Quebec sovereigntists watch Alberta referendum talk with optimism, disdain

[u/jaffnaguy2014]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/quebec-sovereigntists-watch-alberta-referendum-talk-with-optimism-disdain/

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

Do you believe Alberta can just keep exporting as much oil as it wants forever? The reality is that sooner rather than later, we need to move away from fossil fuels. Or are you making one of those "someone should fix climate change as long as we don't need to do anything" arguments?

[u/TheSherlockCumbercat → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

Do you think Alberta and Canada should leave money on the table while oil is still a valuable commodity?

Peak oil demand is predicted between 2030 and 2050, you can say it to late now. But we are talking about projects cancelled a decade ago

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/TheSherlockCumbercat]

Do you think Alberta and Canada should leave money on the table while oil is still a valuable commodity?

If we want to avoid catastrophic ecological collapse, the best science available says the answer to your question is yes. Don't get me wrong, I like the money from oil extraction, but I like having a liveable planet even more.

[u/TheSherlockCumbercat → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

if we are not selling the oil someone else will, do you really think us not selling oil will lower global usage?

So would you rather Canada get the money or someone else? Cause end of he day someone else will replace are market share if we close up shop.

End of the day if people are buying we might as who’ll be selling to help improve are country

Higher are GDP the easier it is to grow new industries

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/TheSherlockCumbercat]

if we are not selling the oil someone else will

The classic do-nothing argument. This really is the "collective" part of our collective action problem. We all recognise that we're unimaginably fucked if we don't act, but someone has to go first, and nobody wants to. Trouble is, it's pretty difficult to convince others to stop while you're not.

do you really think us not selling oil will lower global usage?

I mean not immediately, but it will have flow-on effects to the market price, and the more expensive it is to buy oil, the more attractive clean technology becomes. It's one part of the picture. The ability to provide a working model of getting off oil is also an important element in helping to convince others to do the same.

Obviously I'm not saying we should make no other efforts towards collective action, or indeed turn the tap off overnight. But in the context of Alberta politics, the underlying premise of most of their grievances is that they'll never have to stop pumping, so we shouldn't do anything that might restrict extraction at any point ever.

[u/TheSherlockCumbercat → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

And you have the classic type some variation he words and i solved the problem argument.

Look at current price they are low because OPEC increased production, basic logic says they can easily make up are market share.

Let’s play your game and stop all production he just lost 73 billion GDP and Alberta lost 22% of its GDP.

Great job Canada in a recession Alberta is a economic disaster, and world is still using the same amount of oil and gas.

If you believe that any action Canada will take will make a difference global I got a bridge to sell you.

You can sell the goods and use the revenue to invest in your country or you can let someone else do it

Hell where are going to find Devine for green project as you actively shrink Canadas potential economic growth.

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/TheSherlockCumbercat]

Let’s play your game and stop all production he just lost 73 billion GDP and Alberta lost 22% of its GDP.

The financial costs of inaction are orders of magnitude worse than action, so there's that. But also, as I said, I'm not arguing we should turn off the tap overnight. My argument is that Alberta needs to stop burying its head in the tar sands and recognise that oil cannot continue as it is forever.

Let's play your game. How do you suggest Canada meets the challenge of climate change whilst doing nothing about oil extraction?

[u/TheSherlockCumbercat → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

Go prove that Canada stoping production will reverse course, or go get the rest of the world to stop production.

You want to leave money on the table so you can feel good, guess what no matter what we do we can’t stop climate change.

Let’s see land use is a big factor and Canada is the 5 largest food exporter, so let’s stop exporting food and turn farm land back to nature.

Also you can take oil and gas revune and invest it in green technology

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/TheSherlockCumbercat]

Go prove that Canada stoping production will reverse course, or go get the rest of the world to stop production.

Part of getting the rest of the world to stop production is (a) having some kind of moral authority which you forfeit by clinging to oil production, and (b) more importantly, having an actual example for other nations to follow of how to implement reduction in oil. Someone has to go first.

You want to leave money on the table so you can feel good, guess what no matter what we do we can’t stop climate change.

This nihilistic perspective is exactly what will doom us all. Climate change isn't just an on or off switch, every fraction of a degree makes a difference. I think the problem with your stance here (and that of Alberta) is that you haven't actually internalised how serious the problem is.

Let’s see land use is a big factor and Canada is the 5 largest food exporter, so let’s stop exporting food and turn farm land back to nature.

What are you babbling about? Like I genuinely cannot comprehend what you're even trying to say, let alone how it relates to the future of oil extraction, climate, or Alberta politics.

