Alberta Politics Thread

[Ozy_Flame]

Which is exactly why you have to let the free market and grassroots public trends take hold if anything is to change; you cannot force an unnatural switch. I think about the evolution of the automobile and the internet, where two of societies most important mechanisms were gradually brought in via a free market, had global reach, and provided a price point of access that was conducive to both personal and business use. Nwo we are being introduced to electric and driverless cars, and the internet of things is on the cusp, and it's a change that most of society would agree is acceptable and an inevitable transition, one we all have to accept.

Alternative energy adoption is no different. If the price was dropped to a point where conventional consumption was no longer feasible, then it will definitely change. THe key is providing choice, and letting the free market decide - do you want to go with solar that is provided via a collective in Alberta? Or do you go for the wind farm in Saskatchewan that provides farmers with royalty rights? I don't think it's choice many care about right now, but as alternative energies become more prevalent on the day-to-day, people will choose accordingly to their beliefs. It's basically no different than picking between Telus and Rogers, cable or ADSL. I just see it going that way.

[nik-]

First we need to define what "there" is. Is "there" our current energy demands completely replaced by renewables? 80% replaced? 60%?

If it's fully, then no, we won't get there in our lifetimes. I don't think 80% either. 60%? Now we're talking attainable.

I fully believe that the replacement of fossil fuels for electricity generation is fully possible in our lifetimes. This is what the government should be pushing and it would be a massive impact. Unfortunately for some environmentalists, this means nuclear. The fear of nuclear has to be eliminated.

As far as transportation. Once the energy that supplies the batteries power is green, electric cars will actually be green. Manufacturers and consumers will take care of that switch without government intervention. It will take a little time, but will happen naturally.

Planes and Shipping. I don't see it changing in our lifetimes.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I think they do, if the price is right.

If alternative energies become so economically viable for the family household and it means less costs than conventional energy usage, then yes - the people will shift that way. I think most people don't care where their energy comes from, as long as it's the cheapest and most reliable option.

Bingo.

People are bitching about the $6.50 green bin fee.

Most people really only care about the costs to themselves. What the actuall process is, is irrelevant.

[Coach]

My issue with letting it occur naturally, is that we are currently not letting that happen with powerful forces actively fighting the rise of these tech. Yes, there are corporations and people that put efforts into this R&D, but the forces pushing the other way are much stronger.

So sure, let it happen naturally. But we have to actually let it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MattyC

My issue with letting it occur naturally, is that we are currently not letting that happen with powerful forces actively fighting the rise of these tech. Yes, there are corporations and people that put efforts into this R&D, but the forces pushing the other way are much stronger.

So sure, let it happen naturally. But we have to actually let it.

You're too paranoid dude.

Will some corporations try to suppress tech that could impact their business? Absolutely.

In the end it's about cost and profit potential, these these aren't being pursued because they don't make money. It's not some grand conspiracy.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by nik-

First we need to define what "there" is. Is "there" our current energy demands completely replaced by renewables? 80% replaced? 60%?

If it's fully, then no, we won't get there in our lifetimes. I don't think 80% either. 60%? Now we're talking attainable.

I fully believe that the replacement of fossil fuels for electricity generation is fully possible in our lifetimes. This is what the government should be pushing and it would be a massive impact. Unfortunately for some environmentalists, this means nuclear. The fear of nuclear has to be eliminated.

As far as transportation. Once the energy that supplies the batteries power is green, electric cars will actually be green. Manufacturers and consumers will take care of that switch without government intervention. It will take a little time, but will happen naturally.

Planes and Shipping. I don't see it changing in our lifetimes.

https://www.iea.org/publications/fre...ishversion.pdf

See the chart Page 8

This is one attempt (of many) to develop a pathway that gets to a 50% chance of achieving 2 degrees of warming by 2040.

The world moves from over 75% of the energy it consumes being fossil fuels to slightly less than 50% in 2050. That doesn't tell the full story because there will be CCS on a bunch of that fossil fuel consumption. If you don't think CCS will scale then you need to reduce it by a further 40% or so.

Anyway, most credible scenarios to deal with climate change still includes a large role for fossil fuels. Just not a dominant role. And clean technologies takes over as the prime movers of choice.

Again, though if you look nuclear is not the keystone of the scenario either. It increases sure, but it's not as you claim that we will "require" people to be more comfortable with nuclear. Seems that renewables and energy efficiency can get the bulk of the job done.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

You're too paranoid dude.

Will some corporations try to suppress tech that could impact their business? Absolutely.

