I'm under no illusions that this will change any minds, or even that people will actually watch the thing, but this is a good debate between both sides of the "Carney's playing 3-D chess" argument.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Energi Media has been on my radar for a couple of months now. They tend to have interesting takes on Alberta politics, as proponents of clean energy. I'll definitely check out their perspective on this. Thanks for the heads up!

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

meh...they use Facebook for comments.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

I was just talking about the Youtube channel, but maybe he'll reach some of the boomers there at least.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't really buy the hosts arguments, feels like they're grasping at straws. I think Max has the better take on this, but also overly apologetic to a fantasy environmentalist Carney.

Carney is not calling a bluff nor betting that electrification will "win anyway", he's willingly giving Alberta what they're asking for even though it's not a great idea so that Smith can piss off. That's not environmental politics chess, it's basic "pick your battles".

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I would have agreed with you completely up until last week, when he gave the project to a Crown corporation.

Simply removing federal resistance and letting Smith try and fail to find a company willing to build the thing seemed smart.

This new approach...I'm not so sure.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah but this isn't cheap, he isn't just "simply letting Smith try and fail", he's committing federal funding for that folly. So it's not that smart, as if it would cost nothing to say "yeah sure go ahead", he's willing to throw money into the fire to build the pipeline, and the pipeline doesn't really need to be necessary to be built, it just needs funding and the contractors to run the pipes.

The only way he "wins" this game is in the case where the pipeline actually doesn't get built, but I wouldn't bet on that, regardless of the pipeline being necessary or a good investment. Also, if the pipeline doesn't get built, does BC still get the funding for all that good stuff? If so, then yes that's maybe a good gamble.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago

Carney doesn't play 3d chess. Carney plays the "shell game" con, where you think you're following the cup with the pea under it but he's used slight of hand to deceive the viewer and win the game.

It doesn't require a lot of smarts, just practice. And he's had a lot of practice.

[–] CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Playing 3d chess, or not negotiating in good faith?

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I watched yesterday and I'm still at a loss. The arguments Fawcett made are logical and make me want to hope for better, but it's not like I can shut off my memories of all the other instances where I've seen Carney catering to business-related lobbies (and in this case it may be military equipment manufacturers or others that use fossil fuels) without any hint of consultation with independent experts, and in ways that won't really benefit most citizens.

If there weren't already multiple examples of Carney using misleading language that causes public confusion over his government's intentions, I'd probably be more inclined to trust this, but as things are I'm still apprehensive. Also, the rush to build excess pipelines that don't seem worth the expense gives me ominous flashbacks to Trump's insistence on bringing in crude from Venezuela after his coup of Maduro, even though refiners didn't want a market glut. Feels like finance bro logic.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

Ignore what Carney says, be afraid of what he does.