I know a lot of people who wish they had written this - it comes from a friend who knew I would be interested! I trust many of my Blog readers will find it interesting as well!
The Great Moral Issues of Our Time
By David Michael Green03/10/07 "ICH" -- --
You liberals are such losers.Like His Holiness Reagan used to say, “There you go again!” Even after a quarter-century of us regressives running the country, you still don’t get it.
You can’t tell the difference between what is truly important for this country and what is not. You still can’t distinguish the great moral issues of our time from your petty bleeding-heart concerns.
Oh, I know how you guys think.You’re probably sitting there right now whining about how the massive carnage that is consuming citizens and soldiers in Iraq by the hundreds of thousands is a big deal. Wrong.
You probably think that the ongoing failure of the president to provide adequate armor for the troops he sent to fight in this four year-old war is important. Wrong again.
Or maybe you got yourself all worked up when the horrific treatment our wounded soldiers are receiving at Walter Reed Hospital and elsewhere proved that Bush couldn’t care less about the troops. Still wrong.
I bet you think it’s a big deal that al Qaeda and the Taliban – you know, the folks we said did 9/11 – are regrouping in Afghanistan, and that Osama bin Laden remains a free man five years later. So?
Are you upset again about the loss of jobs in America and the growing pressures on the struggling middle class? We’re not.
How about all the corruption scandals and gross incompetence of George Bush’s crony government? Get over it.
I’ve heard you guys ranting on and on about the mountain of debt we’re leaving for your children to pay off, plus interest, in order to finance our twin extravaganzas of huge tax cuts for the wealthy and a useless war costing $1-2 trillion. What’s wrong that?
Ah, then there’s healthcare! All you whack-job lefty clones seem to think its important to provide decent healthcare for our country, especially the 50 million people who have no coverage whatsoever, a large bunch of whom are children. No doubt Hillary told you to think that, so you did. We say, “Let them eat Band-Aids!”
And don’t go getting a bee in your bonnet just because so many people are suffering and dying needlessly from diseases that could be prevented and treated if only stem cell research was permitted. Do you really think the health of millions is such a big deal?
Please don’t go off again about the destruction of American civil liberties. Man, I hate that. You’re always spouting all those goofy ideas from the Bill of Rights – habeas corpus, right to trial, right to an attorney, protection against torture, search warrant requirements, and everything else you learned about in your fifth grade civics class. Who cares?
And then there’s the Constitution itself – all that stuff about separation of powers, checks and balances, and so on. So you’re all in a lather because the president has secretly appended close to a thousand “signing statements” to congressional bills, declaring all by himself how he interprets those laws, and which parts of them he intends to ignore. But what country can’t benefit from a good stiff shot of monarchism every now and then?
Oh, and please don’t play that tired Katrina card again. You think that the failure to protect, save and restore one of America’s great cities from the ravages of a hurricane is a pretty big deal, don’t you? Christ, you liberals are so sanctimonious! Yadda, yadda, New Orleans. Yadda, yadda, Schmew Orleans.
Or maybe it’s the economic polarization of America that’s got your undies all in a bundle. What’s the difference if the top one percent of the country grows fantastically rich while the rest are stagnant or sinking? That just shows your failure to understand the beauty of our capitalist free market system! What next?
You’re bothered that the Mid-East is in flames? That North Korea has gone nuclear, and that Iran is doing the same while growing in power because we destroyed its rival, Iraq? Typical liberal appeasement naiveté about tough foreign policy questions. Stop talking French, wouldya?
Don’t tell me you’re ashamed that genocide is occurring again while we stand by and do nothing? So what if the same government that moved heaven and earth to “bring democracy to Iraq” can’t be bothered to lift its little finger for Darfur after 400,000 people have been slaughtered?
Enough with the bleeding-heart routine already.
Okay, so it must be global warming, then, right? Ozone Man gets an Oscar and you think that saving the entire planet from vast, lethal and massively expensive environmental destruction is one of the great moral issues of our time, eh? Well, that’s where you’re especially wrong.
See, if you really want to know what matters in the moral universe, you should take your cues from us conservatives, especially those of us from the religious right. We can tell you.And what we say is that the great moral issues of our time are not war, peace, protecting our children, fiscal responsibility, caring for our soldiers or defending the constitution. And especially not pulling the Earth off the planetary grill.
