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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours 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 2 points 3 hours ago

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