Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by peter12

So relax them. The problem for most proponents of total legalization is the utopian bounty of tax benefits, and social order that will come as a result of the kind of legislation that they want.

The truth is, most Canadians find heavy marijuana use to be symptomatic of a certain lifestyle that is not congruent with Canadian society.

Bollox. "the truth is" is code for "What I think". Marijuana use amung people from apprx 25-65 is to relax. The same way the previous generation had a glass of wine or a martini after work many people in this generation prefer to smoke a joint to relax without the side effects of alchohol.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Bollox. "the truth is" is code for "What I think". Marijuana use amung people from apprx 25-65 is to relax. The same way the previous generation had a glass of wine or a martini after work many people in this generation prefer to smoke a joint to relax without the side effects of alchohol.

Can you read a whole sentence? I clearly differentiated between recreational use and heavy use. And to say that marijuana doesn't have side effects is a joke.

[Looch City]

You can use that phrase for anything:

The truth is, most Canadians find heavy metal music to be symptomatic of a certain lifestyle that is not congruent with Canadian society.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I don't ignore them, I just place them lower in priority. My priority would be as follows:

Oil & gas development
Climate change
...
...
...
Diversification

I'll start with oil & gas development > diversification because it's easy. Saying "we should diversify" is largely a naive feel good buzz phrase not at all rooted in fundamental economics. We have been bestowed oil & gas. We are extremely, extremely fortunate for that. Oil and gas is an extremely valuable resource that the world wants for it dense caloric value, calorific value that is required to improve or sustain a standard of living, and calorific value that far exceeds the number of calories we have to spend to get it out of the ground and sell it. It's the hand we've been dealt. The greatest way to maximize our standard of living as Albertans and Canadians is to get it out of the ground as fast and efficiently as possible. If instead you want to diversify away from oil & gas, then please accept the reduced standard of living that will come with it.

When I think about diversification, I don't consider it at the expense of oil and gas development. We have figured out how to do it, as you say, in a way where the caloric input is far outweighed by the caloric output. That is good, lets do that. We can ALSO look at how to develop other energies so that in the inevitable situation where a technological break though happens that makes one or some combination of alternatives energies a viable and economic option, Canada and Alberta isn't left holding a bag of something no one wants. The world will always need oil, because it's not only used for energy. So why not look at supplementing the part of it that we can (ie, the energy side)?

Climate change and environment is a tougher one. I believe it is valid, I believe that oil & gas production and consumption contributes to it, and I believe that it's consequences contribute negatively to our standard of living. So we are inherently faced with a tradeoff between improving our standard of living by exploiting a fortunate endowment of a valueable resource and reducing our standard of living by continuing climate change it results in. However my belief is that the calorific value of oil & gas and the financial benefit it generates can be used to drive society towards a more environmentally sustainable energy source.

I think that this is true, but I also think that, at this point, this process is moving too slowly because we are allowing profit-driven enterprise to control it. Often times this is the best way to drive innovation. But I believe we are in a situation where we can't exactly wait for some undetermined time when alternatives can overtake O&G from a pure profit perspective, especially when O&G companies actively lobby against alternative energy incentives. If they were putting a substantial amount their profits into alternative R&D, I might agree with you. There are situations where the public sector needs to force the market, I think this is one of those times.

Joules are needed to sustain our standard of living, joules are needed to eventually diversify into other businesses, and joules are needed to develop more environmentally sustainable energy sources. However the first law of thermodynamics teaches us that joules are not free. Thank god we as Albertans and Canadians have been gifted a tremendous number of joules right below our feet.

Billions of gigajoules hit us and every other part of Earth every single day, and yes, it is free. If the amount of research that has been done into how to get oil out of the ground had been pushed towards solar, I firmly believe we would be there already. The problem is that if people can gather their own energy, there's no (or very little) corporate profit that can be made off of it. My thoughts on that are who f***ing cares?

My thoughts in bold.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Do people really think the NDP or Liberals are going to come in an purposely sewer AB?

The Green Shift (a colossal transfer of wealth out of Alberta to fund new social spending, especially in Central Canada) was in the Liberals' previous election platform. We haven't seen the details about those parts of the Liberal party platform so I guess time will tell.

The NDP have been pretty clear so far on that front without getting into real details yet either.

The devil's in the details.

[peter12]

I am absolutely not sold on the solar farms initiative. Maybe one day we will develop the infrastructure to create some sort of energy free market whereby individual homes are fitted on with solar panels, and then buy/sell power on an online market, but these fantasies of converting hectares of usable land into giant sun plantations is just ridiculous.

It seems like the ethanol of the 2000s.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am absolutely not sold on the solar farms initiative. Maybe one day we will develop the infrastructure to create some sort of energy free market whereby individual homes are fitted on with solar panels, and then buy/sell power on an online market, but these fantasies of converting hectares of usable land into giant sun plantations is just ridiculous.

It seems like the ethanol of the 2000s.

I think this is ideologically based rather than research based.

As someone who is currently looking at putting a Tesla Powerwall into their house, it is much more believable.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am absolutely not sold on the solar farms initiative. Maybe one day we will develop the infrastructure to create some sort of energy free market whereby individual homes are fitted on with solar panels, and then buy/sell power on an online market, but these fantasies of converting hectares of usable land into giant sun plantations is just ridiculous.

It seems like the ethanol of the 2000s.

So why do you have to start your sentence with maybe? It's not maybe we will, we CAN develop that. The technology already exists in a raw form. Why aren't we doing it? Why aren't we developing that? If you agree that it is a future possibility, why not drive towards it? Why not take some of those subsidies for O&G and throw them at Tesla so Alberta can be on top of it when it does?

As for ethanol, there are many reasons why it works and should be used in place of gasoline. Brazil is on 80% ethanol fuel and most cars can already use it. Lobby groups that have made things like using any fuel in your car but gasoline, and modifying the computer in your car to allow for alcohol fuel illegal, along with a wide-spread campaign of misinformation about its by-products, are the reasons we don't use it. It really has nothing to do with problems with the fuel itself, it's our systems that aren't allowing the funds or knowledge to move in the proper direction.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

The goal shouldn't be starving in the dark, but rather reducing climate change while still maintaining the economy. Also why should we expect to live a lifestyle that people in other countries can't?

Mitigating climate change while not destroying the economy may not be easy. Fighting the effects of climate change will likely be worse though. That's why we need to start acting now and in a meaningful way, not just saying we're going to hit some target in 30 years but have no plan for doing that.

A lot of big oil and gas companies are completely on board with climate change action. What they want is a seat at the table so they can come up with solutions that still allow them to be profitable, and for the process to be fair.

Now we're talking. That's a stance I can accept as something to debate my side against. I appreciate that you're coming from a position of acceptance in the notion that an immediate transition to reducing climate change is likely to lower our standard of living, and that the real question is to find the right balance (I have no idea where in the middle it exists, but accept that it is in fact in the middle). But now we're getting pretty off topic and should dig up the diversify thread to continue this in.

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I don't think we'll get any meaningful action from the Conservatives. On the other hand I'm not convinced the NDP will do enough to protect the economy. So while overall I haven't decided yet who to vote for, on this particular issue the Liberals are the only party that I think are likely to hit a reasonable balance.

I'm inclined to believe the same from a spectrum perspective. I think deep down I lie in liberal territory. But to vote for them I need two things: 1) stronger inclusion of the West in their roots, and 2) a better leader. I vehemently dislike the idea of Trudeau as our leader. Is some of that due to the CPC campaign machine, sure. To say otherwise would be naive. But if I dig deeper than that I truly believe I'd feel the same regardless. The Liberal party desperatly needs to find a good leader and launch him/her with the funds and strategy necessary to combat the CPC attack strategy onslaught that brought Dion and Ignatief down before they hardly got out of the gate.

Originally Posted by MattyC

My thoughts in bold.

Great thoughts. To get back to government and not an off topic pure energy economics / climate change debate, you bring up an interesting point. Profit driven corporations controlling O&G extraction is hardly going to bring change. They're legally obligated to maximize profit and the time value of money will almost always dictate a dollar from oil & gas today over a few more dollars from other energy sources at some ambiguous point down the road. That's where government comes in with royalty frameworks and diversification incentives. I am completely onboard with diversification if it means no slowing of oil and gas as a result. I'm pretty sure my stance on the whole matter is to increase royalties (not right now while we're in trouble) and use some of that money to incent other industries. As an aside, if it were me, that industry would be nuclear.

[Coach]

^^^ Also open to nuclear as well. I usually bias myself towards solar because I did a few papers during my Econ degree on it so I know quite a bit more about it than the alternatives.

It's my understanding that a Canadian group discovered a way to use unenriched uranium (the part that produces the most waste and the kind that is needed for bombs) as a proper fuel source. If this is a path that can be used, I'm on board with that as well. And on the same vein, why not both?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Great thoughts. To get back to government and not an off topic pure energy economics / climate change debate, you bring up an interesting point. Profit driven corporations controlling O&G extraction is hardly going to bring change. They're legally obligated to maximize profit and the time value of money will almost always dictate a dollar from oil & gas today over a few more dollars from other energy sources at some ambiguous point down the road. That's where government comes in with royalty frameworks and diversification incentives. I am completely onboard with diversification if it means no slowing of oil and gas as a result. I'm pretty sure my stance on the whole matter is to increase royalties (not right now while we're in trouble) and use some of that money to incent other industries. As an aside, if it were me, that industry would be nuclear.

If you want renewable energy and oil and gas to be on the same playing field, shouldn't the costs associated with oil and gas development like CO2 emissions be incorporated into the profitability of oil and gas extraction?

We have a system now that externalizes all those costs onto society, effectively underwriting oil and gas extraction at the expense of renewable development.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'm inclined to believe the same from a spectrum perspective. I think deep down I lie in liberal territory. But to vote for them I need two things: 1) stronger inclusion of the West in their roots, and 2) a better leader. I vehemently dislike the idea of Trudeau as our leader. Is some of that due to the CPC campaign machine, sure. To say otherwise would be naive. But if I dig deeper than that I truly believe I'd feel the same regardless. The Liberal party desperatly needs to find a good leader and launch him/her with the funds and strategy necessary to combat the CPC attack strategy onslaught that brought Dion and Ignatief down before they hardly got out of the gate.

I agree with you here and that's why I'm still undecided about who to vote for. On the overall political spectrum I probably align most closely with the Liberal party, but even though Trudeau handled himself credibly in the first debate I'm not at all sold on him as PM. I don't know who the Liberal candidate is in my riding yet - that could influence my vote.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by peter12

The truth is, ost Canadians find heavy marijuana use to be symptomatic of a certain lifestyle that is not congruent with Canadian society.

The truth is, most Canadians find heavy alcohol/sex/gambling use to be symptomatic of a certain lifestyle that is not congruent with Canadian society.

Just because a few people do things to excess doesn't mean that it should be outlawed in society. As a person who doesn't use marijuana I am in support of the full legalization of marijuana.

On a related note I'm also in favour of decriminalizing the personal use of all drugs. Help treat the addicts and go after the dealers/suppliers more aggressively.

Prohibition has never worked and I doubt it ever will.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, but cheap daycare fits into NDP's policy and platform. it makes sense that the NDP would support it. Harper's home reno credit? It's about the least conservative thing you can do economically. Same with cash handouts to families. They aren't conservative policies, they are vote-getters. Buying votes with our tax dollars.

Are you saying generating construction jobs is bad for the economy? Seems like a smart move with the country possibly going into a recession. The Conservatives are primarily concerned with the economy and this policy helps on that front. Goes along with their moves to lower taxes in order to stimulate the economy.

[peter12]

Oh man, nationalized day care alone would kill any likelihood that I will ever vote for the NDP.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh man, nationalized day care alone would kill any likelihood that I will ever vote for the NDP.

That didn't already happen after they threatened to raise your taxes enough that you'll have to slum it in $800 shoes instead of the usual $1200?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

That didn't already happen after they threatened to raise your taxes enough that you'll have to slum it in $800 shoes instead of the usual $1200?

Not that my income is any business of yours, but since leaving O&G, I no longer make even close to 6 figures. I don't have a car, live downtown. Pretty typical millennial actually. I just save a ton each month. And I only have a few pairs of $500 shoes.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you want renewable energy and oil and gas to be on the same playing field, shouldn't the costs associated with oil and gas development like CO2 emissions be incorporated into the profitability of oil and gas extraction?

We have a system now that externalizes all those costs onto society, effectively underwriting oil and gas extraction at the expense of renewable development.

I don't want them on the same playing field. I want to reap the benefits of oil & gas now and use them to eventually transition to a better fuel source down the road. Whether that be before or after I'm dead doesn't matter. I just want it to happen simply because it has to eventually (regardless of whether you define the cutoff date with an environmental threshold or a physical supply of oil threshold).

I'm willing to accept the CO2 emmissions being externalized onto me as an investment in eventually having something better because I accept the fact that it is impossible to change to something better tomorrow.

...well crap, there I go writing fluffy feel good words without substance. To be more succinct: Pump that oil, accept the resulting CO2 impacts, skim some profits through royalties and invest it towards something better. "Invest it" being the trickiest part of all because that's where the rubber really hits the road. If we don't know what to do with it right away, then at least invest it financially so we have more dollars later to do something with or to buy someone else's sweet perpetual motion machine with.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The biggest failure of the Alberta PC's was bringing royalties into general revenue, and the biggest failure of Albertans was continuing to accept the fact that we were doing so because it meant we could buy trucks instead of pay more taxes. Prentice was spot on with his proposed changes and at pointing the finger right back at me and all of you for being partiallty responsible for where we ended up. Sadly no one wanted to hear it.

In attempt to steer back on topic, that last paragraph brings up an interesting question...if resources and royalties lie with the provinces, what role or mandate does the federal government actually have in transitioning us away from fossil fuels and towards something else? Funding research and grants from the general tax revenue?

/end rampling thoughts on a topic I love to talk about far too much.

[peter12]

The really smart energy companies, like BP, are already diverting massive investments into renewable energy. The private sector is miles ahead of any government investment fund.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not that my income is any business of yours, but since leaving O&G, I no longer make even close to 6 figures. I don't have a car, live downtown. Pretty typical millennial actually. I just save a ton each month. And I only have a few pairs of $500 shoes.

Only a few?! How do you live with yourself?

I'm only bugging you man.