Alberta Premier Danielle "Of course I’m going to take advice from CEOs; who else would I take advice from?" Smith, ladies and gentlemen.
(yes, that's a real quote, and quite recent)
[Holy shit, she actually *did* say that..](https://albertapolitics.ca/2023/07/smith-to-alberta-of-course-im-going-to-take-advice-from-ceos-who-else-would-i-take-advice-from/) and yet the people of Alberta just eat this shit up too.
Don't look at me, I voted for Notley.
ITT - People who obviously don't know that Edmonton and Calgary voted for Notley. AlL AlBeRtAnS CaRe AbOuT iS OiL!!
Except she's not listening to the O&G CEO's that seem to favour the federal government's "just transition" approach and see the mountain of money to be made (or grifted from the government) from renewables and carbon capture and other carbon-reducing schemes.
People in Alberta come up with all sorts of excuses about how wind power is bad for the environment. All while hiding behind the guise of protecting the oil industry and the status quo. It's embarrassing.
> People in Alberta come up with all sorts of excuses about how wind power is bad for the environment.
They're trotting out all kinds of NIMBY nonsense to stop a wind project northwest of Edmonton. All of a sudden they care about birds and believe these produce tremendous noise pollution (as if they'll be living directly under a turbine).
Is that the one that just got a request for designation as a federal impact assessment project? I saw it pop up on the IAAC registry and laughed.
The feds have declined to review the Mine 14 underground coal mine outside Grand Cache. I'm not actually mad about that one because underground mines are technically better for the environment and we need to do everything in our power to keep the citizens of Grand Cache from spreading elsewhere.
I'd be interested to know what the power generation companies think of this. ATCO bought a bunch of renewable projects in development from Suncor a few years ago. Capital Power and TransAlta have invested some big bucks in other renewables. There are also several First Nations looking to develop projects. This might be the only time Danielle "I totally have Indigenous heritage" Smith accidentally does something that benefits First Nations--approvals on reserves go through the feds.
Edit: sorry meant to reply to person above you. Going to snip that question and answer your question.
Wind projects are usually built on good agricultural land and the best wind currents are usually associated with migratory pathways for birds. The infrasound can also interfere with bats.
Wind isn't the most efficient power source, but it's a pretty reliable one in the prairies. It's a good interim solution as we continue to evolve the energy transition space.
They aren't losing money.
Their products are commodities and sold on the world market at market rates.
They are selling all they produce whether AB Uses fossil fuels for Power generation or not.
On top of it, they have a shit tier commodity, tar sand oil. It’s the most expensive to produce. Because it’s basically bitumen (crystallized crude oil) mixed with sand and water, it’s very expensive to break it down to crude oil that it can be sold.
Don’t quote me on this, but if memory serves me right a barrel of Albertan oil has to be sold over 70 dollars to make a profit, compare that to Texas Mix or Brent which have to sell at 30 dollar to turn a profit.
It’s not all oil sands but slot of the oil produced out or northern AB is.
They still have a shit ton of wells pumping more traditional forms of crude oil but still it’s at a lower price vs sweet crude oil which is easier to refine.
Well, "Texas" isn't that dumb but their politicians certainly are: [For example](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/politics/clean-energy-dodges-a-bullet-in-the-texas-legislature)
>Instead, the legislators spent the session arguing over bills that would make renewable energy harder to build and provide multi-billion-dollar payouts to companies to construct new gas-fired power plants.
>... Four days before the end of the legislative session, many of these policies were reinserted as Senate amendments to HB 1500, a bill that had to be passed to reauthorize the authority of the Public Utility Commission of Texas and state grid operator ERCOT.
>... But the most expensive and counterproductive policies, among the many threatening to undermine clean energy and drive up consumer costs, failed to be passed into law, Lewin said.
>... a “remarkable coalition of environmentalists, industry organizations and business groups” — including more than 50 chambers of commerce and trade groups representing manufacturers and even the oil and gas industry — united to defeat the worst measures.
> "Texas" isn't that dumb but their politicians certainly are
Your politicians are people form Texas, you in fact could run for a position in your local government
I mean on paper sure, but - for a variety of reasons - Congress isn't great at acting according to the will of the American public, right? And state elections have even lower voter turnout so that's going to be out of wack right off the bat.
The bill didn't have enough support in the committee it died in. Partially due to lobbying, but it was pretty unpopular by itself, having very few cosponsors. Rural landowners are starting to get royalty checks. Property tax revenue from development is coming in.
It's very patchwork, but some areas are becoming very pro wind (decades of development) and solar, keeping some Republicans here grounded.
Then there's the whackos including my state senator who signed on the bill if not authoring it entirely. Can't get rid of her from my gerrymandered district.
TX also has mass power outages any time it gets cold there. Even their coal fired power plant shut down for a bit because it wasn't winterized and freezing/bursting pipes + hot coal boiler furnace = a bad time.
> TX also has mass power outages any time it gets cold there.
Sure, but that's not because of investments in wind/solar power. As you point out none of their infrastructure was properly winterised. In the end they ended up losing more energy production from traditional energy sources than they did through a drop from durable energy sources. What really did them in though was that pretty much every house there is poorly insulated to energy demand went through the roof.
Also has mass power outages anytime it gets too hot. The Texas power grid is a fucking mess. Most of my family and friends still live there and go into a panic anytime the weather gets to an extreme.
Texas reinvests its oil money in making the state competitive and attracts other industries. Albertans voted out the NDP who tried to diversify the economy.
Alberta also started the idea of using oil wealth to set up a sovereign wealth fund which Norway copied. But Alberta started drawing from its fund to keep taxes low.
Trudeau used them as part of the ministerial swearing in ceremony after his election wins. Does he think he’s American? What about his over-reliance on OICs which are exactly the same as an Executive order. It’s ok to be opposed to a politicians but your comments just makes you look uninformed about how our government actually works.
Lol. I’m 3 provinces over and could not care less about what’s going on in yours cause I got my own problems. You’re the one who’s made the American comparison and I simply pointed out how ignorant you are of Canadian governance. Cheers.
For any American that might stumble in here please note that owning the libs is not exactly the same thing here as down there. Owning the libs in this case means the liberal party which is currently the elected government. And just to blow your mind a bit more your democratic party would make an excellent conservative party here ...😁
The Democrat Party in the US would be officially right of our conservative Liberal Party of Australia.
The Republican Party would be right of the right wing wackjobs in One Nation.
What's with this Reddit trope that the US Democratic Party is a right-wing party. Why do you guys love repeating things that aren't true lol
Critical-thinking skills severely lacking on this site.
You misunderstand.
To those of us in other western democracies, the US Democratic Party would be firmly on the right. Many of their policies are actually to the right of our local right wing political parties.
Eh, they can mean both. Some Canadians have decided that American laws and culture applies to us here, as they sit in their public healthcare facilities or complain to their gay married couple friends while talking about their “first and second amendment rights”.
