The Alberta NDP government wants your input into climate change! Survey here!
h/t Robert
64 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: A Climate Change Survey Goes Horribly Wrong”
I told them in the comments that if they really wanted to lower emissions, they’d be promoting nuclear for Alberta; and in the final comment dared them to take all of Alberta’s hospitals off the main power grid and have them powered entirely by solar and wind if they really believed those options work.
Not happy about the ranking question not having a “none of the other options” option so I put them in least-offensive order with the “encouraging insulation”-type of answer as the top one and “taxing the crap out of ‘polluters'” one last. Still, at least a few of the other questions gave you a “refuse to answer” option that I exercised once for a no-good-options question.
“Every proposal mentioned will raise the cost of energy. Suppose the government just got out of the “tell them all what to do so we can feel better about ourselves” business? What then? Maybe people would insulate their own houses on their own dime? You see, if it really were cheaper to be energy efficient we would already be doing it! Absent government subsidies and controls over production, price and usage, the marketplace might well surpass the efficiency of the State in accomplishing efficiency, conservation and diversification. But then, you wouldn’t have anything to do, would you. That sounds like a feature to me!”
Even though I am merely a Montanan, I figured since I regularly have to deal with crazy Alberta drivers on I-15 between the border and Great Falls that I deserved to take the survey. They won’t like my responses and I resisted making any additional comments in the interests of Canada/USA relations.
I noticed they didn’t have any questions about the Keystone XL pipeline …
Why would sane person who’s ever lived in Alberta be against global warming? Seems like it would be rather pleasant, actually.
NeoLuddite; Thank you for your clearly described Hegelien Dialectic process;
Approaching the survey, with a probably faint hope my answers will move beyond the 15% level; I tried to bring the question of abandoning the Alberta Ordinary Citizen as Sovereign. Entering into negotiations with any other Province by Alberta, particularly with “Have-Not” Provinces like Quebec and Ontario, is breaking the Alberta Social Contract with Albertans and ultimately with All Canadians.
The Regional Tax Distribution System, which previously created a hardship for Ontario’s Ordinary Citizens and still does for Alberta’s Ordinary Citizens, must be at the base of all inter-provincial negotiations. Any “Have-Not” Province,, particularly when negotiating with a “Have” Province must lay on the Table the process which will be undertaken to move from a “Have-Not” Province to a “Have” Province.
Whether the “Have-Not” Province wishes to contiue with a Hegelien Dialectic process, as NeoLuddite proffered, to fool and/or bully their Sovereign Citizens is up to the “Have-Not” Provincial Government in power. It is up to any other “Have-Not” and especially a “Have” Province to ensure their Provincial Citizens will find a lessening of the oppressive Taxes required to fund the less-capable Provincial “Have-Not” Governments.
“I repeat. Alberta did not vote for the NDP…”
You’ll have a hard time convincing Rachel. 😉
Totally agree – if anyone was under any illusion that this NDP government was not going to lay on extreme carbon taxes in some form or another, they need to think again. It’s clear from this survey that their minds are already made up.
Totally agree – if anyone was under any illusion that this NDP government was not going to lay on extreme carbon taxes in some form or another, they need to think again. It’s clear from this survey that their minds are already made up.
Wynnne in Ont went through a similar exercise, paying no attention whatever to comments not fitting the ideological party line. I suspect this survey will be similar.
My comment on last page of Survey: The media conveys there is scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is well-established fact. This is not the case. The science is incredibly complex. Our technical understanding is still evolving. The IPCC predictive models poorly match actual data regarding storms, temperature, sea level etc.
The issue is also highly polarized and politicized, a dangerous thing when addressing critical issues since solutions to polarized problems are often imbalanced. Our course of action must be balanced to match this level of uncertainty.
Regardless of the debate, fossil fuel use is not sustainable and wisdom dictates we should use resources in increasingly efficient and responsible manner while developing alternative energy sources. I’m afraid that unbalanced climate change policy will weaken our economy. Money earmarked for unreasonable climate change initiatives would be better spent cultivating R&D of increased energy efficiency, new technologies, and safe nuclear
My final comment:
This is not a survey. This is an attempted justification for more taxes, more gov’t regulation, more subsidies for cronyist “green” donors. Absolutely despicable. Notley should take a lesson from Redford. We threw her out over lousy gov’t aircraft mis-use. How long do you think she will last destroying our incomes?
NOTE right hand side near the top on the survey.
You can click on “get involved”. From there you email the panel direct.
No need to fill out the survey to kick em so hard they will be wearin’ asses for hats.
I pointed out that issue with question 14 along with a few other statements to Joe Feces. He’ll see by the postal code that he is the MLA for my riding but, obviously, won’t care what I have to say. Can’t wait to get these SOB’s out of office. Unfortunately the damage will be so severe that this province (and likely the entire country) will never recover.
