|
 avmoor rated 3 months ago - It's not that the bureaucrats in Ottawa, Paris, London, Washington and so forth are deliberately ignoring the wishes of voters. It's just that since they don't know any why second guess what the voters want, when what the oil companies want is so dazzlingly clear?
So public input ...
|
|
1 Reviews
-
-
- avmoor rated 3 months ago
- It's not that the bureaucrats in Ottawa, Paris, London, Washington and so forth are deliberately ignoring the wishes of voters. It's just that since they don't know any why second guess what the voters want, when what the oil companies want is so dazzlingly clear?
So public input at this stage is unnecessary, and their existence unuseful, at least till election time...
Most humiliating for our leaders is the inability even to agree upon the principle that non-binding targets 40 years into the future are A Good Idea.
Instead, even being seen agreeing to agree with each other is just too scary.
This sure looks like panic on the bridge.
From the page:
"The survey indicates many Canadians profess to want environmental actions that push the country toward greener, alternative sources of energy - regardless of cost.
Respondents were given two options: Did they support a more cautious policy approach "so that we don't drive up the cost of fuel and the cost of living even further?" Or would they subscribe to the view that "the rising price of fossil fuels is a reason we must move even more aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. . . ."
Sixty-one per cent said an aggressive approach was more logical, while just 27 per cent said governments should move more slowly in light of the rising costs of oil and gasoline.
.....
Four of five supporters of the Green Party favoured moving more quickly, the most in the poll. But even in oil-rich, Conservative-heartland Alberta, 59 per cent of respondents rejected the premise that rising fuel prices should slow the costly push for greener fuel alternatives."
|