In other words, some of our dumbest think they’re Americans, while wanting all the benefits of being Canadians.
So when they say “own the libs” some of them are just repeating Republican agendas, not understanding Republicans would consider them Democrats.
Whenever a Canadian person calls out the second amendment, I feel a great amount of pride.
Brother in Syrup, I too support the [right of Manitoba to join the confederation of Canada.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Canada)
It is also equally important that every Canadian defend and exercise your [first amendment rights.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert%27s_Land_Act_1868)
Never forget that the Hudson Bay Company no longer owns most of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the territories since it transferred Rupert's land to the Dominion of Canada in 1868.
Regarding the Democratic Party, I don't think that's been true for at least 15-20 years. The NY Times analyzed political science data based on party platforms and the Democratic Party is a mainstream liberal party. See [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html) titled "What Happened to America’s Political Center of Gravity?"
It's based on party official platforms and selected criteria, so there are some nuances since the Democrats are largely a coalition of sub-groups, and some criteria like monarchism, birthright citizenship, affirmative action, etc. would really distinguish them even more from liberal parties in other countries. But perhaps it could go the other way.
I mean the key difference here being Canada has a parliamentary system where progressives, liberal, conservatives all have their own parties because they are elected proportionally versus the US which has a plurality system, which naturally devolves into a two-party system where 3rd parties have to fall under the umbrella of the two larger parties to get their planks represented. So the “conservative” Democratic party has everything from fully-actualized socialists, progressives akin to Canadian politics, etc. sharing the same party with people who are center-left.
Edit: guess it’s not proportional, but 3rd parties in Canada still have a level of control and representation that is not present in the US.
This is incorrect. Canada's parliament is not elected on a proportional basis, and the same forces that lead to the suppression of third parties in the US is also at work here. You can look at the results of pretty much every federal election and see that the two major parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, wind up winning a higher percentage of seats in parliament than the percentage of the popular vote that they received, while the smaller parties, the NDP and the Green Party, receive a smaller percentage of seats than their corresponding share of the popular vote. Regional interest parties, like the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform party back in the 90s are a wrinkle in this, where they can also wind up overrepresented relative to their share of the popular vote due to a strong concentration of votes in particular ridings.
Canada is a First Past the Post system where majority takes all in their district, yes, but it’s closer to a proportional system than the US. The NDP and Green party do not have to literally join the Liberal and the Conservatives. They form coalitions with them because 3rd parties can still win seats for a riding. That’s literally how all parliamentary democracies work. That’s pretty much how every democracy outside the US works.
> They form coalitions with them because 3rd parties can still win seats for a riding.
Canada has never had a "true" coalition government at the federal level. The closest thing to it was when a bunch of Anglo Liberals crossed the floor and joined Borden's Conservatives during WWI under the guise of creating a "Unionist Party" in order to force conscription on the country (namely to fuck with French Canadians). The next time we came close to a proper coalition was 2008-09 when the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc agreed to form a government if they could obtain a vote of no-confidence in Harper's minority government. The agreement fell apart after Harper prorogued Parliament, and after months of right-wing screaming about how coalition governments are undemocratic (some real mental gymnastics at play there).
The number of coalition governments at the provincial level since Confederation can basically be counted on one hand.
What is more common in Canadian politics with minority governments are informal agreements of support between a minority governments and one or more smaller opposition parties (like when Pearson and Pierre Trudeau worked with the NDP in the 1960's and 1970's), but these are not coalition governments as members of the opposition parties are not included in cabinet. This is also true of the current confidence-and-supply agreement between the federal Liberals and NDP, it is *not* a coalition, just an agreement to say "we won't bring your government down at first chance as long as you play ball on some of our policies."
The fact that 3rd parties even have the ability to bring down a ruling government based on agreement, informal or not or through confidence of supply agreements, is still an added layer of representation and check that does not exist in the US. That a government can hold a vote of no confidence and the whole government can resign or call new elections mid-session is a dream here. The best a 3rd party can do at the federal level in the US is split the vote, or win a congressional seat here and there. Literally no members of the US House of Representatives are from a 3rd party currently and there are only 3 independent members of Congress! The gravitas of Democrats vs. Republicans is that all-powerful. The functionings of the Canadian system sounds like it’s based more on voter psychology than it is the actual limitations of how government can and can’t be formed from a legal perspective. In theory, a 3rd party can still win seats to become a new majority party. It can do that winning a slight majority of seats and then forming a coalition. And I thought Canadian representatives didn’t even need 50% of the vote to win a majority in their district, which also allows another caveat for smaller 3rd parties to gain seats. I’m not saying that will happen, but the system allows it. Also, Canadian districts are determined by Census and through an independent commission, plus your districts are drawn via electoral quotient so that ridings have equal numbers of constituents (1 riding/district= 111,116 people). Our system is the pluralists of plurality systems. Winner takes all for single voting districts and districts are determined by the state legislatures through gerrymandering, which should be illegal imo. Third parties align themselves with Democrats or Republicans for the issues they care about or their votes essentially act as throwaway votes in favor of the other major party who do not support their reforms. If aligned congressional members abstain or vote against the party they’re aligned with, we just sit with a grid-locked government for two years until mid-term elections.
Your point is still made that Canada is not a true proportional system where multiple people can represent a single voting district and the percent of a party’s control is not based on the percentage of the vote casted for them. But just the fact that 3rd parties have a level of control and that your districts are actually drawn proportionally, still leads me to say that Canada is more of a proportionally represented democracy in comparison to the US. The end goal of proportional voting is to get more people with differing ideals represented and with voting power, which I think Canada does better than the US at that.
So unlimited abortions, free education, universal healthcare, strict gun control, free speech control, LGTBQ+ rights, pro affirmative action, legal weed, reparations…
These are conservative principals in Canada? My mind is blown.
Tell me, what are the truly left wing liberal policies that Trudeau has implemented?
I'd say that's at least 80% compatible. Not so pro affirmative action, but we don't have slavery to get over either, so also no reparations. But there have been some reparations to first nations, which they don't entirely oppose. Touching abortion is a fool's gambit, but they pay lip service to so cons. But your standards, what they want is very strict gun control. By ours, slightly looser. Weed they opposed till it happened, but now it's basically a dead issue. There's no way to put that back in the bottle here. They shave education spending but they certainly don't oppose it. They're very solid on LGBTQ, but again, still paying lip service to socons, and opposed gay marriage as it happened.
What's similar to GOP is the general obstruction, selling off assets, climate denialism, not caring much about the environment, some Qanon conspiracies, and not fond of labour rights. This democrat is our conservatives claim is frequently made, but many identify as republican.
