For anyone who hasn't followed Cdn and Albertan climate policy for the past 30 yrs, and who is listening to the raving of the right-wing press and UCP about the appt of @s_guilbeault & proposed caps on oil sands emissions . . . 1/
AB govts, in lock step with oil & gas corporations and their industry associations and big business associations like the Canadian Business Council have been obstructing meaningful action on GHG reduction since the words "Kyoto Protocol" were first pronounced. 2/
Ab's GHG emission reduction strategy is reducible to a technology fund, much of whose revenue is recycled to large emitters. The so-called "cap" on emissions from the oil sands permitted emissions to RISE rather than requiring them to fall. 3/
In exchange for *promises* that R&D investment will yield CCUS/CDR technologies that will reduce emissions from the oil sands by net zero by 2050 (when no politicians alive today will be in office) they demand the right to extract & export bitumen at current or higher volumes. 4/
Does anyone see a problem with that? Even if production emissions can be reduced by half by 2030 and to zero by 2050 (by which time the Q will be moot, or we'll be fried), there is still the problem of emissions at the consumption end. 5/
AB & Cdn "climate" policy remains mostly silent about this reality, and what it means for the viability of human and other life on Earth. Production emissions are a huge problem, but so is the PRODUCT. 6/
That is why we must plan the phasing out of oil & gas *extraction and exports* and build an economy for Albertans and everyone else that meets our needs and is ecologically sustainable. 7/
Postmedia columnists and UCPers can shriek as much as they like about not being consulted, AB's "raw deal," or the "radicalism" of M, Guilbeault, & demanding applause for their investment in CDR--like kids who were told the show was over in an hr and are now having tantrums. 8/
No one--outside of the UCP, CAPP, & their clients, cronies, and apologists--is listening. We're tuned to other channels, where people are discussing real solutions for oil & gas sector workers, for Indigenous communities, for all our relations, for the generations to come. 9/
As for the @abndpcaucus, it's time to exercise some real leadership, working with civil society and the federal govt, to develop a green transition plan for Alberta. #Alberta deserves better than UCP and UCP-Light when it comes to a vision for our future. 10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A university is not a business. A university is part of the public education system. It does not compete for clients. The role of the PSE system is, firstly, to offer Albertans the educational opportunities they need. 1/ #abpse#abpoli@uasupresident thegatewayonline.ca/2021/10/editor…
When politicians and their board appointees get this into their heads, they will stop increasing tuition fees on the lame grounds that @UAlberta needs to "compete" or that PSEIs should not be government-funded. 2/
For what, or whom, are we supposedly competing? Can any of the board members who voted for the fee increases answer that question? Can the president--who uses such language frequently--answer this question? 3/
We all know that the Allan Inquiry was just a way for the UCP/CAPP govt to reinforce its msg that the interests of the O&G corps and the interests of Albertans are identical. 1/
Hence, whatever frustrates the profit-making projets of Enbridge, TC, Shell, Cenovus, et al. is "anti-Albertan" (could not possibly be in the interests of Albertans). 2/
Being propaganda, it lacks any sense of irony. Recommendation #1 ("Transparency and Accountability"), e.g., is like stand-up comedy for anyone who follows AB govt spending on promotion of the oil sands. 3/
2/ UAlberta wasn’t created overnight; it was built into a top 5 Canadian university by decades of public investment. It is the people’s university, and the people have every right to the best educational opportunities available.
3/ I’m not going to sugar-coat it: @UAlberta is being dismantled. A whole lot of parts are being taken out and tossed away.
Mary Ann Hitt reminds us that 12 yrs ago, climate & env health activists were told that the US would also be reliant on coal for electricity--just as we are told today that demand for oil will continue to grow. 2/n
The US relied on coal for 50% of its electricity. Today, that figure is down to 20% and falling. It can be done, when there is political will to mobilize the necessary resources. 3/n
This is hugely important policy intervention, and one that I support. The Kenney govt and the oil and gas industry are lobbying the Liberal govt for a $30 BILLION subsidy for CCS R&D & implementation. 1/n @JonathanWNV@cafreeland@350Canada@CCPA_BC
For the past 20 years, CCS and technology development, more generally, has been the central pillar of the "climate" policy of AB govts and big business. Why? 2/n
This promise of future technological "solutions" permits govts to avoid making needed economic reforms and investments now. 3/n