Okay this analogy jumped the shark, but the whole argument is really just another appeal to the mysticism of "something different" without a realistic plan for extracting the country from its reliance on resources. Usually this involves some vague, one-sentence commitment to "investing in alternative energy" or "researching other avenues" or "green jobs" or "new techology sectors" or some such nonsense which makes for a nice-sounding soundbite. There is no "there" there, there's no practical solution.
So the solution to you is, well, there's nothing practical yet. Let's just keep going along with what we're doing.
If we're going to talk impractical, how is it practical to continually pour obscene amounts of resources and research into something that has an endpoint, that negatively impacts the earth and our society (the fact that we worry about our prices being to high that other nations will buy it from human rights violators, murderers and really all around terrible people shows that this has a negative impact on our society) and actually causes conflict and violence? How is it practical when we have opportunities for real change towards alternatives that can help us? How is it practical that those alternatives receive a minute fraction of resources and investment towards research than the former?
We're going to have to change. And it's not going to be pretty any way you slice it. There's no way you can make a move to alternatives without the collapse of the old industry. It's going to happen. This has happened again and again throughout the history of humanity and we're still doing alright. How are all the jobs in the whale oil sector? Do you give a rats ass?
We can wait until we can no longer rely on our current energy sources, or we can make a proactive move towards something better. Things already in existence but severely underfunded.
That process has quite obviously already started but it's not just an Alberta-centric thing. It'll pick up steam, but slowly. It sounds like some people want to give it a bigger kick in the ass (note that we already do; please see capital cost allowance rates for green energy assets) and aren't particularly concerned about the overall consequences of doing so, while others are far more concerned. Count me in the latter camp.
How has any of what's been advocated or proposed by the NDP a huge kick in the ass, though? I think Resolute brought up some good points about their budget not quite adding up, but they haven't come out and said they're going to dismantle anything, unless you're talking about the pipelines which are pretty much dead in the water anyways. You can thank the federal Conservatives for completely destroying the appetite for it in BC.
There's also an argument to be made that having an NDP government who will likely enact better social programs and infrastructure will make for a softer landing when the fall from grace finally occurs.
So the solution to you is, well, there's nothing practical yet. Let's just keep going along with what we're doing.
If there's nothing practical, then, yeah, we keep doing what we're doing until someone can convince me we should do something else instead.
Quote:
If we're going to talk impractical, how is it practical to continually pour obscene amounts of resources and research into something that has an endpoint, that negatively impacts the earth and our society (the fact that we worry about our prices being to high that other nations will buy it from human rights violators, murderers and really all around terrible people shows that this has a negative impact on our society) and actually causes conflict and violence? How is it impractical when we have opportunities for real change towards alternatives that can help us? How is it practical that those alternatives receive a minute fraction of resources and investment towards research than the former?
As usual, a bunch of run-on rhetorical garbage devoid of any content aside from the demonizing of an industry and providing absolutely no viable options or actual policy that anyone could possibly support, even if you convinced me that oil companies are literally run by CEO Lucifer.
I don't know how I can be clearer here: You cannot just be against the status quo. You need to be for an alternative. You need to be able to articulate what that alternative is and why we should prefer it to the status quo. Otherwise you have literally no political position whatsoever; only the absence of a position.
Quote:
We're going to have to change.
We can wait until we can no longer rely on our current energy sources, or we can make a proactive move towards something better. Things already in existence but severely underfunded.
More vague references to "something better" and "things" with absolutely no details about these "things", or how we can use them to our advantage, or why they would improve our situation.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
How has any of what's been advocated or proposed by the NDP a huge kick in the ass, though?
For energy alternatives? I don't think anyone really has aside from the usual vague platitudes about investing in alternatives and improving our environmental record and blah blah blah no specifics or anything for anyone to hold me to.
Quote:
There's also an argument to be made that having an NDP government who will likely enact better social programs and infrastructure will make for a softer landing when the fall from grace finally occurs.
Well if that argument exists I'm happy to hear it but I doubt that case is being made much less that it's the actual intent here, as it's a pretty bleak proposition.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
For energy alternatives? I don't think anyone really has aside from the usual vague platitudes about investing in alternatives and improving our environmental record and blah blah blah no specifics or anything for anyone to hold me to.
No, what I meant was is there any evidence that what the NDP has proposed is going to collapse the oil industry?
Quote:
Well if that argument exists I'm happy to hear it but I doubt that case is being made much less that it's the actual intent here, as it's a pretty bleak proposition.
It's a hell of a lot less bleak than having a collapse with no infrastructure or social netting.
No, what I meant was is there any evidence that what the NDP has proposed is going to collapse the oil industry?
It's a hell of a lot less bleak than having a collapse with no infrastructure or social netting.
I am in a position where what happens to Big Oil (and the subcontractors) has absolutely no impact on me, and, if anything, a poor economy might benefit me (as in, relative to the norm). So, royalties, environment, etc doesn't bother me either way. The NDP bothers me because they will take a bunch more money from me personally and "re-invest" it in health, education and "Alberta", and what that "re-investment" will consist of is raises for teachers, nurses and public-sector workers, who are already the highest paid in the country. **** that. More money will not make anything better, unless you come up with something more creative than "more of the same" (more workers, higher salaries). Some of my best friends work for the Man, but, I am sorry, I have no wish to subsidize their incomes...
If there's nothing practical, then, yeah, we keep doing what we're doing until someone can convince me we should do something else instead.
As usual, a bunch of run-on rhetorical garbage devoid of any content aside from the demonizing of an industry and providing absolutely no viable options or actual policy that anyone could possibly support, even if you convinced me that oil companies are literally run by CEO Lucifer.
I don't know how I can be clearer here: You cannot just be against the status quo. You need to be for an alternative. You need to be able to articulate what that alternative is and why we should prefer it to the status quo. Otherwise you have literally no political position whatsoever; only the absence of a position.
More vague references to "something better" and "things" with absolutely no details about these "things", or how we can use them to our advantage, or why they would improve our situation.
Well I personally wrote a few papers in Uni on the economic viability of solar energy and came to the conclusion that the issue is not the it isn't viable, it's that the lack of funding towards R&D is holding back proper development as compared with the rapid growth in other areas of technology to bring the price closer (and eventually below) that of fossil fuels. So I am personally partial to solar mostly because I did a good amount of research on it. But we need research into how to store the energy, which is ongoing but again, severely underfunded as compared with the constant advancements in getting o&g out of the ground.
Nuclear (although not as clean as most, and involves mining, it doesn't have near the impact of o&g and is becoming increasingly cleaner).
Geothermal
Wind
Hydro
All options in our corner of the world. And, while none of them meet our needs individually, collectively they can certainly do so.
This debate is nuclear vs all other alternatives. They don't even discuss o&g and show that they can meet our needs and then some if only applied properly.
I am in a position where what happens to Big Oil (and the subcontractors) has absolutely no impact on me, and, if anything, a poor economy might benefit me (as in, relative to the norm). So, royalties, environment, etc doesn't bother me either way. The NDP bothers me because they will take a bunch more money from me personally and "re-invest" it in health, education and "Alberta", and what that "re-investment" will consist of is raises for teachers, nurses and public-sector workers, who are already the highest paid in the country. **** that. More money will not make anything better, unless you come up with something more creative than "more of the same" (more workers, higher salaries). Some of my best friends work for the Man, but, I am sorry, I have no wish to subsidize their incomes...
You automatically assume that they mean raises for public sector workers or did they actually come out and say that?
I am in a position where what happens to Big Oil (and the subcontractors) has absolutely no impact on me, and, if anything, a poor economy might benefit me (as in, relative to the norm). So, royalties, environment, etc doesn't bother me either way. The NDP bothers me because they will take a bunch more money from me personally and "re-invest" it in health, education and "Alberta", and what that "re-investment" will consist of is raises for teachers, nurses and public-sector workers, who are already the highest paid in the country. **** that. More money will not make anything better, unless you come up with something more creative than "more of the same" (more workers, higher salaries). Some of my best friends work for the Man, but, I am sorry, I have no wish to subsidize their incomes...
Sometimes to get more workers you have to attract them with higher wages.
No. It's much better in the long run to recognize partial or full qualifications from outside the country and provide a fast-tracked re-training program / re-certification for qualified professionals to fill those gaps. This is something the PC's, both provincial and federal, should have figured out a long time ago.
Why are qualified, experienced doctors driving cabs or doing janitorial work in this province when they could be filling professional fields that are chronically under-staffed? Better to spend six months improving a pre-existing skillset than simply increasing (read: inflating) the price constantly to attract top talent.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
I'm voting PC, would rather not cut off my nose to spite my face. Not a fan of their performance lately, but the thought of an NDP government fiddling with the knobs on the economy scares me.
Alberta Party should have ran more people, I think they would have bested the Liberals in terms of seats with more candidates. Basically they're a business-focused centrist party with a more charismatic leader in Clark and just, well, not the Liberals. I'll be voting for my AP candidate this election too. I just cant' bring myself to vote NDP on account of their waffling on the Keystone issue, and I certainly can't vote Wildrose because of their previous faux pas with religion and anti-gay stuff, not to mention their boogeyman stance on taxes. PC's? Forget about it.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
I will agree some of their members seem bigoted and super-social conservative. Not something I'm comfortable with personally. However, at least we have a Charter of Rights here in Canada that protects minorities from government excess and prevents banning abortions or other crazy ass socially right wing things.
The Charter offers me no protection from becoming a tax serf to an ever expanding, ever spending, constantly interfering state. I wish it did.
