Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So why not take what the feds are offering in support? Where is the drawback? So frustrating watching the media whip up a storm about this with no facts presented.

It is hard to maintain the "Alberta as perpetual victim" if we are seen to be weak and accepting help from our #1 pinko super villain. We send all of the monies and never get anything in return, remember?

I know that you already know this, but it is politically convenient. And people buy it. That's it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Take Back Alberta is pulling their strings behind the scenes once again. With Jason Nixon not in Danielle Smith's cabinet, I think he's got an uphill battle to win his nomination.

Bratt follows up with Nixon being seen as "too moderate". If that guy is considered moderate, then Alberta is in for a wild tumble down the right.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1615362781200453633

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

My first thought is they picked the closest thing they could to Justin Trudeau's name. I can picture Trudeau sitting there going" I don't know why, but I love the name, Let's do it"

I'm waiting for Pierre P to start riffing on it like Justinflation.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Take Back Alberta is pulling their strings behind the scenes once again. With Jason Nixon not in Danielle Smith's cabinet, I think he's got an uphill battle to win his nomination.

Bratt follows up with Nixon being seen as "too moderate". If that guy is considered moderate, then Alberta is in for a wild tumble down the right.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1615362781200453633

Jesus christ, this is exceptionally alarming.

Nixon? Moderate?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why did they call it 'Just Transition?'

It just sounds needlessly patronizing.

What idiot's desk did that name cross who thought: "Yep! Thats the winner!"

It wasn't cooked up in Canadian political circles. Original thought would be way too much to expect from this government. Trudeau is more or less blindly following an international playbook on policy and implementing it in Canada. The term originally came out of the Paris Agreement talks in 2015 and it's used around the world by nations attempting to adhere to it.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...118_541095.pdf

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It wasn't cooked up in Canadian political circles. Original thought would be way too much to expect from this government. Trudeau is more or less blindly following an international playbook on policy and implementing it in Canada. The term originally came out of the Paris Agreement talks in 2015 and it's used around the world by nations attempting to adhere to it.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...118_541095.pdf

Where do you get the perception he is doing this "blindly"? Did you miss this?

https://www.rncanengagenrcan.ca/en/c...ust-transition

Looks like lots of submissions and consultations.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

We are so f'd as a society if we get hung up on the arbitrary name of this program rather than the program itself. This is the kind of stuff that wastes precious time, money, and veritas. The way misinformation and hate grows like fungus is once again proving obstructive to how we move forward as a country.

It's not even a Canadian phrase. It's a world-wide one that showed up about seven years ago with regards to climate change policy at the UN.

Blame who you want about poor messaging and low fidelity politicking, but the program is inevitable, whether through a softer or harder approach. Feds have been consulting with the proper stakeholders on this program in a Canadian context, and head-in-the-sand or combative responses are not going to avert what's about to happen over the next 20-30 years.

For the record, the movement is intended to address worker's rights and livelihoods. It's not a movement that simply "abandons" conventional labor and throws them to the wayside. It's readjusting industry, economy, and policy for a more sustainable future that includes the workers in that map.

All this fury about "Just Transition" and tying it back to anti-Trudeau pablum is once again proving itself to simply be resistance to change. In other words, business as usual for human beings.

I agree with all of this ideally, but this is far from an ideal world. 2015 was before politics had officially descended into full blown madness. Of course we shouldn't have to pander to this base buffoonery, it is a necessary consideration if you want the plan to actually work.

However, I suspect the Laurentian Elite TM are tickled pink that this turned into the wedge issue du jour. Good golly gosh are we ever a stupid species.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It wasn't cooked up in Canadian political circles. Original thought would be way too much to expect from this government. Trudeau is more or less blindly following an international playbook on policy and implementing it in Canada. The term originally came out of the Paris Agreement talks in 2015 and it's used around the world by nations attempting to adhere to it.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...118_541095.pdf

Its just that to me, sometimes the method is just as important as the message being delivered in terms of reception.

I'm not suggesting that transitioning to a greener economy is a bad thing, but this is going to be a serious and significant shift for a lot of people, being flippant and dismissive about it from someone whose life isnt going to change at all seems counter-productive.

I can understand the sentiment that people should 'look past the name' but when this program is going to have a significant impact on your life it kind of seems like it should be addressed as something we're taking seriously.

Imagine this conversation:

"I'm going to lose my livelihood and my job!!"

- "Meh, Just Transition."