No, the great moral issues of our time are: Your genitals. Yeah, you heard me right. Your genitals.Surprised? You wouldn’t be if you’d been following the news during your lifetime. And especially if you heard what happened just last week.Seems that one of our own by the name of Reverend Richard Cizik strayed off the reservation and got himself in some unexpected trouble.
Unexpected because he is a longtime advocate for the Christian right, now serving as Vice-President for Government Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals.But when the good reverend made the mistake of fretting in public about your so-called global warming, well, we came down on him hard.
No less than those great moral arbiters of our time, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins and Paul Weyrich called for Reverend Cizik to resign if he “cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals”.What are those views? What did they identify as the “great moral issues of our time”? I thought you’d never ask. Opposition to abortion and gay marriage, of course. And “the teaching of sexual abstinence to our children”.
In short, everything to do with your genitals.And I do mean, of course, YOUR genitals. Not ours.
Reverend Cizik was actually supported during this controversy by Reverend Leith Anderson, the new president of the association. Why new?
Seems the old one – a certain Ted Haggard – loved to preach about your sexual morality but had a slightly different agenda when he found himself inside hotel rooms snorting drugs with gay prostitutes.
Kinda like Newt Gingrich, Robert Livingston, Henry Hyde and the others who chased Bill Clinton down for chasing down Monica Lewinsky, while they themselves were fathering children outside their marriages, having serial affairs, and dumping their wives for new ones, as the old ones lay in the hospital, post-cancer surgery.
Kinda like the Catholic dioceses across America that are declaring bankruptcy so they can avoid paying legal claims for all the damage caused by the sexual predators they hired, ignored and protected for decades.Dummies! Don’t they know you’re not supposed to get caught?
Listen, you get a sixer or two of Coors in me and even I’d admit it’s a pretty good rule of thumb that anyone who is publicly obsessed with your sexuality is actually totally freaked out (at least) about their own. But, hey, what’s the point of being a conservative if you can’t be a hypocrite?!
Y’know?You liberals, though – you’re hopeless. You keep thinking that hundreds of thousands of deaths from war and genocide are more important than dudes marrying other dudes.
You keep thinking that preserving democracy is more important than preventing premarital sex. You keep thinking that saving the planet is more crucial than discouraging masturbation.
You keep thinking there are greater and weightier moral issues than what you do with your genitals.But you’re wrong, and our country is falling apart because of all those misplaced priorities Satan got you to believe in.
And Hillary.It’s time to restore the moral greatness of America again. We need a new campaign of sexual authoritarianism to purge this country of our evil influences. We need to purify our precious bodily fluids and refocus our priorities.
Only then can we safely turn to lesser national priorities. Only then can we plot for our next invasion, our next raid upon the treasury, our next abandoned city, our next ignored genocide, our next assault upon the ecosphere.
Sure, all that stuff’s important. But none of it can happen until we first get our moral house in order.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (mailto: dmg@regressiveantidote.net ), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, http://www.regressiveantidote.net/
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Alberta and Quebec are in the Same Fight
Here is our monthly column published March 11, 2007 in LaPresse.
Influential Albertans are following the Quebec election with an especially keen interest, because many of us know this is an axial time in Canadian politics.
Other Canadians provinces need a Quebec government that strongly defines and articulates Quebec’s aspirations, and maintains the robust defence of Quebecois jurisdiction in the face of federal encroachments.
The remarkable political skills of Stephen Harper, the Machiavellian élan with which he ravaged the opposition Liberals – leaving Stephane Dion stunned and defenceless against a barrage of half-truths and innuendoes – shows a prime minister who will do anything necessary to achieve his ends.
And if that means pushing the boundaries on jurisdiction, elbowing aside the legitimate interest of the provinces, who will stop him? Historically, it has been Quebec and Alberta. And that alliance must endure, no matter who forms the next government of Quebec.
