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.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    88 hours ago

    Fucking UCP government just deep in the pockets of Big Oil. Just rename yourself The Oil Sands Political Party and at least be honest about it, ya fucking loser assholes.

    • @UnderpantsWeevil
      link
      English
      58 hours ago

      Of all the places on earth that might conceivably come out slightly ahead on climate change, Canada and Russia are two of the biggest.

      Can’t help but feel these two countries consistently being some of the worst on per capita emissions isn’t a coincidence.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1110 hours ago

    “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.”

    Or they’re just jerks who know it’s real, but don’t care and are looking to virtue (vice?) signal their right-wing bona fides.

  • @Lauchs
    link
    4014 hours ago

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    • @SamuelRJankis
      link
      English
      512 hours ago

      Fair assesment for the politicians and lobbiest.

      What about their supporters, is defunding of education plus the governments doing nothing against misinformation enough to justify their actions?

      • @Lauchs
        link
        212 hours ago

        *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?

        • @SamuelRJankis
          link
          English
          311 hours ago

          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 .

          • @Lauchs
            link
            -111 hours ago

            *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.

            • @SamuelRJankis
              link
              English
              310 hours ago

              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.

              • @Lauchs
                link
                110 hours ago

                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.

                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.)

                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.

                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.)

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  246 minutes ago

                  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?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1814 hours ago

    Let’s just release some extra CO2 into these people’s homes for a few weeks and see how they handle such an abundance of such a “foundational nutrient” on their health. Not too much, maybe a little over 5000 ppm or so should be good, I’m not suggesting we kill them or anything.

    • Rhaedas
      link
      fedilink
      1213 hours ago

      It’s not even breathing that’s the problem, it’s the claim that higher CO2 is great for plants. It can be, however the plants that grow from higher CO2 levels (particularly crop plants) produce their plant mass differently than with less CO2 unless compensated for, like in a controlled greenhouse. Directly because they are getting a different ratio of nutrients and gases.

      Add that to all the other factors that threaten food supplies thanks to warming. Someone at some point saw that plants get green at high CO2 levels and thought it would work as an argument against climate change, not understanding the details (or not caring because it suits their purpose).

      • masterofn001
        link
        fedilink
        612 hours ago

        Also, plants don’t grow well in floods, or when on fire, or in 50° C.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        110 hours ago

        Also, faster and more voluminous growth =! better quality growth. See: new vs old growth lumber.

        • Rhaedas
          link
          fedilink
          113 hours ago

          Yes, but plant growth reactions to higher CO2 happen at much lower levels of increase than your example of being harder to breath.

  • @Z3k3
    link
    English
    313 hours ago

    deleted by creator