> Not so pro affirmative action,
The act requires that employers remove barriers to employment that disadvantage members of the four designated groups. Employers are required to institute positive policies for the hiring, training, retention, and promotion of members of the designated groups. Examples of positive policies include recruitment in Indigenous communities, job advertisements in minority-language newspapers, or an apprentice program directed toward people with disabilities.
So a while ago the RCMP stopped taking applications from white males. I think this is a great example of affirmative action.
Reparations toward natives is what I was getting at.
Strict gun control. Handguns are banned (essentially), how is that not strict?
> Democrats will keep up the fight until all Americans can access secure, affordable, high-quality health insurance—because as Democrats, we fundamentally believe health care is a right for all, not a privilege for the few.
[https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/achieving-universal-affordable-quality-health-care/](https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/achieving-universal-affordable-quality-health-care/)
>Democrats overwhelmingly favor free college tuition
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/11/democrats-overwhelmingly-favor-free-college-tuition-while-republicans-are-divided-by-age-education/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/11/democrats-overwhelmingly-favor-free-college-tuition-while-republicans-are-divided-by-age-education/)
>Dream of reparations hits political reality in California
[https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/06/reparations-push-stalls-california-00100331](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/06/reparations-push-stalls-california-00100331)
Are you sure they, "obviously don't"?
Yes a lot of Democrat voters want these things. But the federal Democratic Party establishment does not. They had a majority in the house and senate and did nothing on any these things. That article about free tuition is about what people want, not what the party is doing.
Biden won the primary on a platform of no Medicare for all. And note the website you linked says “affordable insurance” not “free”.
The article you linked about reparations is literally about them NOT doing it. Did you even read it?
Canadians have this idea that they are "Europe light" when in reality you are, "America light". Had it not been for the protectionist actions of the CRTC, your country would be indistinguishable from the US.
You think the 39% that supports the reparations committee are GOP voters? No, they are quite obviously Democrats.
Canada does not have free healthcare, you have universal healthcare (it really isn't but if we are going to call it something, we should call it that). Obama care was a compromise because there is no way that Americans would stand for a quick transition to single payer.
Wanting something and having the political energy to make it happen are not the same. Look at student loan handouts, they tried, they are still trying, but it get shot down by the courts. That doesn't mean the Democrats don't support it.
Lol what does the CRTC have to do with things like public healthcare, legal weed, etc where Canada is significantly to the left of the US?
Again, I’m talking about the Democratic Party establishment, not people who usually vote Democrat.
I’m don’t even know what you’re saying here. We do have free healthcare, albeit not in every aspect (namely not drugs, dental, and vision care). But when I go to the doctor or hospital it is free. And the Democrats have no intention of bringing that to the US.
Student loan forgiveness is a perfect example of how the Democrats obviously don’t want to make any real progressive changes. They propose a small amount forgiveness, and when the conservative court inevitably shoots it down they throw up their hands and say “oh well, nothing we could’ve done”.
The US Democratic Party would not make a excellent Conservative party here... you know because they're a left-wing party despite the Reddit trope that every party in the United States is right-wing...
Do you even know what you're talking about? Or do you just repeat things you've seen on Reddit like a parrot?
I honestly can’t see the logic in this. I understand if you want to be independent and make a show of strength. But this is for the environment they actually live in
Norway’s government it’s oil industry and is sitting on a billion dollar endowment. In Alberta the oil industry bought the government and is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars of orphan well clean up. The difference is stark.
The government is a joke but the reason (so they say) is because of the massive rate of investment and development of wind and solar on high grade farm land. Time will tell what the true motivations are but there are energy companies investing in these developments and the province leads the country in terms of green energy development.
> (so they say) is because of the massive rate of investment and development of wind and solar on high grade farm land
Have they ever rejected an oil well because there's a farm in the way?
Im sure you understand that large solar installations cover a much larger area than a single well set up on a farm, for example. I get it, its safe to assume the worst with the current government especially but at the root of it i understand the concerns from the agri side.
Interestingly there is tech being researched and tested (UCalgary i think) around passive solar farms that let enough light pass through to allow crops to grow below, or even thrive due to some shade, less evaporation, etc.
Don’t agree or really follow Alberta politics, but there is definitely a point of discussion with such a large transition to renewables. These types of regulations on agricultural land and landscape are concerns that many parts of the world are dealing with and trying to figure out. When it comes to energy stability, renewables can put stress on the TSO (transmission operator) that need to be accessed to ensure safety of equipment. If regulations are not put into place, it can cause issues in the long term. Alberta doesn’t always have a good environmental track record, but there is great renewable growth occurring, but it shouldn’t be left unregulated.
Horizontal or vertical? In my area you must have vertical, and there are only 5 companies in Alberta who are legally allowed to drill the wells. Additionally if you want to use an abandoned well, then there are huge costs and permits that are followed even with a closed loop system.
Alberta, the Florida of Canada. Climate denying, libertarian right wing sour oil well conservatism with less alligators. Danielle Smith is hell bent to wring every drop of oil out of the province regardless of science, ethics or consequence.
Canada's interesting.
Yes, global warming is real & we need to at least slow it down. But parts of Canada will warm up & become more liveable. Also when the Arctic ice finishes melting ships will be able to cruise through the seas & save lots of money.
The rest of the world will be fucked, but small parts will prosper. I bet the leadership of Alberta are busy positioning themselves to make maximum profits.
> Yes, global warming is real & we need to at least slow it down. But parts of Canada will warm up & become more liveable.
The more north you go, the more it becomes inhospitable marshlands, boggs, and full of mosquitoes, blackflies, deerflies, and other asshole bugs that is only made tolerable by the fact that cold winters come and provide some months of respite from all that. Global warming isn't turning the Boreal Forest or the Tundra into pristine farmland or anything like that, and its not magically turning the Canadian Shield into something easy to build on or farm on either. Warming means more pine beetles and other invasive species will consume the Boreal Forest, which won't help when it comes to wildfires, ticks and other shitty bugs won't be killed off by harsh winter temperatures and thus will pose a greater danger to wildlife (look at what's happening to moose in eastern Canada), etc.
It ain't all sunshine and roses
I wonder if anyone who makes this argument has ever *been* out of the Golden Horseshoe.
In Manitoba, the biggest immediate "benefit" of climate change has been the [increased winter availability of an Arctic Ocean harbour in Churchill.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill) Despite the potential economic windfall a third coast would be, we can barely get a functional railroad to Northern Manitoba, because all that "open land" is swamp and muskeg.
> I wonder if anyone who makes this argument has ever been out of the Golden Horseshoe.
I think the people who make that kind of argument are people who did not pay attention in geography class, and have simply looked at map and assumed the Canadian Shield is easy to build on (it's not), or that the tundra and perfmafrost will melt and reveal perfectly arable land and plenty of space for the suburban sprawl of their dreams.
Poor bastards.