Thanks for finally talking about >Y2Kyoto:
A Climate Change Survey Goes Horribly Wrong – Small Dead Animals
I told them in the comments that if they really wanted to lower emissions, they’d be promoting nuclear for Alberta; and in the final comment dared them to take all of Alberta’s hospitals off the main power grid and have them powered entirely by solar and wind if they really believed those options work.
Not happy about the ranking question not having a “none of the other options” option so I put them in least-offensive order with the “encouraging insulation”-type of answer as the top one and “taxing the crap out of ‘polluters'” one last. Still, at least a few of the other questions gave you a “refuse to answer” option that I exercised once for a no-good-options question.
“Every proposal mentioned will raise the cost of energy. Suppose the government just got out of the “tell them all what to do so we can feel better about ourselves” business? What then? Maybe people would insulate their own houses on their own dime? You see, if it really were cheaper to be energy efficient we would already be doing it! Absent government subsidies and controls over production, price and usage, the marketplace might well surpass the efficiency of the State in accomplishing efficiency, conservation and diversification. But then, you wouldn’t have anything to do, would you. That sounds like a feature to me!”
Even though I am merely a Montanan, I figured since I regularly have to deal with crazy Alberta drivers on I-15 between the border and Great Falls that I deserved to take the survey. They won’t like my responses and I resisted making any additional comments in the interests of Canada/USA relations.
I noticed they didn’t have any questions about the Keystone XL pipeline …
Why would sane person who’s ever lived in Alberta be against global warming? Seems like it would be rather pleasant, actually.
NeoLuddite; Thank you for your clearly described Hegelien Dialectic process;
Approaching the survey, with a probably faint hope my answers will move beyond the 15% level; I tried to bring the question of abandoning the Alberta Ordinary Citizen as Sovereign. Entering into negotiations with any other Province by Alberta, particularly with “Have-Not” Provinces like Quebec and Ontario, is breaking the Alberta Social Contract with Albertans and ultimately with All Canadians.
The Regional Tax Distribution System, which previously created a hardship for Ontario’s Ordinary Citizens and still does for Alberta’s Ordinary Citizens, must be at the base of all inter-provincial negotiations. Any “Have-Not” Province,, particularly when negotiating with a “Have” Province must lay on the Table the process which will be undertaken to move from a “Have-Not” Province to a “Have” Province.
Whether the “Have-Not” Province wishes to contiue with a Hegelien Dialectic process, as NeoLuddite proffered, to fool and/or bully their Sovereign Citizens is up to the “Have-Not” Provincial Government in power. It is up to any other “Have-Not” and especially a “Have” Province to ensure their Provincial Citizens will find a lessening of the oppressive Taxes required to fund the less-capable Provincial “Have-Not” Governments.
“I repeat. Alberta did not vote for the NDP…”
You’ll have a hard time convincing Rachel. 😉
Totally agree – if anyone was under any illusion that this NDP government was not going to lay on extreme carbon taxes in some form or another, they need to think again. It’s clear from this survey that their minds are already made up.
Totally agree – if anyone was under any illusion that this NDP government was not going to lay on extreme carbon taxes in some form or another, they need to think again. It’s clear from this survey that their minds are already made up.
Wynnne in Ont went through a similar exercise, paying no attention whatever to comments not fitting the ideological party line. I suspect this survey will be similar.
My comment on last page of Survey: The media conveys there is scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is well-established fact. This is not the case. The science is incredibly complex. Our technical understanding is still evolving. The IPCC predictive models poorly match actual data regarding storms, temperature, sea level etc.
The issue is also highly polarized and politicized, a dangerous thing when addressing critical issues since solutions to polarized problems are often imbalanced. Our course of action must be balanced to match this level of uncertainty.
Regardless of the debate, fossil fuel use is not sustainable and wisdom dictates we should use resources in increasingly efficient and responsible manner while developing alternative energy sources. I’m afraid that unbalanced climate change policy will weaken our economy. Money earmarked for unreasonable climate change initiatives would be better spent cultivating R&D of increased energy efficiency, new technologies, and safe nuclear
My final comment:
This is not a survey. This is an attempted justification for more taxes, more gov’t regulation, more subsidies for cronyist “green” donors. Absolutely despicable. Notley should take a lesson from Redford. We threw her out over lousy gov’t aircraft mis-use. How long do you think she will last destroying our incomes?
NOTE right hand side near the top on the survey.
You can click on “get involved”. From there you email the panel direct.
No need to fill out the survey to kick em so hard they will be wearin’ asses for hats.
I pointed out that issue with question 14 along with a few other statements to Joe Feces. He’ll see by the postal code that he is the MLA for my riding but, obviously, won’t care what I have to say. Can’t wait to get these SOB’s out of office. Unfortunately the damage will be so severe that this province (and likely the entire country) will never recover.
Thanks for finally talking about >Y2Kyoto:
A Climate Change Survey Goes Horribly Wrong – Small Dead Animals