Therapeutic moralism flaunted as environmentalism
By Lethbridge Herald on April 2, 2022.
Rachael Thomas – MP for Lethbridge
Several years ago, I was in a car accident and suffered severe whiplash. I was told I needed physical therapy to heal and regain the full function of my neck. Though the treatment was uncomfortable and even painful at times, I saw positive results so I kept going.
People are usually willing to keep doing something, even if its painful, as long as it produces the desired outcome.
The carbon tax went up by 25 per cent yesterday. It was April Fools, but the devastating impact of this tax is no joke! Canadians will pay extra for gas, home heating, food, and so much more.
No doubt, it makes some Canadians feel good to know they’re “doing their part” to save the planet.
I don’t blame them.
Millions of dollars have been spent on environmental campaigns with a single agenda: to end the use of fossil fuels.
The impetus for this type of action is varied. There are links to alternative energy corporations and green technology investors who get a huge economic bump from the government cheques they collect. Meanwhile, environmental ideologues get a morality boost from eating plant-based meat and driving electric vehicles to work.
There is a growing agenda to persuade the Canadian people into adopting certain behaviours with the promised reward of reducing emissions and protecting against climate change. The approach is moralistic, rather than practical.
We’ve been told oil and gas are bad, plastics should be banned, pipelines should be blocked, electric cars should be purchased, a price should be placed on carbon, and taxes should be increased.
Without studying whether the promised effect is being achieved, we get on board.
Are we doing what we’re told because it’s making an impact, or because it makes us feel better regardless of the outcome?
Are we truly stewarding Canada’s land, water, and air? Or are we simply marching dutifully?
If we are forced to change how we live, evidence of the desired outcomes should be provided. When it comes to the federal carbon tax, the government has failed to do this. In fact, on the contrary, carbon emissions continue to climb.
In other words, the government’s prescribed solution seems to be therapy for the guilty conscience, but not a solution for the planet.
The fact is, when it comes to resource development, Canada has some of the highest environmental regulations in the world, while many other oil-producing countries have none. The global demand for oil and gas continues to climb. By reducing our production to “protect the environment,” Canada is effectually boosting production in countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia.
While the NDP-Liberals like to preach they are doing the right thing by crippling our oil and gas industry and congratulate those who comply with their anti-energy agenda, the fact of the matter is, they are doing the exact opposite. They are boosting oil production in countries that don’t care about environmental protection, or producing oil and gas ethically, or paying workers well.
The current government’s environmental policy is nothing more than therapeutic moralism.
It’s disastrous! The environment isn’t being stewarded, the economy is tanking, and dictators are being empowered.
Instead of cancelling pipeline projects that could get more of our product to market, we should be investing and building our export capabilities. Boosting oil and gas production in Canada would create more jobs and generate more revenue that could be directed toward vital infrastructure projects. It would not only make us more prosperous economically, but it would also ensure energy security for our nation and allow us to export to other countries.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown the world that energy security is integral to national security. Putin’s war machine is powered largely from oil and gas revenue brought in from European countries that are forced to purchase from Russia. Exporting Canadian oil and gas to nations that are currently dependent on dictators would help safeguard humanity.
Furthermore, Canadian LNG can play a significant role in lowering global emissions. A 2020 study in the Journal for Cleaner Production demonstrates that China’s emissions could be lowered by 62 per cent if coal was replaced by imported natural gas from Canada. Canada must plan and act globally if we truly wish to make a difference. Currently, that’s not the case.
It’s important to take a step back and question whether this false sense of gratification is worth it. Do we simply want to feel like we’re doing something worthwhile, or do we actually want to have an impact?
Knowing what I know about Canadians, I believe the majority of us truly desire to make our country and the world a better place. We don’t want to be swindled to advance someone else’s dishonest agenda.
Canadians have incredible grit, intelligence, and pragmatism.
Let’s insist on more than therapeutic moralism masquerading as a so-called environmental plan.
27-26
Sorry to hear about your brain damage resulting from the car accident, Rachael.
Moral issues are always complex issues – for people who have no principles.
You have none Sophie and your attempt at humour is classless.
What ‘moral’ issue are you talking about, Will? Whether or not to condemn ourselves to an unlivable future because we won’t make an effort to transition away from burning fossil fuels? Where did our MP even mention our moral resposibility to address the climate crisis?