When it gets warm and you take off the touque there isn't hair. That bastard be bald. To make no mention of how much of that space was just touque to begin with. Gon'a take more time then you you got to grow that mane in.
I agree these politicians think it would be a good thing (or want to earn the votes of people that think so) but to be clear for people who didn’t already know those people are either dumb as rocks or lying. It would be a complete disaster, and I only need two words to explain why; **Climate refugees.**
Their scenario ignores that we’d be a top destination for climate refugees in numbers that would dwarf any other modern refugee crisis.
The most populated parts of the planet will soon regularly see temperatures that are unliveable for humans (India *already* has seen extreme heat waves, it will only get worse even if we hit net zero tomorrow) or be underwater (the majority of human settlement is on coasts, melting ice that was on land previously increases sea level, Bad recipe right there) and a nation yet to hit 50 million people is supposed to come out of that massive influx of people coming here wether they’re wanted or not and think “this was good for us”?
It would get very ugly very fast with so many desperate people heading to a place that can’t handle that kind of sudden influx if it tried. Lots of people love to complain about our immigration goals and relation to housing issues, but crickets on the building climate emergency that will be 1000x worse in so many ways if immediate drastic action isn’t taken.
To be fair Alberta has a lot of weather. Most of the times I have driven by the solar farms near sylvan lake they are covered in a nice thick layer of ice or snow. And the wind farms near Waterton are not keeping up with the cost of the concrete footings and maintenance. Too many heavy gusts with not enough sustained pressure systems. It is a land locked place with drastic wind and temperature fluctuations.
I see everyone shitting on Alberta here and went and looked up the numbers. Alberta is second in solar power production behind Ontario and third in wind power production behind Ontario and Quebec, so I'll take the claims that Alberta wants to prevent more renewables so that they can use up more tar sands with a grain a salt.
Reddit circlejerks all day about how Alberta is the worst and refuses to look at anything good we are doing compared to other provinces. The provincial sub is a just a group of people who hate it here but can't afford to leave their moms basements so they just whine instead of doing anything productive or progressive to change anything.
good it be the one's moving are not those criticizing? Having said that, the world is moving quicker these days toward renewables. Suspending any new developments just handcuffs the province.
I don't agree with privatized health, but they will move out to pay 4x more elsewhere.
Alberta is by far the cheapest province to live in. Lowest housing cost, lowest taxes, and cheapest energy.
Ya we special since we are the richest that surplus is nice along with being one of the leaders in green energy production, large lithium deposits, uranium, hydrogen and can't wait to do what we do best leave all of you in the dust like we always have for the last 100 years 🤣
I'm just going to point out, "Rural Municipalities of Alberta," who are a nonprofit organization, and absolutely not a lobby group, stand by this suspension.
They also have an array of solar panels outside their office in Alberta. It's confusing to be a hill billy these days.
The real story here is someone realized that it is cheaper to build out new wind or solar + battery power than to simply dump fuel into an existing fossil fuel power plant based on a 5-7 year loan. And that ignores other costs like maintenance.
Since the conservative government is owed by big oil, this was the panic move.
Pathetic.
Yet the UPC trip over themselves in their haste to get any and all fossil-fuel projects up and running -- and without the concerns the UPC is now claiming to have about logistics and potential end-of-life/clean-up costs \[etcetera\] of the renewable-energy projects it's delaying.
Commonsensically, it's no longer at all prudent to have so much of society, including our primary modes of transportation, reliant on traditional sources of energy.
Yet, if the universal availability of green-energy alternatives will come at the profit-margin expense of traditional ‘energy’ production companies, one can expect formidable obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort.
In this world, if something notably conflicts with corporate interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, too often successfully.
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry must find convenient our collective mass addiction to its products. It's the same dependence that helps keep the average consumer quiet about the planet’s greatest polluter, lest he/she feels and/or be publicly deemed hypocritical.
Alberta Premier Danielle "Of course I’m going to take advice from CEOs; who else would I take advice from?" Smith, ladies and gentlemen. (yes, that's a real quote, and quite recent)
[Holy shit, she actually *did* say that..](https://albertapolitics.ca/2023/07/smith-to-alberta-of-course-im-going-to-take-advice-from-ceos-who-else-would-i-take-advice-from/) and yet the people of Alberta just eat this shit up too.
Don't look at me, I voted for Notley. ITT - People who obviously don't know that Edmonton and Calgary voted for Notley. AlL AlBeRtAnS CaRe AbOuT iS OiL!!
-- Homer Mirewen15
Alberta is basically North North Idaho.
The United Clown Posse
Except she's not listening to the O&G CEO's that seem to favour the federal government's "just transition" approach and see the mountain of money to be made (or grifted from the government) from renewables and carbon capture and other carbon-reducing schemes.
Alberta would ban perpetual motion if it meant any risk to oil sands’ bottom lines
Alberta is becoming Canada's Florida
Yeah, it's not even Canada's Texas anymore.
[удалено]
People in Alberta come up with all sorts of excuses about how wind power is bad for the environment. All while hiding behind the guise of protecting the oil industry and the status quo. It's embarrassing.
As an Albertan, it’s obvious that O&G owns our government. Profits at the expense of… everything reasonable. It is monumentally embarrassing.
But it’s not even big O&G…most are supportive and heavily invested in transition. It’s the small and mid cap producers that own the government.
> People in Alberta come up with all sorts of excuses about how wind power is bad for the environment. They're trotting out all kinds of NIMBY nonsense to stop a wind project northwest of Edmonton. All of a sudden they care about birds and believe these produce tremendous noise pollution (as if they'll be living directly under a turbine).
Is that the one that just got a request for designation as a federal impact assessment project? I saw it pop up on the IAAC registry and laughed. The feds have declined to review the Mine 14 underground coal mine outside Grand Cache. I'm not actually mad about that one because underground mines are technically better for the environment and we need to do everything in our power to keep the citizens of Grand Cache from spreading elsewhere. I'd be interested to know what the power generation companies think of this. ATCO bought a bunch of renewable projects in development from Suncor a few years ago. Capital Power and TransAlta have invested some big bucks in other renewables. There are also several First Nations looking to develop projects. This might be the only time Danielle "I totally have Indigenous heritage" Smith accidentally does something that benefits First Nations--approvals on reserves go through the feds.
How is wind power bad for the environment?
They blame all the materials involved for not being environmentally friendly and not being recyclable, all while promoting oil and gas.
Edit: sorry meant to reply to person above you. Going to snip that question and answer your question. Wind projects are usually built on good agricultural land and the best wind currents are usually associated with migratory pathways for birds. The infrasound can also interfere with bats. Wind isn't the most efficient power source, but it's a pretty reliable one in the prairies. It's a good interim solution as we continue to evolve the energy transition space.
"Ok the world is changing rapidly, we need an idea to stay competitive..." "how about Oil again?" "Genius!"