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It wasn't cooked up in Canadian political circles. Original thought would be way too much to expect from this government. Trudeau is more or less blindly following an international playbook on policy and implementing it in Canada. The term originally came out of the Paris Agreement talks in 2015 and it's used around the world by nations attempting to adhere to it.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...118_541095.pdf

And to add to this, there is no transition at this point. It's put forward as though we're actually moving from fossil fuels to something else. We probably will one day, but that day isn't today. As a planet, we use more oil than we did a decade ago, and we definitely use more fossil fuels than we did a decade ago. That's not a transition.

I should say, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't plan for a day when "we" do move away from fossil fuels, and Alberta should look ahead at that. But, we should also make hay while the sun shines and get the best price for our resources while we can.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I agree with all of this ideally, but this is far from an ideal world. 2015 was before politics had officially descended into full blown madness. Of course we shouldn't have to pander to this base buffoonery, it is a necessary consideration if you want the plan to actually work.

However, I suspect the Laurentian Elite TM are tickled pink that this turned into the wedge issue du jour. Good golly gosh are we ever a stupid species.

Agreed

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Where do you get the perception he is doing this "blindly"? Did you miss this?

https://www.rncanengagenrcan.ca/en/c...ust-transition

Looks like lots of submissions and consultations.

LOL! Government consultations are put in place for the sake of saying they had consultations. I've been part of conversations with this government where they tell us one thing in response to our concerns and two weeks later announce something completely against what we were told.

Dunk on PP, the CPC, the UCP and Danielle Smith all you want, they full on deserve it but don't let their sideshow(s) somehow inspire confidence into what the Liberals are doing. Their government is run by the PMO, based on what will win the news cycle of the day. When it comes to implementing anything, they take shortcuts and create policy and plans based on having something in hand to sound good in soundbytes but accomplishes little or even makes things worse. Then when this approach angers specific groups that they need to court for votes they send in Freeland to dump taxpayer money on them with no regard for any prudence. Rinse, lather, repeat. Good evidence of this approach is that there's plenty of former Liberal cabinet ministers political corpses left behind of people who actually tried to run their ministries in a productive and ethical manner who were cast aside when it was politically expedient to do so.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its just that to me, sometimes the method is just as important as the message being delivered in terms of reception.

I'm not suggesting that transitioning to a greener economy is a bad thing, but this is going to be a serious and significant shift for a lot of people, being flippant and dismissive about it from someone whose life isnt going to change at all seems counter-productive.

I can understand the sentiment that people should 'look past the name' but when this program is going to have a significant impact on your life it kind of seems like it should be addressed as something we're taking seriously.

Imagine this conversation:

"I'm going to lose my livelihood and my job!!"

- "Meh, Just Transition."

At the same time, that’s almost an intentional answer meant to convey how much easier they’re making it for people in that situation. It reads like a bad commercial.

“I’m going to lose my livelihood and my job!”

“Just Transition”

“JUST transition? what do you mean JUST transition? Like it’s so easy!”

“But it is! With the Liberal government’s new Just Transition program, out of work or precariously employed individuals like yourself can retrain with the help of the government! The best part? You can get paid to do it! And in the end you’ll receive an exciting, future-proof career in green energy!”

“Wow, so… all I really have to do IS Just Transition”

“Yup, that’s right! Just Transition. For your family, for the future. Brought to you by the Liberal government.”

/scene

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

At the same time, that’s almost an intentional answer meant to convey how much easier they’re making it for people in that situation. It reads like a bad commercial.

“I’m going to lose my livelihood and my job!”

“Just Transition”

“JUST transition? what do you mean JUST transition? Like it’s so easy!”

“But it is! With the Liberal government’s new Just Transition program, out of work or precariously employed individuals like yourself can retrain with the help of the government! The best part? You can get paid to do it! And in the end you’ll receive an exciting, future-proof career in green energy!”

“Wow, so… all I really have to do IS Just Transition”

“Yup, that’s right! Just Transition. For your family, for the future. Brought to you by the Liberal government.”

/scene

It just needs a jingle like 1-800-588-2300 Empire TODAY! Just Transition!

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It is pretty silly to oppose this as Smith is. Like it or not, we are already in the transition. Where I work we have moved into these new markets. We have massive solar installations, wind, storage, hydrogen, geothermal, lithium exploration, CCUS, all happening right now. Farming reinvents itself constantly with new technology. The ship has sailed on conventional oil. Pre-2014 is not ever coming back.

So why not take what the feds are offering in support? Where is the drawback? So frustrating watching the media whip up a storm about this with no facts presented.

