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.”

  • undercrust@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 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.

  • psvrh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    14 hours ago

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

    • SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 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.)

                • Kichae@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  37 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?

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    14 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@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      13 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).