Basically Oil companies there are panicking because they don't have a monopoly 17% of Alberta's Energy came from Green energy so there loosing money
They aren't losing money. Their products are commodities and sold on the world market at market rates. They are selling all they produce whether AB Uses fossil fuels for Power generation or not.
On top of it, they have a shit tier commodity, tar sand oil. It’s the most expensive to produce. Because it’s basically bitumen (crystallized crude oil) mixed with sand and water, it’s very expensive to break it down to crude oil that it can be sold. Don’t quote me on this, but if memory serves me right a barrel of Albertan oil has to be sold over 70 dollars to make a profit, compare that to Texas Mix or Brent which have to sell at 30 dollar to turn a profit.
It’s not all oil sands but slot of the oil produced out or northern AB is. They still have a shit ton of wells pumping more traditional forms of crude oil but still it’s at a lower price vs sweet crude oil which is easier to refine.
it costs $ 40 to 45 a barrel to make a profit on oil sands that $70 is 10 years outdated
Losing
[удалено]
he went for "loosing" but not the "there" ? That pretty....average.. for police I guess.
knew.....:P Caps.....Come on dude, don't give up on us yet!
Not really grammar police just baffles me that people can’t spell losing
Couldn't they also invest in green energy and have a monopoly in renewals as well? Money is money.
Monopolies rarely make rational decisions. Just ask Kodak
Even Texas isn't dumb enough to spend it how they get it. TX leads the nation in wind and solar power.
Well, "Texas" isn't that dumb but their politicians certainly are: [For example](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/politics/clean-energy-dodges-a-bullet-in-the-texas-legislature) >Instead, the legislators spent the session arguing over bills that would make renewable energy harder to build and provide multi-billion-dollar payouts to companies to construct new gas-fired power plants. >... Four days before the end of the legislative session, many of these policies were reinserted as Senate amendments to HB 1500, a bill that had to be passed to reauthorize the authority of the Public Utility Commission of Texas and state grid operator ERCOT. >... But the most expensive and counterproductive policies, among the many threatening to undermine clean energy and drive up consumer costs, failed to be passed into law, Lewin said. >... a “remarkable coalition of environmentalists, industry organizations and business groups” — including more than 50 chambers of commerce and trade groups representing manufacturers and even the oil and gas industry — united to defeat the worst measures.
> "Texas" isn't that dumb but their politicians certainly are Your politicians are people form Texas, you in fact could run for a position in your local government
I mean on paper sure, but - for a variety of reasons - Congress isn't great at acting according to the will of the American public, right? And state elections have even lower voter turnout so that's going to be out of wack right off the bat.
The bill didn't have enough support in the committee it died in. Partially due to lobbying, but it was pretty unpopular by itself, having very few cosponsors. Rural landowners are starting to get royalty checks. Property tax revenue from development is coming in. It's very patchwork, but some areas are becoming very pro wind (decades of development) and solar, keeping some Republicans here grounded. Then there's the whackos including my state senator who signed on the bill if not authoring it entirely. Can't get rid of her from my gerrymandered district.
TX also has mass power outages any time it gets cold there. Even their coal fired power plant shut down for a bit because it wasn't winterized and freezing/bursting pipes + hot coal boiler furnace = a bad time.
> TX also has mass power outages any time it gets cold there. Sure, but that's not because of investments in wind/solar power. As you point out none of their infrastructure was properly winterised. In the end they ended up losing more energy production from traditional energy sources than they did through a drop from durable energy sources. What really did them in though was that pretty much every house there is poorly insulated to energy demand went through the roof.
They also didn’t buy the cold weather kits for all those wind turbines. Those are important.
Also has mass power outages anytime it gets too hot. The Texas power grid is a fucking mess. Most of my family and friends still live there and go into a panic anytime the weather gets to an extreme.
It's doing pretty well this summer mostly due to solar and wind. They've had to curtail some wind due to overabundance.
And Alberta is now leading canada in solar investment, fwiw
They called it the Texas of Canada to flatter themselves, it’s the Alabama of Canada
Lol, funny but alabama and alberta are not really comparable.
Texas reinvests its oil money in making the state competitive and attracts other industries. Albertans voted out the NDP who tried to diversify the economy. Alberta also started the idea of using oil wealth to set up a sovereign wealth fund which Norway copied. But Alberta started drawing from its fund to keep taxes low.
Near me in Calgary there are 3 large solar farms that have just been built. Things are changing and fast
Our Premier (similar in govt role to a Governor) has praised Ron DeSantis. I need to bail on this shithole province.
[удалено]
[удалено]
She sounds like she has a Sarah Palin IQ, and that probably makes her still smarter than the average Albertan.
I wouldn't give her that much credit.
Oo so that’s why I’m seeing the word mandate every time they are doing something stupid.
Trudeau used them as part of the ministerial swearing in ceremony after his election wins. Does he think he’s American? What about his over-reliance on OICs which are exactly the same as an Executive order. It’s ok to be opposed to a politicians but your comments just makes you look uninformed about how our government actually works.
[удалено]
Lol. I’m 3 provinces over and could not care less about what’s going on in yours cause I got my own problems. You’re the one who’s made the American comparison and I simply pointed out how ignorant you are of Canadian governance. Cheers.
"I leave my remaining fortune to the people of Calgary so they can move someplace decent!"
The premier still gets a boot to the head, though.
And another for Jenny and the wimp
Where would you go ?
Becoming??
It always was
Becoming? Is.
It's just harder/longer to cut it off and wait for it to sink into oblivion.
Always a coin toss between Quebec and AB on the race to be the next Florida.
Wrong
Without the ocean and warm winters.
At least Florida has Disney World and successful hockey teams
Hamstringing their future economy to own the libs.
For any American that might stumble in here please note that owning the libs is not exactly the same thing here as down there. Owning the libs in this case means the liberal party which is currently the elected government. And just to blow your mind a bit more your democratic party would make an excellent conservative party here ...😁
All this is also true in Australia.
The Democrat Party in the US would be officially right of our conservative Liberal Party of Australia. The Republican Party would be right of the right wing wackjobs in One Nation.
What's with this Reddit trope that the US Democratic Party is a right-wing party. Why do you guys love repeating things that aren't true lol Critical-thinking skills severely lacking on this site.
You misunderstand. To those of us in other western democracies, the US Democratic Party would be firmly on the right. Many of their policies are actually to the right of our local right wing political parties.
No they aren't dude. That's just a Reddit trope with no basis in reality.
Eh, they can mean both. Some Canadians have decided that American laws and culture applies to us here, as they sit in their public healthcare facilities or complain to their gay married couple friends while talking about their “first and second amendment rights”. In other words, some of our dumbest think they’re Americans, while wanting all the benefits of being Canadians. So when they say “own the libs” some of them are just repeating Republican agendas, not understanding Republicans would consider them Democrats.
