There’s already been a vetting process to weed out some resolutions, but this one made it through, which suggests “someone in the party thinks that this is worth debating,” Young said.
“I think this reminds us that the base of the UCP is host to a pretty substantial group of people who do not believe that climate change is real, or they don’t believe that it is driven by human activity, and they think that any actions taken to transition away from fossil fuels are unnecessary.”
*lobbyists.
For the supporters, in Alberta, where almost a quater of gdp is oil and gas, and culturally the pride is in their meat production, you can’t imagine why they don’t want to believe in climate change?
There’s a distinction between believing something exists and ignoring it’s long term ramifications vs “celebrating carbon”.
If people want to run things into the ground I can’t imagine someone be called anything other than a idiot if you don’t have a exit strategy. Also something to be said about the division of profits .
Money is the exit strategy. I hear this kind of misunderstanding a lot when conservatives double down on something that seems against their self interest, like “they’re still Albertans, they want a prosperous future for their children too, they just disagree on how to get it”
That’s true for the average uninformed propaganda regurgitating voter, but it’s not true for the people actually making money from conservative policies. The money they collect makes them hyper mobile. If Alberta crumbles in the future from doubling down on oil and gas they’ll just… leave. When you have millions nothing ties you to where you live. They can ditch their property and move to another province, another country, no big deal. That’s why they focus on extracting as much value as possible from the land and the populace, because it’s expendable to them. They just want to make the most money now while they can.
So they use the idiots, but I don’t think the people pushing this line of thinking are the idiots.
*its - it’s is either it is or it has.
Anyhow, if you don’t believe climate change is real then why not celebrate carbon?
And, even for those who do understand/acknowledge climate change, from first order consequences, this isn’t a huge deal for somewhere like Alberta. Yes, bad things will happen but losing almost a quarter of your economy is also a pretty bad thing. (Consider a devastating thing like Jasper… That’s cost about 800 million in insurance claims etc, even multiply that by ten and you still don’t come close to the revenue from a single year of oil/gas (27.5 billion.)
Frankly, thinking through the numbers, there’s a kind of nihilistic correctness to their position. The costs of climate change, for this generation of Albertans, is much less than the revenues from fossil fuels.
I’ve made exponential profits on CNQ and fully understand how much money is generated from O&G. I’m also fully aware that many people lives will have a substantial negative trajectory due to current climate change conditions.
You can’t keep going to this big profits small costs argument without details of how much benefits and burdens is allocated to the parties involved.
Also to be upfront about it. I find your grammar thing to be rather annoying so this will be the end of the conversation for me.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the original quote. Only one person’s benefits (their salary) is being considered. That’s basically the entire point of the quote! And frankly, that does seem to be how most people live (if people really cared about the costs to others, no one would buy sweatshop clothes.)
To be upfront about it, I find poor grammar annoying and the second hand embarrassment bugs me. Like people misusing exponential to simply mean lots or rapid, without actually being exponential. (If you’d made exponential profits, even a small investment of 1k would mean you’re sitting on a million now.)
You are placing your annoyance at other peoples’ grammar above the desire to actually communicate with them, which means you’re just here to masturbate in public.
You get that, right?
If that person had said anything interesting, maybe it’d be different. But another “those people don’t believe what I believe and so are evil/stupid” comment, well it’s pretty childish and dull. And rife with poor grammar!
May you’re future online interractions be full off grammer mistakes.
Ahaha, that’s a great sentence and a brutal curse! I legit wonder if that would be the end of social media for me.
Or the difficulty in some sort of extension to autocorrect said media on one’s browser?
This is a confession that you are not well enough to participate in online discussions. Show this to someone you trust.
Your history is a confession you have waaaaay too much time on your hands, do you have someone you trust?
So it’s not just poor grammar you can’t tolerate, but also criticism. And yet you are so free with it.
Wait, making fun of you is being unable to handle criticism but you responding to it is you tolerating criticism?
I’m now a little curious what your rules are.