash out some targets.

Great

We're thinking 25% below 2015 by 2045

Ohhhhh niccce.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Such a defeatist attitude. I'm not saying let's kill the economy. I am saying let's exhaustively explore all of our options before we give up.

Its hardly defeatist, our targets are being built around reverse logic.

Lets set these grandiose targets and then fumble our way to them.

Instead there should be some fricken logic behind the targets and to make it realistic when you disclose the targets how about having the actual game plan thought out ahead of times.

Now I get it, Harper was going to put forward these targets, and it was a stupid target. I get the Liberals being fired up about it, because Trudeau's right hand man not only hates the Oil industry but wants to get rid of it.

(Gerald Butts)

Really though its ok to have a less agressive target if you have a plan to get there

As opposed to Chretiening the Kyoto.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I am saying let's exhaustively explore all of our options before we give up.

And that's the problem with the Canadian GHG debate in its current iteration. It shows such naiveté to how the world works.

Champions of the debate expect the everyday Canadian to bear the cost of GHG reductions for the "greater good of the World", with a vague promise that it will ultimately lead to an improved environment at an undefined point in the future.

To do so means sacrificing Canadian incomes and standards of living in the present, while the worst offenders of GHG emissions actively lobby against our domestic energy industry and directly impact our economy.

It is hilariously sad that American activism via special interest environmental groups have been able to completely side track the Canadian energy industry and wrap it up so thoroughly in NIMBY BS. Not only have they successfully killed the Keystone XL pipeline, but because of their actions, they’ve managed to red tape domestic Canadian pipeline projects as well. Mission accomplished Tides, Rockefeller, etc. that’s quite the return on investment.

Exhaustively exploring all options means that we will likely miss a crucial window (if we haven't already) to get our natural resources to tidewater. The ultimate cost to the Canadian economy of these actions will be billions of dollars. Not just in revenue for energy companies, but in jobs, taxes, and myriad other tertiary areas.

Canada needs to look out for itself. First and foremost. We have the ability to build infrastructure in our country to get resources to tidewater. We choose not to because of “exhaustively exploring” all options. Companies looking to invest in Canada won’t wait forever. There will be a point where the capital simply goes to jurisdictions where it doesn’t have to deal with all the red tape. All for what? So that we can say we reduced Canada’s GHG emissions by a fraction of the global total? Get a freaking grip. Approve the projects. Take those billions in revenue and build some wind generators and solar panels to make yourself feel better once you aren’t paying a $10/bbl discount to WTI like a wide-eyed boy scout.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Such a defeatist attitude. I'm not saying let's kill the economy. I am saying let's exhaustively explore all of our options before we give up.

Idealism is great, but it doesn't put food on the table or a roof over your head.

Nor is it a 'defeatist attitude' to point out that reality tends to stomp idealism into the ground.

[rubecube]

Duplicate

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Idealism is great, but it doesn't put food on the table or a roof over your head.

Nor is it a 'defeatist attitude' to point out that reality tends to stomp idealism into the ground.

I'm not exactly sure what's idealistic about saying that we need to start taking action to avoid some pretty drastic consequences. Seems to me the idealist point of view would be to say that we can keep going at the rate we are and expect everything to work it's way out.

Look, I get not wanting to topple the apple cart, but there definitely needs to be a higher sense of urgency from the entire world community than what we've seen so far.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not exactly sure what's idealistic about saying that we need to start taking action to avoid some pretty drastic consequences. Seems to me the idealist point of view would be to say that we can keep going at the rate we are and expect everything to work it's way out.

Look, I get not wanting to topple the apple cart, but there definitely needs to be a higher sense of urgency from the entire world community than what we've seen so far.

Key point. Just Canada doing it doesn't cut it.

[IliketoPuck]

Rubecube. What are your thoughts on my previous post? I'm interested to hear your side. It's been quiet since Friday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Rubecube. What are your thoughts on my previous post? I'm interested to hear your side. It's been quiet since Friday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been in Seattle all weekend and completely forgot about it. I'll try to get to it tomorrow if I have time.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

And that's the problem with the Canadian GHG debate in its current iteration. It shows such naiveté to how the world works.

Champions of the debate expect the everyday Canadian to bear the cost of GHG reductions for the "greater good of the World", with a vague promise that it will ultimately lead to an improved environment at an undefined point in the future.

To do so means sacrificing Canadian incomes and standards of living in the present, while the worst offenders of GHG emissions actively lobby against our domestic energy industry and directly impact our economy.

It's not naivete at all. I fully understand we're in a prisoner's dilemma here. The problem is we actually gain very little by not doing anything at all. If we do nothing and the big players do nothing then we're screwed. If we do something and the big players do nothing, we're probably still screwed. If we do something and the big players do something then there's a chance we all

And yes we will have to sacrifice our standards of living. That part is very very obvious and has been for some time. The upside of that is we have a planet to live on.

Exhaustively exploring all options means that we will likely miss a crucial window (if we haven't already) to get our natural resources to tidewater. The ultimate cost to the Canadian economy of these actions will be billions of dollars. Not just in revenue for energy companies, but in jobs, taxes, and myriad other tertiary areas.

Canada needs to look out for itself. First and foremost. We have the ability to build infrastructure in our country to get resources to tidewater. We choose not to because of “exhaustively exploring” all options. Companies looking to invest in Canada won’t wait forever. There will be a point where the capital simply goes to jurisdictions where it doesn’t have to deal with all the red tape. All for what? So that we can say we reduced Canada’s GHG emissions by a fraction of the global total? Get a freaking grip. Approve the projects. Take those billions in revenue and build some wind generators and solar panels to make yourself feel better once you aren’t paying a $10/bbl discount to WTI like a wide-eyed boy scout.

I don't really know how to get this across any clearer though. Looking after our GHGs is looking out for ourselves as a species, which transcends being Canadian or Albertan. Like I said, people have a big problem with saddling themselves with economic debt, but have zero issues addressing the massive ecologic debt we've accumulated. A good economy is great, but it's essentially buying nicer deck chairs for the Titanic if we don't commit to fixing the environment.

[Fuzz]

The alternate view is that GHG's aren't as bad as the doomsayers say, and our continual evolution of energy sources will pretty much take care of the issue within 50-100 years anyway. Honestly I'm more concerned about real pollution that GHG's, and think they do much more harm to the planet. The beneficial side effect of cutting coal for GHG reductions is that you clean up a lot of that air pollution. But not nearly enough is done on other issues like fertilizer runoff and factory pollution.

/I know. flame suit on.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The alternate view is that GHG's aren't as bad as the doomsayers say, and our continual evolution of energy sources will pretty much take care of the issue within 50-100 years anyway. Honestly I'm more concerned about real pollution that GHG's, and think they do much more harm to the planet. The beneficial side effect of cutting coal for GHG reductions is that you clean up a lot of that air pollution. But not nearly enough is done on other issues like fertilizer runoff and factory pollution.

/I know. flame suit on.

I mean it's possible, but it doesn't seem to be what the people who actually study this stuff for a living think is the most likely outcome. I'm more inclined to trust the experts.

[CaptainCrunch]

The big polluters need to lead the way here, and then Canada can follow.

Canada leading the way isn't going to entice the bigger polluters to change, and all they're going to do is take advantage of Canada exiting from the world stage in key resource economic areas.

I get that lifestyle decisions have to change, but crippling people with spanning taxes like a carbon tax really isn't the answer, especially with the Alberta plan which is a general revenue tax and has nothing to do with changing the carbon factor.

The question of Canada's natural climate (Cold weather country for more then half a year) spread out population meaning increased transportation has to be taken into account as well.

Frankly to me, the US and China and others have to quit paying lip service and actually sacrifice things themselves before I would do anything to mirror their programs.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And yes we will have to sacrifice our standards of living. That part is very very obvious and has been for some time. The upside of that is we have a planet to live on.

The planet has a finite lifespan. Sacrificing our standard of living gets us nowhere.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get that lifestyle decisions have to change, but crippling people with spanning taxes like a carbon tax really isn't the answer, especially with the Alberta plan which is a general revenue tax and has nothing to do with changing the carbon factor.

This part I will agree with, but my original point still stands. If the U.S. and China do nothing, then so be it because we're unlikely to enjoy the fruits of our economic spoils at that point anyways, unless your plan is to just be a free rider.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

The planet has a finite lifespan. Sacrificing our standard of living gets us nowhere.

Hope you don't have any kids you're leaving behind to clean up the mess if you have that kind of attitude.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Hope you don't have any kids you're leaving behind to clean up the mess if you have that kind of attitude.

At least I'll be able to watch my kids grow up, because I'm not sacrificing my quality of life and dying from something stupid like dysentery or malnutrition.