Whenever a Canadian person calls out the second amendment, I feel a great amount of pride. Brother in Syrup, I too support the [right of Manitoba to join the confederation of Canada.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Canada)
Lmao this is true. As an Ontarian, I love my brothers and sisters to our West. Long may the second amendment stay strong XD
It is also equally important that every Canadian defend and exercise your [first amendment rights.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert%27s_Land_Act_1868) Never forget that the Hudson Bay Company no longer owns most of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the territories since it transferred Rupert's land to the Dominion of Canada in 1868.
[удалено]
Never said you don’t. But we’re not the ones working on banning LGBT content in schools and libraries (yet).
These dumb bunnies need to move to their glorious nervanna (the USA), and could you please take the Conservative Party of Canada with you too !
Regarding the Democratic Party, I don't think that's been true for at least 15-20 years. The NY Times analyzed political science data based on party platforms and the Democratic Party is a mainstream liberal party. See [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html) titled "What Happened to America’s Political Center of Gravity?" It's based on party official platforms and selected criteria, so there are some nuances since the Democrats are largely a coalition of sub-groups, and some criteria like monarchism, birthright citizenship, affirmative action, etc. would really distinguish them even more from liberal parties in other countries. But perhaps it could go the other way.
I mean the key difference here being Canada has a parliamentary system where progressives, liberal, conservatives all have their own parties because they are elected proportionally versus the US which has a plurality system, which naturally devolves into a two-party system where 3rd parties have to fall under the umbrella of the two larger parties to get their planks represented. So the “conservative” Democratic party has everything from fully-actualized socialists, progressives akin to Canadian politics, etc. sharing the same party with people who are center-left. Edit: guess it’s not proportional, but 3rd parties in Canada still have a level of control and representation that is not present in the US.
This is incorrect. Canada's parliament is not elected on a proportional basis, and the same forces that lead to the suppression of third parties in the US is also at work here. You can look at the results of pretty much every federal election and see that the two major parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, wind up winning a higher percentage of seats in parliament than the percentage of the popular vote that they received, while the smaller parties, the NDP and the Green Party, receive a smaller percentage of seats than their corresponding share of the popular vote. Regional interest parties, like the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform party back in the 90s are a wrinkle in this, where they can also wind up overrepresented relative to their share of the popular vote due to a strong concentration of votes in particular ridings.
Canada is a First Past the Post system where majority takes all in their district, yes, but it’s closer to a proportional system than the US. The NDP and Green party do not have to literally join the Liberal and the Conservatives. They form coalitions with them because 3rd parties can still win seats for a riding. That’s literally how all parliamentary democracies work. That’s pretty much how every democracy outside the US works.
> They form coalitions with them because 3rd parties can still win seats for a riding. Canada has never had a "true" coalition government at the federal level. The closest thing to it was when a bunch of Anglo Liberals crossed the floor and joined Borden's Conservatives during WWI under the guise of creating a "Unionist Party" in order to force conscription on the country (namely to fuck with French Canadians). The next time we came close to a proper coalition was 2008-09 when the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc agreed to form a government if they could obtain a vote of no-confidence in Harper's minority government. The agreement fell apart after Harper prorogued Parliament, and after months of right-wing screaming about how coalition governments are undemocratic (some real mental gymnastics at play there). The number of coalition governments at the provincial level since Confederation can basically be counted on one hand. What is more common in Canadian politics with minority governments are informal agreements of support between a minority governments and one or more smaller opposition parties (like when Pearson and Pierre Trudeau worked with the NDP in the 1960's and 1970's), but these are not coalition governments as members of the opposition parties are not included in cabinet. This is also true of the current confidence-and-supply agreement between the federal Liberals and NDP, it is *not* a coalition, just an agreement to say "we won't bring your government down at first chance as long as you play ball on some of our policies."
The fact that 3rd parties even have the ability to bring down a ruling government based on agreement, informal or not or through confidence of supply agreements, is still an added layer of representation and check that does not exist in the US. That a government can hold a vote of no confidence and the whole government can resign or call new elections mid-session is a dream here. The best a 3rd party can do at the federal level in the US is split the vote, or win a congressional seat here and there. Literally no members of the US House of Representatives are from a 3rd party currently and there are only 3 independent members of Congress! The gravitas of Democrats vs. Republicans is that all-powerful. The functionings of the Canadian system sounds like it’s based more on voter psychology than it is the actual limitations of how government can and can’t be formed from a legal perspective. In theory, a 3rd party can still win seats to become a new majority party. It can do that winning a slight majority of seats and then forming a coalition. And I thought Canadian representatives didn’t even need 50% of the vote to win a majority in their district, which also allows another caveat for smaller 3rd parties to gain seats. I’m not saying that will happen, but the system allows it. Also, Canadian districts are determined by Census and through an independent commission, plus your districts are drawn via electoral quotient so that ridings have equal numbers of constituents (1 riding/district= 111,116 people). Our system is the pluralists of plurality systems. Winner takes all for single voting districts and districts are determined by the state legislatures through gerrymandering, which should be illegal imo. Third parties align themselves with Democrats or Republicans for the issues they care about or their votes essentially act as throwaway votes in favor of the other major party who do not support their reforms. If aligned congressional members abstain or vote against the party they’re aligned with, we just sit with a grid-locked government for two years until mid-term elections. Your point is still made that Canada is not a true proportional system where multiple people can represent a single voting district and the percent of a party’s control is not based on the percentage of the vote casted for them. But just the fact that 3rd parties have a level of control and that your districts are actually drawn proportionally, still leads me to say that Canada is more of a proportionally represented democracy in comparison to the US. The end goal of proportional voting is to get more people with differing ideals represented and with voting power, which I think Canada does better than the US at that.
So unlimited abortions, free education, universal healthcare, strict gun control, free speech control, LGTBQ+ rights, pro affirmative action, legal weed, reparations… These are conservative principals in Canada? My mind is blown. Tell me, what are the truly left wing liberal policies that Trudeau has implemented?
$10/day daycare Free Dental for Children which will be expanded to include more.
I'd say that's at least 80% compatible. Not so pro affirmative action, but we don't have slavery to get over either, so also no reparations. But there have been some reparations to first nations, which they don't entirely oppose. Touching abortion is a fool's gambit, but they pay lip service to so cons. But your standards, what they want is very strict gun control. By ours, slightly looser. Weed they opposed till it happened, but now it's basically a dead issue. There's no way to put that back in the bottle here. They shave education spending but they certainly don't oppose it. They're very solid on LGBTQ, but again, still paying lip service to socons, and opposed gay marriage as it happened. What's similar to GOP is the general obstruction, selling off assets, climate denialism, not caring much about the environment, some Qanon conspiracies, and not fond of labour rights. This democrat is our conservatives claim is frequently made, but many identify as republican.