In a sane world, you are correct. A transition is happening whether we like it or not due to global market forces, not Justin Trudeau. We can have that transition be "just" for Alberta where we take part in the green economy with solar, wind, hydrogen, carbon capture, etc, or "unjust". And as mentioned, it's not even a Liberal invention, it came from the international agreement in Paris. Anyways, given those two options I'll take just rather than leaving behind Oil and Gas workers.
Also, the smoking gun memo was something like page 68 of an 88 page report and was a giant nothingburger. But that's the sane world.

In Danielle Smith right wing culture war world it's an attack on Oil and Gas and our way of life(!) by the Eastern elites and your average Calgary Sun reader will take it hook line and sinker because it perfectly frames up "Smith fighting for Alberta"

It's as non-sensical as the Sovereignty Act but honestly, I'm afraid that it's going to work. Facts don't seem to matter anymore.

[TorqueDog]

^ And that's the fatal flaw in the name.

It is a 'just' transition, meaning one of the tenets of the whole idea is to secure the rights and livelihoods of workers during such a shift.

Unfortunately, no one reads the word just as an adjective describing the transition, they read it as "Oh, just transition already you f--king luddites" and immediately it's "they took'r jerbs!" from the usual idiots, because it's easy political fodder to rile up the conservative base.

[KTrain]

The Feds have had a "transition program" for a few years in Calgary. They partnered with Calgary Economic Development on the Edge Up program to transition workers into IT positions outside of the O&G sector.

EDGE UP 2.0 is providing training for 320 professionals displaced from the structural change in the oil and gas sector for in demand jobs in Calgary’s digital economy. In 2021-2022, students were trained in data analytics, full stack software development, IT project management, product management with a specialization in digital marketing, cyber security, AWS cloud computing, and IT network management.

At least the Feds are trying to help. The UCP are just burying their heads in the sand.

[Northendzone]

to me given the number of jobs impacted and the billions at stake, do you really beleive the federal government is capable of delivering this without it being a mess.

this is the same organization that seemingly can't pay people properly and regularly. issue passports etc. all levels of governments also have issues delivering almost any project on time or budget or they are too afraid to tell us the real projected costs up front for fear of not being re-elected

And now we are going to let the shepard us into this brave new world driven by their ideals versus a free market economy.

to me this has epic disaster written all over it regardless of what government has the most seats in the house of commons

[KTrain]

The success of Federal programs in the past has been funding the local organizations that know how to facilitate these education and employment programs. They already have the trained staff, facilities, infrastructure, experience, etc. to run these programs. Feds supply the money and the outline of how it needs to be spent, the local agencies carry it out.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

to me given the number of jobs impacted and the billions at stake, do you really beleive the federal government is capable of delivering this without it being a mess.

this is the same organization that seemingly can't pay people properly and regularly. issue passports etc. all levels of governments also have issues delivering almost any project on time or budget or they are too afraid to tell us the real projected costs up front for fear of not being re-elected

And now we are going to let the shepard us into this brave new world driven by their ideals versus a free market economy.

to me this has epic disaster written all over it regardless of what government has the most seats in the house of commons

So the alternative to doing something proactively is to wait until it happens to you, and you haven't prepared for it. Are you suggesting that is wiser? Would it not make sense for Smith to get as much as she could out of the feds and have some say in the direction? Why is throwing sand in their face the better course of action?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

to me given the number of jobs impacted and the billions at stake, do you really beleive the federal government is capable of delivering this without it being a mess.

this is the same organization that seemingly can't pay people properly and regularly. issue passports etc. all levels of governments also have issues delivering almost any project on time or budget or they are too afraid to tell us the real projected costs up front for fear of not being re-elected

And now we are going to let the shepard us into this brave new world driven by their ideals versus a free market economy.

to me this has epic disaster written all over it regardless of what government has the most seats in the house of commons

I think this is the key thing though: Just Transition isn't the Federal Government doing some soviet era central planning to push Oil and Gas out and force us to a green economy, they're doing what's currently happening. Playing with incentives/disincentives (carbon tax, regulation, carbon capture incentives, etc) and global market forces and the free market economy are doing the work.

Literally all the "just transition" is, is the Government talking about how to support out of work oil and gas workers and make sure they get the skills they need for the future economy. It's a stupid name but it's just going to be things like investing in skills training in AB for say, handling hydrogen or installing solar panels. Boring.

Which is why this is a giant nothingburger but it's being successfully torqued by Smith into a culture war and the scary Federal Government coming after us. Maybe the Federal Government flops at planning on how to re-train O&G workers, but the alternative is that they do nothing and Alberta definitely gets left behind.