So much bluster. How about some cold hard facts? Here's one: In the linked article, the section titled "Fossil CO2 counrries by emissions" lists percentage cont

So much bluster. How about some cold hard facts? Here's one: In the linked article, the section titled "Fossil CO2 counrries by emissions" lists percentage contributions per country: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... Check out Canada's rating from 2017. It's 1.66%. The source: A 2022 report commissioned by the EU. Must be a terrible blow to your "absolute distortion of facts." Are you going to try a No True Scotsman fallacy? Got any data from credible sources to support any of your assertions? Or is it all just dogma? Is it even possible to have a rational discussion on this topic which so much zealotry? Where's the science? > Alberta must diversify. Amazingly it actually was, at the level of renewable energy production, and ... you can see what a threat that was to established energy sector interests, because one of the first things Smith did was to put an end to that. If it ended, it was unprofitable, a failed business model. It didn't make money. It's that simple. Businesses chase profit. Oil is pursued because it is profitable. What you are saying is that Alberta should pursue less profitable directions to benefit the world. Why should it do that? I'm not even going to touch NEP or equalization given how messy it has become over decades of political interference. It's not possible to have such a discussion in the forums. > Unfortunately that growth is not compatible with the ecological scenario of the planet. And the rest of the country is under no obligation to shift policy and economic planning for it. You don't know the first part of that. No one does. And the second part, it's more about bringing policy and economic planning to the status quo, rather than destroying the economy of the country which the current climate-driven agenda is achieving. When Alberta sells more oil, our country's tax base benefits as well. > Absolutely Alberta and others will continue to supply the world with hydrocarbons for generations to come. But that is not the same argument as demanding that the entire nation chip in to ensure that the sector be aggressively expanded. Forget aggressively expand, it's currently being strangled. If Alberta was a coastal province, this would be a moot point. Right now, the rest of the country is holding Alberta hostage. I can see it and I'm not even Albertan.