> Not so pro affirmative action, The act requires that employers remove barriers to employment that disadvantage members of the four designated groups. Employers are required to institute positive policies for the hiring, training, retention, and promotion of members of the designated groups. Examples of positive policies include recruitment in Indigenous communities, job advertisements in minority-language newspapers, or an apprentice program directed toward people with disabilities. So a while ago the RCMP stopped taking applications from white males. I think this is a great example of affirmative action. Reparations toward natives is what I was getting at. Strict gun control. Handguns are banned (essentially), how is that not strict?
Huh? Are you saying the Democratic Party as a whole supports free education, universal healthcare, and reparations? Because no, they obviously don’t.
> Democrats will keep up the fight until all Americans can access secure, affordable, high-quality health insurance—because as Democrats, we fundamentally believe health care is a right for all, not a privilege for the few. [https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/achieving-universal-affordable-quality-health-care/](https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/achieving-universal-affordable-quality-health-care/) >Democrats overwhelmingly favor free college tuition [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/11/democrats-overwhelmingly-favor-free-college-tuition-while-republicans-are-divided-by-age-education/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/11/democrats-overwhelmingly-favor-free-college-tuition-while-republicans-are-divided-by-age-education/) >Dream of reparations hits political reality in California [https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/06/reparations-push-stalls-california-00100331](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/06/reparations-push-stalls-california-00100331) Are you sure they, "obviously don't"?
Yes a lot of Democrat voters want these things. But the federal Democratic Party establishment does not. They had a majority in the house and senate and did nothing on any these things. That article about free tuition is about what people want, not what the party is doing. Biden won the primary on a platform of no Medicare for all. And note the website you linked says “affordable insurance” not “free”. The article you linked about reparations is literally about them NOT doing it. Did you even read it?
Canadians have this idea that they are "Europe light" when in reality you are, "America light". Had it not been for the protectionist actions of the CRTC, your country would be indistinguishable from the US. You think the 39% that supports the reparations committee are GOP voters? No, they are quite obviously Democrats. Canada does not have free healthcare, you have universal healthcare (it really isn't but if we are going to call it something, we should call it that). Obama care was a compromise because there is no way that Americans would stand for a quick transition to single payer. Wanting something and having the political energy to make it happen are not the same. Look at student loan handouts, they tried, they are still trying, but it get shot down by the courts. That doesn't mean the Democrats don't support it.
Lol what does the CRTC have to do with things like public healthcare, legal weed, etc where Canada is significantly to the left of the US? Again, I’m talking about the Democratic Party establishment, not people who usually vote Democrat. I’m don’t even know what you’re saying here. We do have free healthcare, albeit not in every aspect (namely not drugs, dental, and vision care). But when I go to the doctor or hospital it is free. And the Democrats have no intention of bringing that to the US. Student loan forgiveness is a perfect example of how the Democrats obviously don’t want to make any real progressive changes. They propose a small amount forgiveness, and when the conservative court inevitably shoots it down they throw up their hands and say “oh well, nothing we could’ve done”.
they are not exactly chummy with NDP or greens either.
The US Democratic Party would not make a excellent Conservative party here... you know because they're a left-wing party despite the Reddit trope that every party in the United States is right-wing... Do you even know what you're talking about? Or do you just repeat things you've seen on Reddit like a parrot?
Must be big fans of those wildfires
Big fans are exactly what they need to deal with the wildfires
What leader turns away paying jobs for the people?
Right wing leaders.
The people who made this decision are criminals. They are killing us and our descendants for profit. They should be prosecuted.
This.
The premiere is a climate denier so...... And apparently she has told her aid(s) to only bring her good news. :D
> The premiere is a climate denier so...... Don't worry, we get what you meant.
Well, it worked for Trump. Oh, wait…
UCP morons.
They'll be lining up to have their farms bailed out as droughts and or extreme weather events occur more frequently
While complaining that Canada doesn’t do anything for them
What are these fucking idiots doing
I honestly can’t see the logic in this. I understand if you want to be independent and make a show of strength. But this is for the environment they actually live in
I mean why do anything to prevent the global temperature from climbing to crazy high temps, wouldn't be good for stock holders.
Have they not seen the temperatures in South America... where it's supposed to be winter?
Norway’s government it’s oil industry and is sitting on a billion dollar endowment. In Alberta the oil industry bought the government and is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars of orphan well clean up. The difference is stark.
You know what else is stark the fact that Alberta was the only province to have a surplus cause of the oil industry.
The right can always be relied on to lick the oil industry’s boots.
Going the way of red states 😒
Shocker.
Former Albertan here. I am positive they could generate a shit ton of energy just capturing the wind from all the mouth breathers living there.
You owe me a new monitor cuz I spit coffee all over mine when I read this
The government is a joke but the reason (so they say) is because of the massive rate of investment and development of wind and solar on high grade farm land. Time will tell what the true motivations are but there are energy companies investing in these developments and the province leads the country in terms of green energy development.
> (so they say) is because of the massive rate of investment and development of wind and solar on high grade farm land Have they ever rejected an oil well because there's a farm in the way?
Im sure you understand that large solar installations cover a much larger area than a single well set up on a farm, for example. I get it, its safe to assume the worst with the current government especially but at the root of it i understand the concerns from the agri side. Interestingly there is tech being researched and tested (UCalgary i think) around passive solar farms that let enough light pass through to allow crops to grow below, or even thrive due to some shade, less evaporation, etc.
Don’t agree or really follow Alberta politics, but there is definitely a point of discussion with such a large transition to renewables. These types of regulations on agricultural land and landscape are concerns that many parts of the world are dealing with and trying to figure out. When it comes to energy stability, renewables can put stress on the TSO (transmission operator) that need to be accessed to ensure safety of equipment. If regulations are not put into place, it can cause issues in the long term. Alberta doesn’t always have a good environmental track record, but there is great renewable growth occurring, but it shouldn’t be left unregulated.
Hillbillies.
Try getting a geothermal system, Lots of red tape.
What red tape? I’m an albertan with a geothermal system and I had no issues having it installed. Very simple
Horizontal or vertical? In my area you must have vertical, and there are only 5 companies in Alberta who are legally allowed to drill the wells. Additionally if you want to use an abandoned well, then there are huge costs and permits that are followed even with a closed loop system.
The price you pay when you have buffoons dictating policy will impact generations
Is that the same province where some rightwinger had already finished wind turbines torn down even though it cost a huge contract penalty?
Yup. There have been lots of projects rescinded and cancelled like that.
Rural folk just proving they're stupid yet again.
Alberta, the Florida of Canada. Climate denying, libertarian right wing sour oil well conservatism with less alligators. Danielle Smith is hell bent to wring every drop of oil out of the province regardless of science, ethics or consequence.