We are learning in Alberta that the political stripe of the prime minister doesn’t matter, and it’s not even relevant that he is elected from an Alberta riding. We understand as Quebecers do, that just because the prime minister is from your province doesn’t mean that he will advance your province’s interests. This is still a bit of a shock for us, but we have seen enough to know that Harper is indeed a Canadian prime minister who will relentlessly, even ruthlessly, push the limits of federal power.
Consider the Harper government’s five priorities. Two of them – child care and guaranteed wait times for health care – are purely in provincial jurisdiction. And it’s not as though the priorities were just campaign rhetoric. In February, federal Health Minister Tony Clement tried to force the provinces to committing to guaranteed wait times. Informed of this last-minute effort to coerce a meeting of federal provincial and territorial health ministers, Alberta decided to stay home.
In a similar vein, Harper’s noisy law-and-order agenda, complete with a crude effort to appoint compliant judges, misses a basic point. Federal judicial appointments don’t affect the great majority of cases that come before the courts. In every province, all but the most serious criminal code offences are the jurisdiction of provincial courts, whose judges are appointed solely by the provinces. Moreover, if Harper succeeds in enacting longer mandatory sentences for a broad range of offences, provinces will be left with the cost of building prison space and providing the prison staff. The federal government makes a decision; provinces get stuck with the tab.
Similarly, Harper has been acting directly against Alberta’s interests with his confused approach to China. First Stockwell Day insists Canada is over-run by Chinese spies. Then David Emerson drums up business in China. Just as Alberta is trying to find market alternatives to the United States for its energy supply Harper hints that Chinese investment in Alberta’s energy sector is undesirable and unwelcome. Then he sends Jim Flaherty to go drum up business in China. All the while, Harper declares he will not sacrifice human rights in China to the almighty dollar. A noble sentiment. Yet Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin brought up human rights with Chinese leadership, secured a Canadian role in training judges and improving the rule of law in China, and involved Chinese and Canadian senior officials in monitoring the advancement of human rights. While doing this they expanded the China trade to Alberta’s benefit. Why would an Albertan prime minister throw all of that away?
Alberta has spent three decades of constructive engagement with China, building a patient, careful enduring relationship. This has finally led to the point that China is Alberta’s second largest trading partner. When a fall on the Shanghai stock exchange can cause global markets to dive, when the U.S. continues to borrow $1 billion each day from China to finance its Iraq war and its tax cuts for the richest Americans, we have clear proof of China’s power and influence. Albertans value the adroit and nuanced relationship we built – and the positive influence we have acquired as a result. Now it is imperilled by the Harper government’s reckless grandstanding.
All this has happened with a Harper minority. If he gets a majority, of which he is perfectly capable, who will limit his exercise of federal power? Once again Quebec and Alberta must stand at the ramparts. We ardently hope your election will provide a strong, clear-sighted partner to resist the centralist and centralising impulse of a controlling national government.
Influential Albertans are following the Quebec election with an especially keen interest, because many of us know this is an axial time in Canadian politics.
Other Canadians provinces need a Quebec government that strongly defines and articulates Quebec’s aspirations, and maintains the robust defence of Quebecois jurisdiction in the face of federal encroachments.
The remarkable political skills of Stephen Harper, the Machiavellian élan with which he ravaged the opposition Liberals – leaving Stephane Dion stunned and defenceless against a barrage of half-truths and innuendoes – shows a prime minister who will do anything necessary to achieve his ends.
And if that means pushing the boundaries on jurisdiction, elbowing aside the legitimate interest of the provinces, who will stop him? Historically, it has been Quebec and Alberta. And that alliance must endure, no matter who forms the next government of Quebec.
We are learning in Alberta that the political stripe of the prime minister doesn’t matter, and it’s not even relevant that he is elected from an Alberta riding. We understand as Quebecers do, that just because the prime minister is from your province doesn’t mean that he will advance your province’s interests. This is still a bit of a shock for us, but we have seen enough to know that Harper is indeed a Canadian prime minister who will relentlessly, even ruthlessly, push the limits of federal power.
Consider the Harper government’s five priorities. Two of them – child care and guaranteed wait times for health care – are purely in provincial jurisdiction. And it’s not as though the priorities were just campaign rhetoric. In February, federal Health Minister Tony Clement tried to force the provinces to committing to guaranteed wait times. Informed of this last-minute effort to coerce a meeting of federal provincial and territorial health ministers, Alberta decided to stay home.
