It has to be all or nothing correct?
There are $12T-$15T, that is 12 trillion, or $12,000,000,000,000, of proven oil reserves in Canada. Another $20-$25T of unproven reserves are waiting for technology and pricing to make them viable. You’d let it sit in the ground and block every effort to prevent it from being developed. No other country would do that. That is real insanity. Frankly, no one should listen to lunatics who suggest leaving it there. If you want to talk about minimizing the impact then sure, we can have that discussion.
I’m not in any way an oil expert. My knowledge comes from watching Mr. Global on tik tok so I’ve probably gotten something wrong but isn’t the price of oil per barrel close to the break even point? Wouldn’t having an increase in supply bring the price per barrel down lower? I believe I’ve seen reports that, despite Trump’s relaxing of restrictions and encouraging “Drill baby, drill!” that the US is experiencing a pull back in the number of active rigs and other areas of drilling to try to keep the price up. Why would oil companies in Canada expand production if it results in a lowering of price per barrel to perhaps lower than what is profitable?
Your question is not responsive to what I asked and shows that you didn’t understand the question. I, and the Carney policies that I support, are exactly the opposite of “all or nothing” – they are a reasoned compromise between climate change mitigation and the need for fossil fuels and the revenues that they generate.
It is, in fact, your pals Smith and Poilievre who are the lunatic extremists pushing for a madcap pace of fossil fuel extraction while trying to pretend that climate change doesn’t exist. That’s why I asked if there was anything in their policies “that even hints at acknowledging climate change as a serious problem”, because I don’t see it.
You do realize where fossil fuels come from, right? If we burn much of the world’s remaining fossil fuel reserves, we’re essentially releasing into the atmosphere the carbon that’s been sequestered underground for at least 100-200 million years and driving the planet to the climate of the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods. Furthermore, we’re doing so at an unnaturally rapid pace, not only creating a climate to which life on earth isn’t adapted, but doing it so fast that the entire global climate system becomes violently unstable. So you’ll pardon me if I’m unimpressed by $12 trillion or $20 trillion if it causes the end of life on earth as we know it.
And yet, unlike yours which turns out to have been pure projection, it remains true. As you have continued to demonstrate. This:
…is pretty much the “Fuck the environment, money first” attitude I already mentioned. Minimizing the impact of fossil fuels is what Canada is doing now and what you keep insisting it stops doing, and the ones promoting an “all or nothing” viewpoint here remain you and the political leaders whose disastrous policies you are espousing.
Frankly, no one should listen to those “lunatics” who suggest that burning the planet down for profit is a reasonable idea.
I personally find it entertaining that a few dozen posts ago he was insisting he doesn’t take his news from any particular source, right or left — such an independent thinker! — and now we’re getting talking points almost literally copy-pasted from conservative outlets. Quelle ironie.
I’ll let you in on secret. The oil is being produced and used regardless if Canada pumps another barrel. The difference is that someone else will benefit from doing that. It will happen in places where dictators and theocrats benefit from it rather than Canadians. So by leaving in the ground you just make Canada poorer by at least 12% of gdp with the knock on affect of high paying jobs disappearing and between 100K to 200K unemployed to make a <0.01% difference to the environment. But sure, tell yourself you’re saving the planet.
Carney extends Canadian military mission in Latvia to 2029. I think this is a good idea - sends a message that we are supporting the Baltic states that have first hand knowledge of the oppression under Russia.
Sorry for the CBC link - I realize that some consider it an unreliable totally biased lefty source.
Well, as long as we’re sharing “secrets”, here’s another one. For more than 35 years the United Nations has been organizing initiatives to combat climate change, with the IPCC providing the scientific analysis and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) providing the treaty framework.
The Paris Climate Accord entered into force in November, 2016, enshrining a commitment to limit further temperature rise to a maximum of 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C by the end of this century. This requires corresponding carbon emissions reductions and the need for an eventual zero-emissions environment. 195 nations are signatories to the Paris Accord, including Canada. And each signatory, including Canada, is required to submit periodic Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) reports to the UNFCCC detailing the progress being made.
This is the reality in which we live, and the urgent actions being taken to address an existential threat. But the position in which the likes of you, Danielle Smith, and Poilievre appear to be mired is the classic tragedy of the commons, where selfish actors, motivated by rational self-interest, collectively destroy everyone including themselves. You’re pretty much explicitly saying that since we’re doomed anyway, we may as well profit from it.
Canada could shut down oil production tomorrow and global demand wouldn’t drop a barrel — it would just be met by Saudi, U.S., or Russian supply. The Paris Accord is about cutting demand, not unilaterally kneecapping one country’s economy. Pretending Canada’s exit would “save the planet” is naïve — all it would really do is sacrifice Canadian jobs, revenue, and security while others happily take our market share.
Doing nothing is always an option and can be successful. Don’t act like it was their plan all along or that it takes competence to implement, though. Or that it is a fait acompli.
I know it’s been ten days, but I have instructed the thread to avoid attacking the Poster. The above is just that, even if it’s not a direct insult. You can refute a poster’s arguments, cites, and disagree, but this is P&E, not the Pit. I am not giving out warnings this time, but since this is the second time I’ve had to bring up a very basic board rule in this thread, it may become needed. Let’s not have that happen. Again, if you can’t post your feelings without it being personal, you know where the Pit is.
Fair enough. But what’s the best way to respond if we find one person has been monopolizing a discussion? Hi think Carney’s been doing well, considering, but it’s hard to get a word in edgewise.
Topic: How’s Carrney doing, Canada?
Well I guess he’s actually doing something, even if some would tell us he’s doing nothing.
Major projects office to be located in Calgary.
The legislation speeds approval times from five years to two by introducing a “one project, one review” approach instead of having federal and provincial approval processes happen sequentially.
The Major Projects Office (MPO) will be the central place to make pitches, deliver complaints or express concerns about projects.
Don’t act like rebuffing poor trade deals wasn’t a deliberate choice made after careful consideration or that it doesn’t take competence to make that choice, though. This portrayal of Carney just sitting around doing nothing about US trade is not remotely connected to reality.
It is, however, a very very common theme among commentors on social media. I see it repeated ad nauseum whenever Carney’s name comes up on facebook. That, and imagining him as some backroom Svengali, who was manipulating PM Trudeau for years from behind the scenes as a shadowy figure.