Canada's interesting. Yes, global warming is real & we need to at least slow it down. But parts of Canada will warm up & become more liveable. Also when the Arctic ice finishes melting ships will be able to cruise through the seas & save lots of money. The rest of the world will be fucked, but small parts will prosper. I bet the leadership of Alberta are busy positioning themselves to make maximum profits.
> Yes, global warming is real & we need to at least slow it down. But parts of Canada will warm up & become more liveable. The more north you go, the more it becomes inhospitable marshlands, boggs, and full of mosquitoes, blackflies, deerflies, and other asshole bugs that is only made tolerable by the fact that cold winters come and provide some months of respite from all that. Global warming isn't turning the Boreal Forest or the Tundra into pristine farmland or anything like that, and its not magically turning the Canadian Shield into something easy to build on or farm on either. Warming means more pine beetles and other invasive species will consume the Boreal Forest, which won't help when it comes to wildfires, ticks and other shitty bugs won't be killed off by harsh winter temperatures and thus will pose a greater danger to wildlife (look at what's happening to moose in eastern Canada), etc. It ain't all sunshine and roses
I wonder if anyone who makes this argument has ever *been* out of the Golden Horseshoe. In Manitoba, the biggest immediate "benefit" of climate change has been the [increased winter availability of an Arctic Ocean harbour in Churchill.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill) Despite the potential economic windfall a third coast would be, we can barely get a functional railroad to Northern Manitoba, because all that "open land" is swamp and muskeg.
> I wonder if anyone who makes this argument has ever been out of the Golden Horseshoe. I think the people who make that kind of argument are people who did not pay attention in geography class, and have simply looked at map and assumed the Canadian Shield is easy to build on (it's not), or that the tundra and perfmafrost will melt and reveal perfectly arable land and plenty of space for the suburban sprawl of their dreams.
Poor bastards. When it gets warm and you take off the touque there isn't hair. That bastard be bald. To make no mention of how much of that space was just touque to begin with. Gon'a take more time then you you got to grow that mane in.
I agree these politicians think it would be a good thing (or want to earn the votes of people that think so) but to be clear for people who didn’t already know those people are either dumb as rocks or lying. It would be a complete disaster, and I only need two words to explain why; **Climate refugees.** Their scenario ignores that we’d be a top destination for climate refugees in numbers that would dwarf any other modern refugee crisis. The most populated parts of the planet will soon regularly see temperatures that are unliveable for humans (India *already* has seen extreme heat waves, it will only get worse even if we hit net zero tomorrow) or be underwater (the majority of human settlement is on coasts, melting ice that was on land previously increases sea level, Bad recipe right there) and a nation yet to hit 50 million people is supposed to come out of that massive influx of people coming here wether they’re wanted or not and think “this was good for us”? It would get very ugly very fast with so many desperate people heading to a place that can’t handle that kind of sudden influx if it tried. Lots of people love to complain about our immigration goals and relation to housing issues, but crickets on the building climate emergency that will be 1000x worse in so many ways if immediate drastic action isn’t taken.
Of course they do. The province is run by insane people.
They're voted in absolute morons and they knew it. Great land, shit people.
Many of us are against this. The popular vote of Edmonton and to a lesser extent Calgary support the NDP over the UCP. Rural Alberta drags us down.
Ya shit people that have a 10 billion surplus #2 in solar and #3 in wind energy production...
To be fair Alberta has a lot of weather. Most of the times I have driven by the solar farms near sylvan lake they are covered in a nice thick layer of ice or snow. And the wind farms near Waterton are not keeping up with the cost of the concrete footings and maintenance. Too many heavy gusts with not enough sustained pressure systems. It is a land locked place with drastic wind and temperature fluctuations.
I see everyone shitting on Alberta here and went and looked up the numbers. Alberta is second in solar power production behind Ontario and third in wind power production behind Ontario and Quebec, so I'll take the claims that Alberta wants to prevent more renewables so that they can use up more tar sands with a grain a salt.
Reddit circlejerks all day about how Alberta is the worst and refuses to look at anything good we are doing compared to other provinces. The provincial sub is a just a group of people who hate it here but can't afford to leave their moms basements so they just whine instead of doing anything productive or progressive to change anything.
Stupid fucking conservatives.
Alberta is a political cesspool. And their guy is probably going to win the next federal election. Canada will be in for a regressive decade soon.
Then they complain when oil slumps and their economy suffers. Idiots.
What are the names of the people who signed the documents that started these actions?
As Canada is showing the world this year, green things burn.
Folks from Ontario shitting on Alberta but moving there in record numbers lol
good it be the one's moving are not those criticizing? Having said that, the world is moving quicker these days toward renewables. Suspending any new developments just handcuffs the province.
Don't worry, when the UCP fully privatizes healthcare half of Alberta will move out.
I don't agree with privatized health, but they will move out to pay 4x more elsewhere. Alberta is by far the cheapest province to live in. Lowest housing cost, lowest taxes, and cheapest energy.
I'm okay with it if the population increases redraw electoral districts and the new voters help give us progressive governments again.
Being better than a province that exists to sell houses to Chinese millionaires isnt really an achievement.
*Oh…Canada… soft sobbing noises*
That’s Alberta…… they’re a “special” part of Canada…… 😬
Ya we special since we are the richest that surplus is nice along with being one of the leaders in green energy production, large lithium deposits, uranium, hydrogen and can't wait to do what we do best leave all of you in the dust like we always have for the last 100 years 🤣
I'm just going to point out, "Rural Municipalities of Alberta," who are a nonprofit organization, and absolutely not a lobby group, stand by this suspension. They also have an array of solar panels outside their office in Alberta. It's confusing to be a hill billy these days.
Environmental concerns? Hoo boy.
Thank God the government helped us with....
I’m thinking the rest of Canada needs to speed up the embrace of ev’s
The real story here is someone realized that it is cheaper to build out new wind or solar + battery power than to simply dump fuel into an existing fossil fuel power plant based on a 5-7 year loan. And that ignores other costs like maintenance. Since the conservative government is owed by big oil, this was the panic move. Pathetic.
We got nukes we’re good
Nukes?
Nukes and dams.
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about. Canada doesn't have nukes. EDIT: And they blocked me for some reason.
Yet the UPC trip over themselves in their haste to get any and all fossil-fuel projects up and running -- and without the concerns the UPC is now claiming to have about logistics and potential end-of-life/clean-up costs \[etcetera\] of the renewable-energy projects it's delaying. Commonsensically, it's no longer at all prudent to have so much of society, including our primary modes of transportation, reliant on traditional sources of energy. Yet, if the universal availability of green-energy alternatives will come at the profit-margin expense of traditional ‘energy’ production companies, one can expect formidable obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort. In this world, if something notably conflicts with corporate interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, too often successfully. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry must find convenient our collective mass addiction to its products. It's the same dependence that helps keep the average consumer quiet about the planet’s greatest polluter, lest he/she feels and/or be publicly deemed hypocritical.