Alberta Politics Thread

[craigwd]

Yes, not immediately but it is a start.
There's nothing wrong with being a leader and getting others to follow your example.
Something needs to be done and it has to start somewhere.

Just because change won't be sudden doesn't mean it isn't worth doing and passing off inaction because the guy next to you is just another form of laziness.

As I've said before: my neighbor throws bags of garbage out his window every day but I only toss a chocolate bar wrapper on the ground. I guess I shouldn't stop because it's only a little bit of litter. No way.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is this your way of saying you have a Poli Sci degree? Or does some kind of license actually exist?

In much the same way that I am a licensed historian... except I have 2 different history licenses. How many PolySci licenses do you have, Peter?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Yes, not immediately but it is a start.
There's nothing wrong with being a leader and getting others to follow your example.
Something needs to be done and it has to start somewhere.

Just because change won't be sudden doesn't mean it isn't worth doing and passing off inaction because the guy next to you is just another form of laziness.

As I've said before: my neighbor throws bags of garbage out his window every day but I only toss a chocolate bar wrapper on the ground. I guess I shouldn't stop because it's only a little bit of litter. No way.

Not quite. It costs you $10 to have someone make that wrapper disappear. Now what should you do?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Yes, not immediately but it is a start.
There's nothing wrong with being a leader and getting others to follow your example.
Something needs to be done and it has to start somewhere.

Just because change won't be sudden doesn't mean it isn't worth doing and passing off inaction because the guy next to you is just another form of laziness.

As I've said before: my neighbor throws bags of garbage out his window every day but I only toss a chocolate bar wrapper on the ground. I guess I shouldn't stop because it's only a little bit of litter. No way.

In your opinion, where does Canada's carbon absorbtion fit into all this? We hear so much about how Canada is helping to destroying the environment, but I know of no studies to quantify our overall absorbtion of CO2 and haven't heard out current climate change champions mention it at all.

To fit it into your example, I might toss a candy bar wrapper on the ground and my neighbor tosses out a bag, but I also pick up five wrappers. Why focus on the one I throw out only?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

In much the same way that I am a licensed historian... except I have 2 different history licenses. How many PolySci licenses do you have, Peter?

Actually two, as well. And I am licensed to work in Ancient Greece, Early Modernity, and the Late Modern Existential Crisis.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

In your opinion, where does Canada's carbon absorbtion fit into all this? We hear so much about how Canada is helping to destroying the environment, but I know of no studies to quantify our overall absorbtion of CO2 and haven't heard out current climate change champions mention it at all.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/repo...turbance/16552

It seems two similar discussions are happening in two different threads. I posted this in the oil discussion, but will post it here as well to answer your question about CO2 absorption.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

In your opinion, where does Canada's carbon absorbtion fit into all this? We hear so much about how Canada is helping to destroying the environment, but I know of no studies to quantify our overall absorbtion of CO2 and haven't heard out current climate change champions mention it at all.

To fit it into your example, I might toss a candy bar wrapper on the ground and my neighbor tosses out a bag, but I also pick up five wrappers. Why focus on the one I throw out only?

Why not put the focus on both?

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Not quite. It costs you $10 to have someone make that wrapper disappear. Now what should you do?

Bring the dollar value back to something that actually fits the metaphor and it's still not unreasonable.

It's easy to do nothing and somehow justify it but it's better to take a step back and do the right thing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Yes, not immediately but it is a start.
There's nothing wrong with being a leader and getting others to follow your example.
Something needs to be done and it has to start somewhere.

Just because change won't be sudden doesn't mean it isn't worth doing and passing off inaction because the guy next to you is just another form of laziness.

As I've said before: my neighbor throws bags of garbage out his window every day but I only toss a chocolate bar wrapper on the ground. I guess I shouldn't stop because it's only a little bit of litter. No way.

Well the carbon tax in Alberta isn't really designed to change behaviours of everyone. Supporters will say it is, but that's a fallacy. Its a case of "those who can afford it" paying again.

Its a pure income tax that is set to provide new revenue for the government. Its basically greenwashing on a governmental scale.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

That is some spectacular logic.

Originally Posted by craigwd

Well, it is decent to think of the other people in the world once in a while.

The discussion was focused on costs to Alberta government and Tinrodi brought up the point that the economics will be worse for Alberta if we do nothing for climate change. My argument is that is not true, and Alberta would generally be better in a warmer climate. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't miss the point of my comment.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The discussion was focused on costs to Alberta government and Tinrodi brought up the point that the economics will be worse for Alberta if we do nothing for climate change. My argument is that is not true, and Alberta would generally be better in a warmer climate. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't miss the point of my comment.

Your point is a bit of a non sequitur though.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The discussion was focused on costs to Alberta government and Tinrodi brought up the point that the economics will be worse for Alberta if we do nothing for climate change. My argument is that is not true, and Alberta would generally be better in a warmer climate. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't miss the point of my comment.

Define warmer. Warmer with lots of rain? Yeah that'll work. Warmer with lots of dryness? Hello more out of control wildfires. Wildfires obviously will have an adverse economic effect. So it could be beneficial, or it could be catastrophic.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am a licensed political scientist

This isn't a real thing.

EDIT: Annd I missed the joke. This has been happening way more often than usual to me lately.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Define warmer. Warmer with lots of rain? Yeah that'll work. Warmer with lots of dryness? Hello more out of control wildfires. Wildfires obviously will have an adverse economic effect. So it could be beneficial, or it could be catastrophic.

Pretty sure the farmers would also disagree with his assertion. Droughts, dust storms, and tornadoes tend to be bad for business.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Define warmer. Warmer with lots of rain? Yeah that'll work. Warmer with lots of dryness? Hello more out of control wildfires. Wildfires obviously will have an adverse economic effect. So it could be beneficial, or it could be catastrophic.

Right, which means that Tinrodi's blanket statement that the economics of a warming world would be bad for Alberta is not necessarily true(and arguably outright wrong), and I was calling him on it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Right, which means that Tinrodi's blanket statement that the economics of a warming world would be bad for Alberta is not necessarily true(and arguably outright wrong), and I was calling him on it.

Well rube added a bunch of other things warmer weather brings as well. I think warmer weather overall would be detrimental, though there would be some benefits of course. But like anything rapid changes are not usually well received. If the warming occurs over 100 years fine, if it occurs over 10 that's going to be problematic.

[Locke]

Bring it on.

I've always wanted beach-front property. Plus the value of my land would go through the roof!

Supply and demand folks. Time to reduce supply.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think warmer weather overall would be detrimental, though there would be some benefits of course.

Well, it will help reduce overpopulation...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This isn't a real thing.

EDIT: Annd I missed the joke. This has been happening way more often than usual to me lately.

You'll come around, buddy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Well, it will help reduce overpopulation...

We're already well on the way down that road.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by peter12

We're already well on the way down that road.

I wasn't talking about Alberta.