Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleF
My partial hypothetical argument is that by vilifying O&G rather than have O&G partner with other techs like hydrogen for the production of grey hydrogen, we are behind worldwide. Had the mandate been to spearhead parallel technologies to reduce carbon emissions rather than vilify and destroy existing infrastructure in a replacement of non-renewables with renewables, I think we are further ahead today. I am remarking that I think you claiming that investing earlier would have helped isnt' necessarily true. We just hit this state earlier.
|
Why does it have to be either-or? Why can't it be both-and? In other words, why can't it be true that working cooperatively with O&G would have moved things along faster, but also increased public funding into clean energy R&D would also have moved things along faster?
One thing I'll say though, by secretly funding climate change denial efforts, O&G companies have made themselves rather hard to trust...
As for solutions, I'm more excited by the advancements in geothermal technology than any other (though wind, solar, and nuclear certainly have their role to play as well). Posted about it here:
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...11#post8336811