[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Yes I do agree with this post but would say I think the main issue of debate that I have with Street Pharma and Mathgod is not so much the content of their posts necessarily or even that we should not proceed down this path, but the timeframe to get these advancements done. 30 years is a blink of an eye. Also, I think it is WAY harder than they do. If you look at energy transitions or transformations from previous energy forms, first off nothing is "phased out" and secondly it sure as heck doesn't happen in 30 years.

30 years is what the IPCC consensus is that we need to keep below 2°. It's not a prediction, it's a goal. You can be pessimistic, I can be optimistic, but the future is unwritten and I see good things being done. Getting to carbon neutrality by 2050 is going to be the hardest thing humans have done collectively. I'm aware. I'm just not a "can't do it, don't try" kind of guy

For example, Street Pharma says above 'oh methanol boats'. Oh really? All ships are just going to immediately transition to methanol? How? Who pays for it? Also methanol is also created from fossil fuels not only RNG. Or are we making it a global rule that all RNG is made only and none from fossil fuels? And how are we to do this all? Who agrees to it? We can't even agree with other countries that murdering and genocide in Ukraine is a bad idea but we are going to somehow get the whole world to agree to stop using fossil fuels? When 3rd world countries are actually modernizing and trying to use more?

I don't believe I said "oh methanol boats". I said the largest shipping company on the planet has said what their path to carbon neutrality is because they want to try. They have said carbon taxes need to increase and regulations are required.

With government signals (taxes, multinational declarations of intent, and regulation), companies will have security on what's going to be required to operate in the future and will start working towards it. If the carbon tax on a TV made in Bangladesh and shipped to Canada includes the carbon from the shipping, they'll do their best to find more carbon neutral delivery methods. That's how carbon taxes work

Mathgod says the public sector has to pay for it because the private sector won't, but then stops his sentence there. Why won't the private sector fund more? If these investments made money, wouldn't they? What is holding them back?

Consistent government signals and consolidation. Create and market and help it scale, then let the market take over. See solar, LED bulbs, etc. It works really well.

All that said I agree you need a carbon tax. But it's a Shell game (pun intended). You know who is about to receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer subsidy to go install a gigantic climate capture project? CNQ, Suncor, all the majors partnered in Pathways. So let's see;

1. the government installs a carbon tax to try and stimulate economic investment in carbon capture projects;
2. proponents pursue projects and submit applications, and major oil and gas producers do so;
3. proponents say the government has to pay them to subsidize the project.
4. government gearing up to give them the lions share of capital for the project.

So they impose a tax, and then fund the oil company to do the project, and then the oil companies own the assets and infrastructure, and then the project won't be done for like, many years anyway.

Carbon capture won't ever be viable IMO. It's not really scalable and the time scale needed to scale and implement won't work with the time frame needed to cut emissions. The actual carbon reduction is probably much, much less than advertised. I think this is wasted money, but there are very smart people that are proponents

That's a good example of the type of economic evaluations going on- as to why the private world isn't chasing around green projects with as much gumption as we all want them to.

Huh? There was more investment in renewables than o&g this year....

It's because they don't make much money, unfortunately. Not as much as fossil fuel projects. Because there is demand for fossil fuel projects still and the energy cost of fossil fuels is so much substantially cheaper than alternatives. Renewable / green projects don't compete very well with other capital projects. And that isn't to say there aren't many other capital projects in green or renewables or whatever other energy sources that do make money, there are. But ya, it might mean governments need to supply large subsidies for these types of projects. So we are to just crap all over private investors for not doing it? But they're goal / point / reason for being is to make money. So are we saying that all of society needs to change? Which societies? All societies around the world?

Anyway. It's not happening in 30 years.

Hopefully there are more people who are positive than you and want to help get it done. Right now there are literally millions of people and trillions of dollars being spent to do it.