(4/4) The climate and renewable energy movement are the new true force in town, and a failure to seize renewable opportunities will leave Canada behind.

(3/4) I don't know who he's listening too, but I know for a fact the last people he should listen to are oil and gas corporations and their lobbyists: their advice has always been, and will always be, toxic. They will never respect a 'grand bargain.'

(2/4) When asked that question about Ksi Lisims LNG being owned by a firm whose backers are tied to Trump, Carney came across as generally unprepared - even surprised.

(3/3) And some more follow up thoughts: bsky.app/profile/cono...

(12/12) ...there won't be an environment or democracy left in which to compete or cooperate.

Full concept outline, with sources, for the an extreme wealth limit with direct, equal, redistribution here: open.substack.com/pub/energymi...

(11/12) One way or another, the argument that our current economic system "isn't perfect but is the best we've got" has become nothing more than a lazy excuse to avoid dealing with a existential issue of extreme wealth inequality.

If we fail to end extreme inequality...

(10/n) as a society. We might model an initial limit after a more equal period first and a limit would need to be phased in, equilibria take time to settle, but it would empower people to be more engaged in the process as well.

(9/n) This is one reason why we might want to set a limit on extreme wealth by recurring referendum: government bureaucracy can be captured by wealthy interests, whereas direct referendum would allow people in general to set a limit according the balance of reward and redistribution they see fit...

(8/n) A counterbalancing incentive for the limit to go down, not just up. Everyone has a share in the limit, a stake in ensuring inequality does not get out of hand, even as everyone also inevitably tries to accumulate more individually - thus also exerting a force upwards on the limit's bounds.

(7/n) One needs a balancing force pushing down on the limit in order to establish an equilibrium.

And thus the direct equal redistribution of any extreme wealth above a set limit as shares - like in a cooperative...

(6/n) But actual historical evidence shows extreme wealth, left unchecked, collapses societies. It also shows people do not stop working even as baseline living conditions improve.

So, even with a wealth limit there will always be a force pushing up on that limit trying to make it higher...

(5/n) redistribution measures exist throughout history and societies for this reason. Democracy is founded on the idea that no one person, or small group, should have too much power.

There are a lot of *theories* about human nature the ultra-rich will use to try and justify extreme wealth...

(4/n) ...a different thing to compete over. Give us the 'garden of eden' and we will pick the apple from the tree.

But neither are we inherently greedy. Most of us understand that our desire for more should have a limit and feel compassion:

(3/n) to be at least slightly more wealthy than our neighbour and to have nicer things or more prestige, and our neighbour competes to be at least slightly more wealthy than us. If we don't compete in terms of wealth we would just find...

(2/n) We won't stop competing because everyone is fed and has a roof, because we do NOT compete, inherently, to avoid starvation.

We compete, inherently, for the shallowest of reasons: