...
Just because you don't think they have a chance to win doesn't mean your vote for them doesn't have value.
If we only ever vote for parties that'll win, we end up with 2 parties and that's not good for anyone.
Maybe. But the reality is harsh – we only have two viable parties at present: NDP and UCP. One of them will win. There is a much higher possibility that more AP votes would help elect a few more NDP candidates and that would be worse for Alberta. So, logically, I should be voting for UCP to ensure that I didn't contribute to NDP candidate winning. And because that's the main reason, it rubs me the wrong way...
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Maybe. But the reality is harsh – we only have two viable parties at present: NDP and UCP. One of them will win. There is a much higher possibility that more AP votes would help elect a few more NDP candidates and that would be worse for Alberta. So, logically, I should be voting for UCP to ensure that I didn't contribute to NDP candidate winning. And because that's the main reason, it rubs me the wrong way...
I get this line of thinking 100%, it's definitely a flaw in our system. I just refuse, on principle, to vote for a party I dislike just to spite a party I dislike even more.
Ya, I get that, and if you are in a riding where it will be close, I can see the dilemma. If it looks like a blowout though, and your vote won't matter either way to send an additional member to Edmonton, I think ti does make sense to support another party who has no chance this election, if you agree more with their platform and people. Which is kind of where I am at right now. So it really depends on your riding.
Maybe. But the reality is harsh – we only have two viable parties at present: NDP and UCP. One of them will win. There is a much higher possibility that more AP votes would help elect a few more NDP candidates and that would be worse for Alberta. So, logically, I should be voting for UCP to ensure that I didn't contribute to NDP candidate winning. And because that's the main reason, it rubs me the wrong way...
Here’s how I would assess the UCP since it looks like you like them economically
Do the allegations around his leadership campaign reach the level of disqualifying for you?
Do you think that the racist misogynistic homophobic elements of the party will affect policy in a negative way?
If you believe the answer is no to those questions then voting Jason Kenny despite your that you don’t like him makes sense. If yes then you need to decide if principle or economics is more important for you.
More likely your vote doesn’t matter. This contest is decided on macro swings not by people who actually are considerate in how they will vote. So vote for your ideals and know that you won’t affect the outcome.
Well the difference being of course if you stopped child labor in Canada those children are no longer working. But ok keep doubling (tripling?) down.
I think you have been doubling down on a bad argument?
Your assertion is; Individual action is meaningless because collective action is required. But this logic is fallacious and leads to the inevitable conclusion that no action should be taken by anyone.
China - "Canada's per capita emissions are higher"
Canada - "We don't have a big enough population to make a difference"
US - "We don't have to believe facts if we don't want to"
Africa - "Everyone else got to burn fuel to industrialize"..............
Everyone can justify a lack action by drawing on a limited individualistic prospective rather than considering a large and complex system.
We should start the conversation with one important question.
Do you think climate change is a problem that people can/should collectively strive towards addressing?
If yes, then we can start talking about what changes we can / are willing to make to address this problem. I think there is allot of very interesting middle ground and room for discussion across the political spectrum on this topic, but none of those positions include "we should do nothing because it wont have an impact". If you agree the climate requires consideration when making decisions, then lets have that conversation, how much do you discount different considerations when building your model of the world;
If no, there is no conversation to be had about Canadian emission making a difference. Your belief is routed in idea that climate is not a problem. If this is your opinion I do not believe your concession is genuine, that something needs to be done about climate. It would appear your real opinion is that nothing needs to be done about the climate. I don't find this a particularly interesting conversation, because it is such a ridiculous you are afraid to come out and say it directly.
I put a pretty high value on Climate in my model, to the point that if someone is unwilling to engage directly with the need to take some form of action, I put a 100% discount on their political opinions, this is among the reason I will not be voting UPC, because they at the very least signal to this prospective. Out side of not voting for them, I don't have an opinion yet.
I also think the economy is a very important factor to consider. I do have a personal stake in my current well being above and beyond the future well being of others. But even if you give 100% weight to the climate, there are reasons to make economic consideration;
A slowing economy might delay the adoption of new technology,
Technology might offer a faster way out of this problem than nature allows for,
I believe western political/economic dominance provides better options for resolving the problem than other potential systems, and I think it is fair to believe that a lack of regard for our economic health would allow other systems to complete for dominance. (just look at the way political norms in the US have been eroded, due the many sensing a lack of economic health).
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
This seems like a lot of effort by numerous posters to miss a pretty simple prisoner's dilemma.
There are plenty of conceivable circumstances where an actor could believe wholeheartledly in climate change as an existential threat, and yet rationally behave in the same way as someone who doesn't believe that at all. We are, arguably, in such a circumstance.
__________________ "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
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
This seems like a lot of effort by numerous posters to miss a pretty simple prisoner's dilemma.
There are plenty of conceivable circumstances where an actor could believe wholeheartledly in climate change as an existential threat, and yet rationally behave in the same way as someone who doesn't believe that at all. We are, arguably, in such a circumstance.
I'll agree,
BUT SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET, and I have to do something about it!
This seems like a lot of effort by numerous posters to miss a pretty simple prisoner's dilemma.
There are plenty of conceivable circumstances where an actor could believe wholeheartledly in climate change as an existential threat, and yet rationally behave in the same way as someone who doesn't believe that at all. We are, arguably, in such a circumstance.
I’d like to see steps to curb climate change knowing Canada plays such a small role in the grand scheme of things, without sewering our economy and the well being of my family and my friends and others in this country.
I certainly feel that is a possibility. But needlessly handcuffing our economy while transferring wealth to countries who aren’t doing the same is inexcusable to me.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
I’d like to see steps to curb climate change knowing Canada plays such a small role in the grand scheme of things, without sewering our economy and the well being of my family and my friends and others in this country.
I certainly feel that is a possibility. But needlessly handcuffing our economy while transferring wealth to countries who aren’t doing the same is inexcusable to me.
Now that is interesting, whats the long term vision to start building economically viable solutions from;
This the most difficult political desicion I feel I have ever had to make. I have always been a strong supporter of the PC party (now UCP), both at the provincial and federal levels. Right now I feel Alberta finds itself in a very difficult place, like it or not, the success of our province rests on The fate of our O&G resources getting to tidewater. It has become very clear that no matter what we do locally we cannot get our most valuable resource to market without a Federal government that supports the cause. It’s clear we do not have that. So until we can make a significant change at the Federal level my vote this election will likely go towards what helps me the most at the local level, and in my household. I have young children and my family gains much of its income from the public sector. I hate to say it but right now the NDP does more for my family then the UCP. I’m very torn on actually committing the cardinal sin of voting NDP, but I’m having a very hard time not leaning that way right now.
If people don't want to support the UCP or NDP than park your vote elsewhere. Otherwise we won't see any real change in the parties prior to the next election.
The Alberta Party today is not that different than the 2015 NDP were in terms of party size and preparedness to be in Government. I think they have far more depth in the candidates they are putting forth. If you can't stomach NDP economics and you can't stomach Jason Kenney....I think this is where you go.
If people don't want to support the UCP or NDP than park your vote elsewhere. Otherwise we won't see any real change in the parties prior to the next election.
The Alberta Party today is not that different than the 2015 NDP were in terms of party size and preparedness to be in Government. I think they have far more depth in the candidates they are putting forth. If you can't stomach NDP economics and you can't stomach Jason Kenney....I think this is where you go.
How different are the AB party economics from the NDP? They have announced a lot of spending without saying how they would pay for it so far.
How different are the AB party economics from the NDP? They have announced a lot of spending without saying how they would pay for it so far.
Well, they’ve released shadow budgets for the past couple years if you care to take a look, there is some interesting information in those.
That said, I don’t believe any party has gone and said how they’re going to be paying for their spending, so I hardly think that’s hugely relevant yet. Budgets I think are released soon.
In general though, there’s lots of information out there if you want to know how parties differ
Carbon capture or a geo-engineering are the only options that can both bring the world out of poverty and meet climate goals.
Instead of curbing emmissioms we should be technological leaders in stopping the negative outcomes of warming. Bet on failure of the Paris accord.
I think we will probably need to be a combination of allot of things as a solution, and carbon capture will need to be included. But i think it is among the least proven of the technologies, and seemingly should be much much more expensive than any other option, I don't really see carbon capture ever existing outside of some massive tax and spend government program.
Take a look at your critical steps in the process of using wind energy vs using carbon sequestration. (very very broadly generalized), it is easy to see that our current systems has allot more process inputs and is less efficient from a human capital side.
Carbon sequestration:
1) Find the Gas
2) Extract the Gas
3) Refine the Gas
4) Transport the Gas
5) Store the Gas
6) Burn the Gas
7) Distribute the Electricity
8) Capture the Carbon
9) Bury the Carbon
Wind:
1) Collect Electricity
2) Store the Electricity
3) Distribute the electricity
But once again, the unwillingness of the UPC to even engage in this conversation, and their signalling to people who deny the need for this conversation is disqualifying for me.
For me, bio-sciences are probably the most promising direction for making improvements without the need for change. Life has done allot of geo-engineering successfully over the eons. But I am not holding my breath that we will get there without needing to make big changes to our infrastructure, and even if we do it would still be devastating to Albertas energy industry.
How different are the AB party economics from the NDP? They have announced a lot of spending without saying how they would pay for it so far.
How is the UPC any different?
They have announced allot of tax cuts without an outline of how they will pay for it;
https://unitedconservative.ca/Conten...eclaration.pdf
repeal the provincial carbon tax and vigorously oppose the imposition of any
federal carbon tax.
restore the provincial personal tax rate to a flat rate.
restore the provincial corporate tax rate to a flat rate.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
I still love how a tax cut from the Carbon Tax is on the docket but no mention of how the federal Carbon Tax for all intents and purposes negates that cut.
Reduce Canadian child labor -> Less children labouring
Reduce Canadian GHG to ZERO -> No change to global warming
Then how about this analogy: a person gives 10% of his yearly earnings to an organization that sexually interferes with children. He won't stop giving money to them because he figures hey, his individual contribution makes up such a tiny portion of their total income that it won't make any difference in the amount of children they violate, but he feels he needs to keep sending money because of all the terrible things that he fears will happen to him if he stops sending the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Carbon capture or a geo-engineering are the only options that can both bring the world out of poverty and meet climate goals.
Instead of curbing emmissioms we should be technological leaders in stopping the negative outcomes of warming. Bet on failure of the Paris accord.
What technological miracle are you thinking of, that will offset the effect of coastal flooding worldwide and hundreds of millions of people being forcefully displaced?
Cutting emissions worldwide is absolutely an option. Technological advancement is a big part of that, but so is first world countries cutting back on their consumption, so they don't come across as hypocrites to the rest of the world.
I posted this earlier in the thread, but I'm not sure if anyone saw it, so I'll try posting it again. Did carbon pricing decimate Australia's economy?:
