Do People Actually Believe The World No Longer Needs Oil?

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're right, it is semantic, which is tedious for sure. But then again, much of the current nastiness in the world relies on ill-defined terms like "racist" which now seems to include some sort of hidden, insidious, subconscious bias.

My point simply is that the left typically devolves to mob violence much more regularly than the right. The US was basically burned down in June due to leftist nastiness, to cite but one example amongst many. CHAZ was certainly a marxist commune of sorts. I could go on. Look at the all of the cases of violent civil unrest in the past, say, 50 years...and tell me that the trend isn't there. Sometimes it's worth not trying to have a discussion which is designed to create some sort of zero sum game - "my side has dummies and your side as dummies. It's all two sides of the same coin!". It isn't all equal in every regard, and this is one of those. Leftist violence is, to put it simply, more mainstream.

Dude, my initial post was meant to highlight that scrubbing your argument clean when convenient isn't a fair argument. You don't get to say ANTIFA is leftist but then shoot down the "alt right", kkk, etc. that are the equivalent on the right. Effectively, you're setting rules around what is/isn't acceptable as an outlier. It doesn't work like that and it doesn't aid your point; everything else you're saying is based on that assumption.

Then you're calling out extreme actions (Chaz, the US being "burned down") and conflating them with normalcy/acceptance from the left, but again, that same argument can easily be made on the right. Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly (err, talking eloquently with verve in your case) doesn't change that.

It sucks that you and Mr. Who Gives a Shit have to contend with nazism/etc. being used as a comparison. Perhaps if it wasn't part of the problem right now it wouldn't be used as a comparison.

I am not disagreeing with you that extremist bullshit is a problem or that the left is incapable of it. I am challenging your "softening" of your political skeletons and calling out that simply reiterating your main point isn't making those skeletons go away. If you're going to have a conversation and reference recent events and notable parties involved, you don't get to declare some valid and others invalid. The reality is what it is and you have to own that.

[Buster]

But that IS my point. You're drawing a false equivalence, not a valid one.

Let's suppose for a moment that the KKK/nazis are an unfortunate feature of the right (I don't agree with this, but let's go with it). When was the last time the KKK took over a chunk of a city? When was the last time that people spray painted KKK on their boarded-up business to avoid mobs vandalizing them (like people did with BLM)? When was the last KKK riot? Charlottesville perhaps fits the bill as that was white nationalists - although that required anti-protestors to really get going.

When was the last time protestors threatened a left-wing speaker at a university, like regularly happens with Ben Shapiro, or Milo in 2017 in Berkeley. Seattle G20 riots. Bret Weinstein was attacked by violent leftists when he dare to show up on the Evergreen campus as a white person.

But that's my point, social unrest and violence is a tool that is predominantly used by the left. That's not to say all progressives are violent, just that when violence is utilized as a political tool, it's almost -but not exclusively- used by the left.

[Lex350]

r/calgary and r/alberta are toxic places full of angry little boys who haven;t detached from mamma's teet! Ignore those places.

[01RedDX]

.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But that's my point, social unrest and violence is a tool that is predominantly used by the left. That's not to say all progressives are violent, just that when violence is utilized as a political tool, it's almost -but not exclusively- used by the left.

That's because the right doesn't fight for social change. It fights to preserve social order (or will fight to restore an older one, reactionaries are very violent). When the right uses violence as a political tool, it is mostly in the form of police and military intervention.

[msommers]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My point simply is that the left typically devolves to mob violence much more regularly than the right...Leftist violence is, to put it simply, more mainstream.

I can sort of agree with this but with a massive asterisk attached.

*Fundamental societal changes have resulted from 'Lefist mob violence'.

Naturally, 'Right mob violence' has been the counter-point of those changes. Almost ironically so, from individuals wanting pure and uninterreupted Rights and Freedoms to govern themselves and their community.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can sort of agree with this but with a massive asterisk attached.

*Fundamental societal changes have resulted from 'Lefist mob violence'.

Naturally, 'Right mob violence' has been the counter-point of those changes. Almost ironically so, from individuals wanting pure and uninterreupted Rights and Freedoms to govern themselves and their community.

I don't think the phenomenon is an accident. Even non-extreme forms of progressivism/leftist require that people conform to the requirements of the group - after all collectivism doesn't work if you can opt-out. In other words violence isn't just a feature of the Left, it's basically a requirement. This is why Leftist regimes are almost always violent towards their own citizens. China is an obvious example at the moment but history bears this out over and over again. But on a smaller scale, you must coerce people into conforming - and if propaganda doesn't work, then violence isn't too far behind. This is also why the left adopts the notion that words can be violent (which is nonsense), and its even more extreme cousin - "silence is violence".

It's really the fundamental difference between "positive" rights and "negative" rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...ositive_rights

[ZenOps]

Left leaning policies are very population expansionist. Europe has not adopted as many left leaning policies, hence - much smaller overall population. Right leaning expansion is almost always away from home: IE bomb Vietnam, and not "invade Beverly Hills" when arguably, if you truly believe in capitalist "I do whats best for me", they should be invading Beverly Hills.

These protesting looters are the epitome of capitalist "do whats best for me, opportunistic looting" I don't see it any other way.

Why do left leaning societies have extra hate on their own populace instead of dropping a million tons of napalm on other nations? Exactly because of non-capitalism. Sure you could invade the USA, but if your primary goal is *not* to loot every shop along the way - then its not really a reason to fly halfway around the world to go on a rampage.

Which is better? Neither if you ask me. Both are soon to be obsolete in the face of the AI.

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

when arguably, if you truly believe in capitalist "I do whats best for me", they should be invading Beverly Hills.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9567636.html

Too bad for that lol

[CompletelyNumb]

I probably lost 5k karma in downvotes during the last municipal election on r/Calgary

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think the phenomenon is an accident. Even non-extreme forms of progressivism/leftist require that people conform to the requirements of the group - after all collectivism doesn't work if you can opt-out. In other words violence isn't just a feature of the Left, it's basically a requirement. This is why Leftist regimes are almost always violent towards their own citizens. China is an obvious example at the moment but history bears this out over and over again. But on a smaller scale, you must coerce people into conforming - and if propaganda doesn't work, then violence isn't too far behind. This is also why the left adopts the notion that words can be violent (which is nonsense), and its even more extreme cousin - "silence is violence".

It's really the fundamental difference between "positive" rights and "negative" rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...ositive_rights

I kept seeing people referring to a "reputation" system on this forum. Just gave out my first one.

[msommers]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think the phenomenon is an accident. Even non-extreme forms of progressivism/leftist require that people conform to the requirements of the group - after all collectivism doesn't work if you can opt-out. In other words violence isn't just a feature of the Left, it's basically a requirement. This is why Leftist regimes are almost always violent towards their own citizens. China is an obvious example at the moment but history bears this out over and over again. But on a smaller scale, you must coerce people into conforming - and if propaganda doesn't work, then violence isn't too far behind. This is also why the left adopts the notion that words can be violent (which is nonsense), and its even more extreme cousin - "silence is violence".

It's really the fundamental difference between "positive" rights and "negative" rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...ositive_rights

If you feel that those are negative characteristics that make up The Left, what negatives makes up The Right?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you feel that those are negative characteristics that make up The Left, what negatives makes up The Right?

There's lots, although I don't pretend to assume that the right and left are equally balanced in their sins. For the most part I consider leftist ideologies to be more dangerous than right-ist ideologies, although there is something to be said about the matter of degree.

- tendency to devolve into crony-capitalism
- hypocrisy with respect to personal freedoms (see: abortion)
- tend to favour religious institutions
- tendency to over-simplify complex economic issues
- tendency to be interventionist in foreign affairs
- pretends to want lower deficits, but not willing to bite the bullet

I'm sure I could think of more.

[ThePenIsMightier]

I had a teacher that taught us the whole "Left/Right" thing isn't a ruler - it's a circle. (Maybe this is more common teaching/knowledge, now so my apologies if this isn't eye-opening.)
The concept is that generally speaking, right/left are far apart; however, as you move to what many would consider extremism on either end, the net result is that they are almost touching because you can't have either without a hostile, totalitarian govt with intense military. And when you look at Stalin compared with Mussolini, you've really got the citizens in the same basic place, even though their ideologies couldn't be father apart.
More modern examples? These SJW LgBtQ-MoUsE fuck wads are demanding govt instruct/legislate me on how to address them while the ultra capitalist nut jobs control trade and force Canada to get fucked and change NAFTA.
It's no longer reasonable discourse. It's a political power struggle based on the hate for the other group's view.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I had a teacher that taught us the whole "Left/Right" thing isn't a ruler - it's a circle. (Maybe this is more common teaching/knowledge, now so my apologies if this isn't eye-opening.)
The concept is that generally speaking, right/left are far apart; however, as you move to what many would consider extremism on either end, the net result is that they are almost touching because you can't have either without a hostile, totalitarian govt with intense military. And when you look at Stalin compared with Mussolini, you've really got the citizens in the same basic place, even though their ideologies couldn't be father apart.
More modern examples? These SJW LgBtQ-MoUsE fuck wads are demanding govt instruct/legislate me on how to address them while the ultra capitalist nut jobs control trade and force Canada to get fucked and change NAFTA.
It's no longer reasonable discourse. It's a political power struggle based on the hate for the other group's view.

It's more efficient to simply utilize a separate axis (or replace the left/right one), with an axis that has "authoritarianism" on one end and "libertarianism" on the other end.

In my view, the world makes a lot more sense if you view almost any issue in a way that you can place it on such an axis instead of left/right.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's more efficient to simply utilize a separate axis (or replace the left/right one), with an axis that has "authoritarianism" on one end and "libertarianism" on the other end.

In my view, the world makes a lot more sense if you view almost any issue in a way that you can place it on such an axis instead of left/right.

That's why they have the Nolan chart. To show all spectrums

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

[Power_Of_Rotary]

Question: What would happen if new oil production stopped today? Would the impact be as significant as Covid19? Based on the current reserves, will it be enough time to accelerate clean/alternatives? Similar to Digitalization, Covid19 forced the inevitable of moving away from traditional workplace, buying/selling, etc.

Humans are very resilient and will find away to adapt to changes. I believe oil will still relevant for a long time not because of "need", but because people do not change quickly unless they have too.

[ZenOps]

The main problem with moving away from oil is that oil is a utility more than electricity is. Those who own utilities never give the opportunity for the general populace to be able to "learn to catch their own fish".

There have no doubt been sabotages of the electric car by the oil industry over a period of decades if not near century. If everyone had 1 ton of silicon solar panel instead of 1 ton of combustion engine, technically they would never need to pay every day to buy oil. Oil is a system of control.

The running joke was that if you graduated from U of C engineering and even mentioned you were working on building an electric car, you would immediately be blacklisted. Its not a joke.

[Neil4Speed]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I just made the mistake of discovering the Alberta and Calgary subreddits.

I'd consider myself to be a very environmentally conscious person but I am also realistic about the fact that the world consumes around 100 million bopd and that's not going to change anytime soon. I'm not "pro" oil and gas per se, but I do think Alberta is one of the most regulated and ethical producers in the world (which is concerning, in itself).

I couldn't believe the amount of hate I receive for those views on Reddit. It seems that fossil fuels are no longer acceptable to the majority of people there whatsoever and that Alberta should shutter its oil and gas industry and "diversify the economy". I realize that Reddit is an echo chamber but I honestly don't see any way for Albertans to sustain their lifestyle or for the government to fund any social programs without energy revenues and jobs. I am unclear what Alberta could actually "diversify" into to replace direct and indirect revenues from O&G production to sustain its budgets.

The majority of Alberta's revenues are currently from Income and other Taxes (~$22-23 billion). I would expect a large percentage of those taxes are paid by people or companies directly or indirectly compensated by Alberta's energy industry. The next revenue source (after transfer payments from the Feds back to Alberta) are ~$5-7 billion.

Are there any realistic plans for how Albertans will maintain their quality of life without fossil fuel production?

Given the UCP's mis-steps, populist movements, and the current state of global politics, I would not be surprised if the "Reddit mentality" drives the future of Alberta politics. I don't live in Alberta anymore but it's all a bit frightening to watch.

Does anyone actually have a coherent plan for what Alberta would look like with the phase-out of O&G? Am I over-estimating the power of the Reddit demographic on the future of Alberta?

I agree with you completely... and the biggest thing that I find frustrating is that, I am totally OK if you don't believe in O&G for XYZ reason, but you have to realistically say what the alternative is, otherwise what does it matter.

For example, this is, in my opinion a fair position to take (although obviously I disagree):

"I don't belive that we should continue to prop up the reliance on this industry, its bad for the environment and the cyclicality causes soci-economic issues. I am OK with the fact that life won't be the same as we know it, and we are going to have to cut back on education, social programs, roads etc, but its a pain we need to feel to drive the ingeniuty to come up with a different solution"

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Question: What would happen if new oil production stopped today? Would the impact be as significant as Covid19? Based on the current reserves, will it be enough time to accelerate clean/alternatives? Similar to Digitalization, Covid19 forced the inevitable of moving away from traditional workplace, buying/selling, etc.

Humans are very resilient and will find away to adapt to changes. I believe oil will still relevant for a long time not because of "need", but because people do not change quickly unless they have too.

Limiting supply would help drive up the price of oil which would of course make alternatives more economic.

I still struggle with the marketing of "clean" energy. Perhaps wind, solar, and electric cars produce less GHGs but the mining, manufacture, shipping, installation, and disposal of all the materials is anything but clean, particularly when considering the environmental footprint of replacing existing vehicles and infrastructure with completely new infrastructure.

I believe the "greenest" approach would actually be a mix of fossil fuels (NG in particular) and wind/solar but as there are a multitude of variables to consider the determination of what makes the most sense will be very regional and market dependent.

The biggest impact would actually be to decrease energy consumption but given the affordability and use of energy is directly linked to economic growth, governments seem to only pay lip service to quantifiable reductions.