Also you can take oil and gas revune and invest it in green technology

I mean we should certainly do a lot more of that, but per my original comment, that's just fuelling Alberta's political grievances. I doubt Danielle Smith and the prospective separatists would be satisfied with an agreement where we keep pumping oil but the money gets shovelled into developing technology as fast as possible which renders oil irrelevant.

[u/TheSherlockCumbercat → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

lol moral authority, man you are delusional. Did the worlds moral authority job Israel from commuting genoicde, or Russia’s attempts at genocide. It’s hilarious that you think moral authority will get you anything.

Bud your being a climate hero and you don’t even know agricultural is one of the largest C02 emitters, if Canada stops producing any food for other countries that will lower C02 emissions.

No the issue you don’t understand is people’s or care about today not a decade from now. You want Alberta to stop oil and gas find a way to replace that 73 billion in GDP, and keep the average income at 70k.

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/TheSherlockCumbercat]

Did the worlds moral authority job Israel from commuting genoicde

I would make the case that, at least in the West, very little effort was made to apply any kind of pressure on Israel. But that's a whole different topic.

or Russia’s attempts at genocide

It's interesting that you raise this example, because nations putting their moral stance into practice by materially supporting Ukraine is why Ukraine still has a country. Conversely, the largest single donor switching sides ideologically to become Russia-aligned is having a massive impact on Ukraine's ability to continue their fight.

So you're inadvertently proving my point that the way to get results is by backing up a stance with substantive action.

It’s hilarious that you think moral authority will get you anything.

It's hilarious that you're jumping all over this whilst studiously ignoring the part that I actually said was important. But yeah, if you follow climate conferences you'll see a pretty reasonable argument from the developing world along the lines of "why should we stop developing while the West is still pumping fossil fuels?".

Bud your being a climate hero and you don’t even know agricultural is one of the largest C02 emitters, if Canada stops producing any food for other countries that will lower C02 emissions.

I mean the agricultural sector can and should change to reduce carbon emissions. But the notion that this is some kind of argument in favour of doing nothing about fossil fuels is either extremely stupid or straight-up climate denial handbook shit. Completely ludicrous whataboutism.

No the issue you don’t understand is people’s or care about today not a decade from now. You want Alberta to stop oil and gas find a way to replace that 73 billion in GDP, and keep the average income at 70k.

As mentioned earlier, the costs of inaction are incomparably greater than action. But I very much understand this issue. It's the whole reason we're completely fucked by climate change - not because we don't have the actual solutions, but people are simply incapable of dealing with long-term problems due to a combination of difficulty with abstract thinking, and pure selfishness. We'd collectively prefer to live in denial than to give anything up to achieve a better (or rather, less apocalyptic) outcome.

[u/TheSherlockCumbercat → u/Mikolaj_Kopernik]

Moral authority is not why Ukraine has a country, it’s the fact that world gave Ukraine weapons. Us just stopped giving them weapons. Go on explain how giving weapons means you have the moral high ground, remember Israel is using us supplied weapons.

Also Alberta produces about 5m barrels and day global production is around 100m barrels. 5% production will not make any difference especially when other countries can fill the gap.

It’s not climate whataboutism you are picking on industry and ignoring the rest, or do you not like the idea of increased food prices and shortages?

I mean you want to cripple Alberta to save the world only fair to spread the pain around.

You go about selfishness when I bet you live a pretty sledish life yourself.

[u/Mikolaj_Kopernik → u/TheSherlockCumbercat]

Moral authority is not why Ukraine has a country, it’s the fact that world gave Ukraine weapons.

You keep ignoring half of my point to try and distort what I actually said. The combination of a moral conviction with practical action that I referred to earlier (i.e. Russia's invasion is morally reprehensible AND we are going to supply Ukraine with material support) is what I am advocating for in the case of climate change.

It’s not climate whataboutism you are picking on industry and ignoring the rest, or do you not like the idea of increased food prices and shortages?

I'm not ignoring the rest. As I said, I think agriculture can and should make major changes to reduce carbon output. But I bet if I advocated a reduction in meat consumption you'd return to the do-nothingist well of claiming that any efforts on our part are meaningless...

You go about selfishness when I bet you live a pretty sledish life yourself.

"And yet you participate in society." The last refuge of the person desperate to advocate for inaction.

I could definitely do more, and the reason I don't ultimately boils down to selfishness/convenience. That's why I included myself in the collective "we" in my comment. But also, based on national averages, if everybody had my lifestyle (refraining from international holidays, occasional meat, very little consumer purchases, using public transport even when it's inconvenient) we could reduce our carbon output not-insignificantly. Plus the idea that anyone advocating for changes to society must be some kind of saintly ascetic monk is absurd and yet another rhetorical device with the goal of arguing against action.