In a similar vein, Harper’s noisy law-and-order agenda, complete with a crude effort to appoint compliant judges, misses a basic point. Federal judicial appointments don’t affect the great majority of cases that come before the courts. In every province, all but the most serious criminal code offences are the jurisdiction of provincial courts, whose judges are appointed solely by the provinces. Moreover, if Harper succeeds in enacting longer mandatory sentences for a broad range of offences, provinces will be left with the cost of building prison space and providing the prison staff. The federal government makes a decision; provinces get stuck with the tab.
Similarly, Harper has been acting directly against Alberta’s interests with his confused approach to China. First Stockwell Day insists Canada is over-run by Chinese spies. Then David Emerson drums up business in China. Just as Alberta is trying to find market alternatives to the United States for its energy supply Harper hints that Chinese investment in Alberta’s energy sector is undesirable and unwelcome. Then he sends Jim Flaherty to go drum up business in China. All the while, Harper declares he will not sacrifice human rights in China to the almighty dollar. A noble sentiment. Yet Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin brought up human rights with Chinese leadership, secured a Canadian role in training judges and improving the rule of law in China, and involved Chinese and Canadian senior officials in monitoring the advancement of human rights. While doing this they expanded the China trade to Alberta’s benefit. Why would an Albertan prime minister throw all of that away?
Alberta has spent three decades of constructive engagement with China, building a patient, careful enduring relationship. This has finally led to the point that China is Alberta’s second largest trading partner. When a fall on the Shanghai stock exchange can cause global markets to dive, when the U.S. continues to borrow $1 billion each day from China to finance its Iraq war and its tax cuts for the richest Americans, we have clear proof of China’s power and influence. Albertans value the adroit and nuanced relationship we built – and the positive influence we have acquired as a result. Now it is imperilled by the Harper government’s reckless grandstanding.
All this has happened with a Harper minority. If he gets a majority, of which he is perfectly capable, who will limit his exercise of federal power? Once again Quebec and Alberta must stand at the ramparts. We ardently hope your election will provide a strong, clear-sighted partner to resist the centralist and centralising impulse of a controlling national government.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Stelmach Wants a Triple-Bottom Line Government in Alberta
UPDATE MARCH 11, 2007: There are some interesting comments on this posting on the Blogs Canada site for the E-group section. Many of my postings are also posted there - and all of them are on the Progressive Blogger site too. They are in the link on my Blog.
The First Stelmach Throne Speech is a vast and refreshing departure from the Klein consciousness. Even a quick read of the document shows that Ed really sees a positive role for planned government engagement and his progressive social and environmental credentials shine through. His conservative fiscal values are there too but in the context of conservation and a future forward focus. That in itself differentiates him form the Klein days.
He has embraced that the government has to take an integrated triple-bottom line approach and spirit that shows the environment, social and economic concerns are all interwoven throughout the document. They all tie together and interrelate and the Stelmach Throne Speech illustrates this admirably. This is a very encouraging change to my mind. Yes I am a partisan and a Stelmach fan so what would you expect, I would applaud the speech…right? This speech is such a shift in the right directions that it also makes me feel there is now some real leadership who “gets it” about what a modern government is (and is not), in a comprehensive way I have some reservations and even some criticisms but will detail them in subsequent postings.
The Stelmach social aspects come from concern over integrity and transparency form a Lobbyist Registry to a governance review of Agencies Boards and Commissions. A concern for citizens tied to quality of life around improving primary education and better access to secondary education comes through. The focus on literacy is huge because it excludes people and also undermines our productivity and competitiveness not to mention the safety of workers. The wellness and prevention focus on health also factors into productivity and sustainability of our system and makes individuals more accountable along with the “system.”
The environment is all through the speech and again in an integrated way. The relationship between land, air and water are tied into growth pressures and the need to better steward the environment for government to be active and create certainty through a legislated basis. I was not wowed by the retreat to intensity target for GHG but it is a current reality but it has to be seen as an interim measure not the end goal. I was pleased to see the point taken than government industry and INDIVIDUALS all have to step up their game and commitment levels towards protecting the environment and incentives are in the plans.
The economic aspect was characterized by active government engagement too. The Royalty Review, land-use consultation, with the renewal of the Climate Change efforts, tied to the Water for Life Strategy being deployed are linked eco-econ efforts that add to the economic opportunity in the province within an ecological stewardship. The focus on diversifying the economy and our energy sources, (a link with the environment and the economy too) plus the commitment to address the need for municipal infrastructure ties in the economy the social and the environmental elements. Developing a comprehensive energy strategy that looks are renewables and alternatives including electricity from wind and bio-fuels shows a broader perspective about the future of Alberta is forward thinking and invites innovation. Reducing consumption, conservation and energy efficiency in an Alberta Throne Speech heralds a new consciousness in the province too.
Then you get a long term focus on sustainability and a surplus management policy and a long term strategy for technology commercialization and economic diversification with stated priority areas on energy, information and communications technology plus life sciences shows Ed is pushing adaptation.
The typical trite criticism around “lack of specifics” in throne speeches drives me crazy especially when it comes from politically sophisticated people. Throne speeches are intended to be a philosophical document about what the government sees as important and where it will put its focus. This one is no different but it is a much better document than Alberta has seen in quite some time.
Stelmach has to clean up lots of messes and bad habits left over from the last third of the Klein government. This throne Speech shows he is not only doing that but he has his own ideas and his own vision for the next Alberta. There are going to be some very interesting and exciting times in our Alberta.
The First Stelmach Throne Speech is a vast and refreshing departure from the Klein consciousness. Even a quick read of the document shows that Ed really sees a positive role for planned government engagement and his progressive social and environmental credentials shine through. His conservative fiscal values are there too but in the context of conservation and a future forward focus. That in itself differentiates him form the Klein days.
He has embraced that the government has to take an integrated triple-bottom line approach and spirit that shows the environment, social and economic concerns are all interwoven throughout the document. They all tie together and interrelate and the Stelmach Throne Speech illustrates this admirably. This is a very encouraging change to my mind. Yes I am a partisan and a Stelmach fan so what would you expect, I would applaud the speech…right? This speech is such a shift in the right directions that it also makes me feel there is now some real leadership who “gets it” about what a modern government is (and is not), in a comprehensive way I have some reservations and even some criticisms but will detail them in subsequent postings.
The Stelmach social aspects come from concern over integrity and transparency form a Lobbyist Registry to a governance review of Agencies Boards and Commissions. A concern for citizens tied to quality of life around improving primary education and better access to secondary education comes through. The focus on literacy is huge because it excludes people and also undermines our productivity and competitiveness not to mention the safety of workers. The wellness and prevention focus on health also factors into productivity and sustainability of our system and makes individuals more accountable along with the “system.”
The environment is all through the speech and again in an integrated way. The relationship between land, air and water are tied into growth pressures and the need to better steward the environment for government to be active and create certainty through a legislated basis. I was not wowed by the retreat to intensity target for GHG but it is a current reality but it has to be seen as an interim measure not the end goal. I was pleased to see the point taken than government industry and INDIVIDUALS all have to step up their game and commitment levels towards protecting the environment and incentives are in the plans.
The economic aspect was characterized by active government engagement too. The Royalty Review, land-use consultation, with the renewal of the Climate Change efforts, tied to the Water for Life Strategy being deployed are linked eco-econ efforts that add to the economic opportunity in the province within an ecological stewardship. The focus on diversifying the economy and our energy sources, (a link with the environment and the economy too) plus the commitment to address the need for municipal infrastructure ties in the economy the social and the environmental elements. Developing a comprehensive energy strategy that looks are renewables and alternatives including electricity from wind and bio-fuels shows a broader perspective about the future of Alberta is forward thinking and invites innovation. Reducing consumption, conservation and energy efficiency in an Alberta Throne Speech heralds a new consciousness in the province too.
Then you get a long term focus on sustainability and a surplus management policy and a long term strategy for technology commercialization and economic diversification with stated priority areas on energy, information and communications technology plus life sciences shows Ed is pushing adaptation.
