[GT] Calgary Municipal Election 2021

[Scroopy Noopers]

Do we need a sticky thread explaining what opinion columns are or what? Holy ####.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Do we need a sticky thread explaining what opinion columns are or what? Holy ####.

Hate to break it to you, but StickMan is not much better at handling regular articles either.

[CliffFletcher]

I didn’t read all of Gondek’s campaign material, but did she make any mention of declaring a climate emergency and moving past the oil and gas industry if elected? In her online platform she talked about reducing emissions by the city, but I can’t see anything about moving past the oil and gas business sector.

And to head off any partisan attacks, I voted for her.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Haha I wonder what Jyoti's Conservative-given nickname will be??

She’s a woman so I’m guessing it’ll just be the regular dose of conservative misogyny. Who needs a nickname when there are already so many ways to disparage a woman?

[Fuzz]

She doesn't say "declare a climate emergency" but her platform makes it pretty clear what her position is.


https://www.jyotigondek.ca/priorities.html#KeyDetails

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And to head off any partisan attacks, I voted for her.

As did I, with some concerns she'd be divisive. Things will get divisive enough on their own, I respect when politicians don't try for it.

I think climate change is a huge issue, but I'm also aware of the realistic ability of municipal politicians to fix a global problem.

What I don't want is grand-standing and virtue signalling, that's why I voted against Farkas. I want substance. Substance, please, Jyoti. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but please don't go down that path.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I didn’t read all of Gondek’s campaign material, but did she make any mention of declaring a climate emergency and moving past the oil and gas industry if elected? In her online platform she talked about reducing emissions by the city, but I can’t see anything about moving past the oil and gas business sector.

And to head off any partisan attacks, I voted for her.

Yeah, I know she's mentioned it in direct media interactions (I saw an interview with her where she mentioned it, and she mentioned it on her reddit AMA as her first priority in her first 100 days:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/com...eb2x&context=3

[PsYcNeT]

I still think it's worth re-linking Ozy's post, because the transcript of the entire quote is much different than the article bites and re-coloring done by the RWNM.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=601

[TorqueDog]

I distinctly recall hearing /reading her intention to call a 'climate emergency' but I never really understood (nor did she expand on) what that would actually mean or accomplish.

At this point, it really just sounds like using the context of a climate emergency as a key guiding principle for all decisions the city makes. Projects should have consideration for climate change impact / mitigation, etc., which I frankly would be shocked if they didn't already. Perhaps this just ensures that the scope for such considerations is expanded and made mandatory for anything proposed moving forward.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Aside from being a stupid, meaningless bit of moral grandstanding, that approach actually concerns the hell out of me. In the lower mainland, having everything the municipality does filtered through the lens of "climate emergency" language really just hurts people who aren't already settled. Try to get a house built there and the changes to building code explicitly for climate-change-oriented reasons has basically increased the cost of building to approximately double what it was ten years ago, in exchange for dubious or negligible environmental impact. You see municipalities demanding that solar panels be installed on city buildings even when the costs and recovered energy don't justify it because they want to "set an example". It is not a good mode for a municipal government to be in.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

She doesn't say "declare a climate emergency" but her platform makes it pretty clear what her position is.


https://www.jyotigondek.ca/priorities.html#KeyDetails

She specifically used the words "declare a climate emergency" in every debate I watched.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Good. Creative industry investments are what creates vibrancy, color, and interest in facilities downtown and around the city. Things like events, artistic programming, and festivals are essential to successful, functioning city.

Artistic events are great, but also creators of all kinds living and working in an area has time and again proven to lead to area revitalization. The catch is you generally can't plan for it to happen, just set the conditions and hope it does.

[Cappy]

Since when does taking action on climate change / or making platitudes about it inspire dismissiveness?

We are probably the last large municipality in canada to do so.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Edmonton declared a climate emergency 2 years ago. I don't recall all the pearl clutchers getting bent out of shape when that happened

https://changeforclimate.ca/story/ed...mate-emergency

[Table 5]

If Godek tackles this issue through a pragmatic lens that takes into account the economic and human-cost, I’ll be right there to support her. If it’s done through the same rhetoric and virtue-signalling as you see in other cities, I’ll be disappointed.

Calling it a "Climate Emergency" does not fill me with faith. From a simple marketing perspective, I think she’d have a lot more people on board if this was called a “Diversification Emergency” or “Energy Emergency”, as that’s really what needs to be emphasized and solved from a local perspective. In Calgary’s case, this needs to be less about saving the planet, and more about how we can recalibrate our standing as an Energy capital, so we can take advantage of today’s realities in a way that helps both our economy and the environment.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Aside from being a stupid, meaningless bit of moral grandstanding, that approach actually concerns the hell out of me.

The calls to "trust the science" is consistently touted when the subject of climate change comes up. And generally, I believe trusting the science and numbers is always the way to go (I say generally, as often the sources of any "science" should always be looked at with healthy skepticism). However I find that too often the science gets ignored when looking at how we best tackle these climate challenges, or what some of the real trade-offs (which often come with real human consequences) are to these actions.

[Cappy]

Calgary Puck call out by Stephen Carter on the Strategist Podcast today.

I wonder if he saw the 25-1 vote on here and knew the race was over

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The calls to "trust the science" is consistently touted when the subject of climate change comes up. And generally, I believe trusting the science and numbers is always the way to go (I say generally, as often the sources of any "science" should always be looked at with healthy skepticism). However I find that too often the science gets ignored when looking at how we best tackle these climate challenges, or what some of the real trade-offs (which often come with real human consequences) are to these actions.

Im not sure what you mean here. From what i understand, the science in tackling climate change is clear: reduce GHG emissions.

The way we do that is policy more so than science.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Edmonton declared a climate emergency 2 years ago. I don't recall all the pearl clutchers getting bent out of shape when that happened

https://changeforclimate.ca/story/ed...mate-emergency

Houston has a Climate Action Plan as well.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Im not sure what you mean here. From what i understand, the science in tackling climate change is clear: reduce GHG emissions.

Yes, but the ways we tackled those reductions are not always logical or fact-based. Our governments promote things like Biofuel (aka burning wood!) as being clean, or overly rely on Wind/Solar without understanding our needs for base load energy...all while vilifying Nuclear, a proven, clean, reliable and safe energy source. Just take a look at what's happening in Germany these days as an example to this type of thinking, who is now reliant on coal and gas from other countries. A lot of these decisions are based on politics, not science.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Artistic events are great, but also creators of all kinds living and working in an area has time and again proven to lead to area revitalization. The catch is you generally can't plan for it to happen, just set the conditions and hope it does.

Does this apply only to the ‘arts’ or creation in general? No surprise to anyone, I’m mortified that prime inner city ‘makers’ space (to use an urban millennial friendly term) is frequently shuttered for other use.

Art studios, dance halls and creative spaces are cool and should be made accessible, but I’d say we’re doing a pretty good job there. But for workers, who output isn’t measured by Instagram shares? There’s plenty of viable shop space that could be filled with independent mill workers, machinists, manufactures or service shops. There’s no subsidy, grant or shared space options in my neighbourhood for someone looking to make wooden instruments, but I can walk down the street and count 6 spaces for the painting portraits of them.

With this city council, I have no doubt that within 4 years the 100 year old industrial spaces along the rail line in Inglewood will be developer owned. Planned will be hip coffee shops, an ESTLND studio and a gallery or two, probably a cool promenade with a live music space and a brewery. Spaces where once were skilled jobs and local resources converted to consumption and pretty things to look at.

/unsupported rant.