Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
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 |
I'm not talking a hypothetical. I'm talking it seems obvious that O&G seems to feel this way. We've seen some evidence of this with Keystone and transmountain. They followed the stringent rules and still got taken for a turn or railroaded. That might be why they'd choose to be combative rather than cooperative.
Had the original idea been that we want to reduce emissions, how do we cooperate with O&G and give them a chance to survive, I think they pour more into both O&G improvements, but also green tech. They'd have to spend less on marketing against the smear campaigns, fighting misinformation with misinformation... Etc. IMO, both O&G tech and green tech would be further ahead rather than green tech behind and O&G fighting to entrench. Far less resources go into black holes and into incremental steps forward.
Pairing Oil/Gas and green together as a package could have been an outcome. This could have helped curve inflation and also address other climate issues and environmental issues. But nope. Went into arguing. But again, maybe I am being too optimistic.