The typical trite criticism around “lack of specifics” in throne speeches drives me crazy especially when it comes from politically sophisticated people. Throne speeches are intended to be a philosophical document about what the government sees as important and where it will put its focus. This one is no different but it is a much better document than Alberta has seen in quite some time.
Stelmach has to clean up lots of messes and bad habits left over from the last third of the Klein government. This throne Speech shows he is not only doing that but he has his own ideas and his own vision for the next Alberta. There are going to be some very interesting and exciting times in our Alberta.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Some Speculation on Stelmach's First Alberta Throne Speech
Alberta’s new Premier Ed Stelmach gets to put his fingerprints all over the Alberta government in his first Throne Speech this afternoon. I will do a review and tonight on the speech itself.
I expect there will be a much more activist Alberta government than has been the case for the past five years of the Klein regime, other than Klein’s penchant for record levels of unbudgeted spending.
What can we expect then? Here are my guesses. The environment will be predominant including a commitment to new GHG emission standards for industry…I bet there will be legislated absolute limits not just volunteer intensity targets. Expect a fed-prov and industry collaboration on a new pipeline to transport captured CO2 and a major sequestration initiative. Mountain Pine Beetle is a new concern that can have devastating impacts on the boreal forest in Alberta so I expect it will get some very serious attention and resources to mitigate and adapt to the new reality.
The social agenda will be important too. I hope for a reference to support for a province wide smoking ban in public and workplaces will be referenced. The social services sector is in dire straits, especially the not-for-profit and private agencies. They can’t recruit, retain and trains staff to meet demands in the full range of needs form day care, children’s services, long term care and disability services. More money to raise wage levels and show a long term commitment to community based delivery of services needs to be identified in the Throne Speech.
A commitment to new technology and innovation supports will be highlighted with some of the surplus funds being dedicated to long term approaches through current and hopefully some new endowment funds.
Health will shift to an emphasis on wellness and prevention and restructuring toward better outcomes.
A new municipal funding model and a more mature intergovernmental relationship between communities and the province will be heralded based on the $1.4B on fresh funds into the infrastructure needs. An aggressive immigration policy to deal with the labour shortage is needed and will have a political commitment from Stelmach.
In summary – I expect an emphasis to show concern over managing growth but not by interfering in the marketplace. Expect to see a new relationship with industry in dealing with the environment in a planned and strategic basis, new money to deal with the public facilities infrastructure deficit at the municipal level mostly but not exclusively. I see a new commitment to dealing with the realization we also have a serious social infrastructure deficit now too that demands more money but also a new relationship with government to deal with problems.
The new Alberta as the nation's economic powerhouse with the related environmental challenges plus the consequences of growth on peoples lives will make for an interesting place to watch and wonder about. It will also be a most interesting place to govern. The next ten years of government dealing with change and growth will make the last ten years of a debt and deficit government look like child's play.
I expect there will be a much more activist Alberta government than has been the case for the past five years of the Klein regime, other than Klein’s penchant for record levels of unbudgeted spending.
What can we expect then? Here are my guesses. The environment will be predominant including a commitment to new GHG emission standards for industry…I bet there will be legislated absolute limits not just volunteer intensity targets. Expect a fed-prov and industry collaboration on a new pipeline to transport captured CO2 and a major sequestration initiative. Mountain Pine Beetle is a new concern that can have devastating impacts on the boreal forest in Alberta so I expect it will get some very serious attention and resources to mitigate and adapt to the new reality.
The social agenda will be important too. I hope for a reference to support for a province wide smoking ban in public and workplaces will be referenced. The social services sector is in dire straits, especially the not-for-profit and private agencies. They can’t recruit, retain and trains staff to meet demands in the full range of needs form day care, children’s services, long term care and disability services. More money to raise wage levels and show a long term commitment to community based delivery of services needs to be identified in the Throne Speech.
A commitment to new technology and innovation supports will be highlighted with some of the surplus funds being dedicated to long term approaches through current and hopefully some new endowment funds.
Health will shift to an emphasis on wellness and prevention and restructuring toward better outcomes.
A new municipal funding model and a more mature intergovernmental relationship between communities and the province will be heralded based on the $1.4B on fresh funds into the infrastructure needs. An aggressive immigration policy to deal with the labour shortage is needed and will have a political commitment from Stelmach.
In summary – I expect an emphasis to show concern over managing growth but not by interfering in the marketplace. Expect to see a new relationship with industry in dealing with the environment in a planned and strategic basis, new money to deal with the public facilities infrastructure deficit at the municipal level mostly but not exclusively. I see a new commitment to dealing with the realization we also have a serious social infrastructure deficit now too that demands more money but also a new relationship with government to deal with problems.
The new Alberta as the nation's economic powerhouse with the related environmental challenges plus the consequences of growth on peoples lives will make for an interesting place to watch and wonder about. It will also be a most interesting place to govern. The next ten years of government dealing with change and growth will make the last ten years of a debt and deficit government look like child's play.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Alberta Is Expected to Do Better on Emissions
Let's Make Alberta Obey!
Another new Ipsos Reid poll begs some interesting questions. We see 68% of Canadians want stricter emission standards for the oil and gas industry in Alberta despite it resulting in “significant increased costs.”
The question is a tad loaded but that is not the big deal. What is a “significant increased cost” mean to Canadians? What will this apply to beyond the obvious of gasoline, home heating oil, and increased airfares to name a few. How much tolerance is there for significance? Is a tripling or quadrupling of costs acceptable? Are those cost burdens necessary to achieve the GHG reductions needed?
What does “stricter emission standards” mean? Could a lessen overall fossil fuel production and therefore less energy? We have seen supply problem for gasoline in the East recently. Perhaps a formal rationing of gasoline where the population is the highest and the densest should be part of the solution.
This question sets up the old paradigm that the environment and the economy are mutually exclusive and in a zero sum game. What is “good” for one has to be “bad” for the other.
We need to revisit this mistaken belief and understand we can have a sustainable economy with enhanced environmental outcomes and do so in a profitable capitalist system based on stewardship as a basis of profitability.
We need some serious research into jsut what the tolerance for GHG emissions and addtional costs for people means to them. What are the value tradeoffs here? Are we on a susatainable course when we find out what this really means?
"I Think I'll Go Out To Alberta, Weather's Good There in the Fall."
The other recent Ipsos Reid poll says about a quarter of all Canadians would move to Alberta for a 25% pay increase. Am I the only one to see the irony in this attitude? Some advice – we welcome you in Alberta if you have a trade or other skill set - and happen to also be a turtle. If you are not bringing your own house it is tough to survive. We are building houses as fast as we can in Alberta but not fast enough…and prices are still soaring.
Another new Ipsos Reid poll begs some interesting questions. We see 68% of Canadians want stricter emission standards for the oil and gas industry in Alberta despite it resulting in “significant increased costs.”
The question is a tad loaded but that is not the big deal. What is a “significant increased cost” mean to Canadians? What will this apply to beyond the obvious of gasoline, home heating oil, and increased airfares to name a few. How much tolerance is there for significance? Is a tripling or quadrupling of costs acceptable? Are those cost burdens necessary to achieve the GHG reductions needed?
What does “stricter emission standards” mean? Could a lessen overall fossil fuel production and therefore less energy? We have seen supply problem for gasoline in the East recently. Perhaps a formal rationing of gasoline where the population is the highest and the densest should be part of the solution.
This question sets up the old paradigm that the environment and the economy are mutually exclusive and in a zero sum game. What is “good” for one has to be “bad” for the other.
We need to revisit this mistaken belief and understand we can have a sustainable economy with enhanced environmental outcomes and do so in a profitable capitalist system based on stewardship as a basis of profitability.
We need some serious research into jsut what the tolerance for GHG emissions and addtional costs for people means to them. What are the value tradeoffs here? Are we on a susatainable course when we find out what this really means?
"I Think I'll Go Out To Alberta, Weather's Good There in the Fall."
The other recent Ipsos Reid poll says about a quarter of all Canadians would move to Alberta for a 25% pay increase. Am I the only one to see the irony in this attitude? Some advice – we welcome you in Alberta if you have a trade or other skill set - and happen to also be a turtle. If you are not bringing your own house it is tough to survive. We are building houses as fast as we can in Alberta but not fast enough…and prices are still soaring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)