Conservatives keep telling us who they are and not “getting” climate change is absolutely part of their suite of stupidity, along with denial of expertise generally and science in particular as they so clearly displayed with everything involving covid (why on earth does science keep CHANGING “its” mind), support for the freedumb convoy because you kno, Ottawa was just another Woodstock, and then deciding that Trudeau is suddenly a dictator because he decided that a month of illegal, aggressive occupation of the capital was enough, but his entirely reasonable invocation of the emergencies act (rather than calling in the military which many were expecting under such unprecedented circumstances) violated their Charter rights, said Charter of Rights and Freedoms being introduced by Pierre Trudeau actually, one of the supposed reasons for all those F* Trudeau signs expressing extreme hatred of his son; it’s a carryover from when “the West wants in.” There’s no pleasing these people, bottom line, because they have a “gloomy pedagogy of ideologies in service to fragile psyches” shall we say. Not noted for making sense. And everything they accuse us of is what they are doing themselves. Kind of like Putin.
And Rachael is a perfect example but because she’s super religious and conservative, she could have run as a bale of hay and would have won.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-fossil-fuel-follies-of-2021. Food for thought when you’re cashing that Imperial Oil pension cheque.
The point. You’re classless. Disagree if you like, but personnel attacks are for the weak.
I think you meant to say: “personnel attacks are four the week.”
Would seem that Rachael is not the only one with brain damage! Some seem to be blessed at birth with it.
johnny57 is sure proof of that!
Some decent points made here. I doubt very much Rachael wrote this.
Applies to many here commenting
Too often what are called “educated” people are simply people who have been sheltered from reality for years in ivy-covered buildings. Those whose whole careers have been spent in ivy-covered buildings, insulated by tenure, can remain adolescents on into their golden retirement years. Thomas Sowell
“Everyone would much rather be told that things are fine, the world is safe, we’re all nice people, and nothing is anyone’s fault—above all, that we can keep on doing exactly whatever we like, without taking any thought or changing our so-called lifestyle in the least, and there will be no bad consequences. I’d like to be told that too. Trouble is, it’s not true. So maybe it’s time to be a little harsh. The situation we find ourselves in cannot be dealt with through anything less than plain speaking.” Margaret Atwood
Rachal Thomas is essentially just an American oil company employee at this point right?
I fail to see what the point of this opinion piece is supposed to be? Shes either too vapid to understand the overwhelming evidence of rapid climate change, or being willfully misleading. Arent the people of the city tired of just being lied to for the sake of convenience by these obvious shills?
Seriously I cannot figure out what the thesis of her “argument” is. Environmentalism is inconvenient to the profits of massive foreign oil companies, so we should dismiss it? Instead opting to keep spending 10% of the yearly Albertan budget directly on tax subsidies for these obscenely profitable corporations? I certainly don’t see any “crippled” bottom lines on their shareholder payouts.
China has invested trillions in alternative energy specifically to address the energy security concerns she mentions. China doesn’t want to be beholden to foreign energy imports, and by the looks of the current geopolitical climate, they have backed Russia into a corner, where they can supply whatever they need at a much cheaper rate than Canadian gas imports.
Albertans would be stupid, both economically and security-wise, to not modernize out economy and industry, with a shift towards renewables. Hopefully the scared reactionaries of the province will eventually figure out the CPC and UCP are not interested in honest governance, and are simply middlemen hired to keep our export taxes low, and we won’t get left behind while other countries invest in renewables, housing and education instead of backstopping corporate profits with public money.
Easy to talk about renewables. Very few people understand the realities. We, at least me, have heat in our homes when it’s -30 . “We” know the heat comes from natural gas . -30 the windmills aren’t turning and solar panels can not keep up even marginally. I know we need coal or gas to survive in much of Canada. . China incidentally has a reasonably good relation with Russia which has a steady and reliable supply of energy available. China pumps out solar panels for the west so that the energy can be free there, sometimes, until a cold or hot spell. Then most people, even green ones have no problem using more reliable and consistant forms of energy.
So, Old School, are you saying that we may need natural gas some of the time therefore we should burn it all of the time? Do you not think that we could wind up some natural gas turbines for the few days each year we need them? Why does it always have to be all or nothing with you folks?
This is an honest, question. How will renewable energy drive our economy? If this is possible, I’d love to hear it. I have a hard time believing that renewable energy produced in Alberta will ever meet Alberta’s needs. Maybe there is a massive breakthru coming, I don’t know. What will we produce and export to drive our economy?
She’s an embarrassment to Lethbridge – go to the parliament website and read what she says on record during Question Period – 80% of the time it’s bizarre and hilarious.
She can still admit climate change is real yet natural (rather than man-made).
She must get tons of cash from oil/gas interests even though her riding (my riding, too) probably has the least amount of oil revenue in all of Alberta.