In the end it's about cost and profit potential, these these aren't being pursued because they don't make money. It's not some grand conspiracy.

It doesn't need to be a "grand conspiracy" to recognize that there are very powerful people with a vested interest in this stuff never seeing the light of day, and that people have been pushing against progress in this area since alternatives became a thing.

There doesn't have to be a ruling class of mustache twisting evil billionaires to have strong forces against progress.

You're point about "some corporations pushing against" is true. But those corporations/people are extremely influential in policy that affects everyone. It's not some insignificant side note.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Good post.

For the airline issue, would the (an) alternative to sweeping government restriction on air travel be improved airline technology, possibly bringing us to a point of zero-emission travel?

Things like this are constantly being worked on. Every new generation of airplane (car, boat, home appliance, home itself) is better than the last.

[nik-]

That report is banking way too much on carbon capture as a GHG reduction benchmark.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It doesn't need to be a "grand conspiracy" to recognize that there are very powerful people with a vested interest in this stuff never seeing the light of day, and that people have been pushing against progress in this area since alternatives became a thing.

There doesn't have to be a ruling class of mustache twisting evil billionaires to have strong forces against progress.

You're point about "some corporations pushing against" is true. But those corporations/people are extremely influential in policy that affects everyone. It's not some insignificant side note.

And in the end those corporations serve the desire of consumers. They're not forcing oil down people's throats while people desperately fight to not use it. We use it. 95 million barrels a day of it.

The demand for different products needs to change and corporations will gladly find a way to make money off that. Just like they always have.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Things like this are constantly being worked on. Every new generation of airplane (car, boat, home appliance, home itself) is better than the last.

Totally. But a lot of it is still done within the parameters of tech we currently use.

"Ok, how can we make this gas engine use less gas?"

vs

"Ok, how can we make an engine that doesn't use gas?"

"Ok, offset carbon emissions or how can we generate energy will less carbon output?"

vs

"Ok, how can we just not use fossil fuels for this purpose at all?"

These things are being worked on, but not as heavily as I believe they should be. Because they're not profitable. But I don't think that should really matter in this context.

What if an energy company (a big one, like Shell or BP. Not a new start up) just went "F*** it. Were taking all funds out of oil R&D and putting it into renewals. All profit will be dedicated to this."

Their stock would plummet, no one would invest, and the company would crumble. But with the resources they have on hand, they may be able to actually do something meaningful in this area, and be a pioneer, and thus potentially profit BIG TIME as everyone else lags behind. Just continuing to pour resources into oil extraction (with minute resources going to alt R&D) seems crazy to me, even from a long-term profit perspective.

I like to use Netflix as an example. Completely re-vamped their business model, took a huge hit in stock prices, but came back with a vengeance and basically monopolized a future market that didn't really exist before. Now they're on top of the world. How can something like that not be palatable to a business person, even if it means short term hardship?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by nik-

That report is banking way too much on carbon capture as a GHG reduction benchmark.

Sure but the basic point still stands, the scenario still has a large role for fossil fuels.

What I find frustrating about the previous pages of discussion is just how ready many posters are to build some strawman to which they can start extolling ALL of their grievances on. Some mythical hypocritical environmentalist conspiracy lead by the evil witch Naomi Klein is out there with crazy ideas to shut down all fossil fuel production immediately and throw us back to the dark ages if we don't stand up and point out just how stupid and evil their ideas are.

Meanwhile there's a whole field of policy experts, economics, engineers, academics, politicians who are meticulously trying to advance policy and avoid calamity from climate change. But screw all them! This is about winning an argument with David Suzuki and not trying to work our way out of one of the greatest problems humanity has had to overcome.

It's like saying that the whole NDP is a bunch of communists hell bent on destroying Alberta and all that we hold dear... oh wait.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MattyC

These things are being worked on, but not as heavily as I believe they should be. Because they're not profitable. But I don't think that should really matter in this context.

Well regardless of whether you think that shouldn't matter. It does, to everyone who wants to invest money in new tech. So you're basically saying that the most important factor to an investor shouldn't matter.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well regardless of whether you think that shouldn't matter. It does, to everyone who wants to invest money in new tech. So you're basically saying that the most important factor to an investor shouldn't matter.

Yup. Because were talking about the potential destruction of the environment in which our species (and all species) lives.

When thinking about in that context, no, I don't think what investors want should really matter.

Profit drives (and has driven) a lot of great innovations, but it's also holding back important things while allocating valuable knowledge and resources to useless consumer products. It can't be the only force of change we use or adhere to.

And I would like to say, that much of humanities greatest inventions and innovations were not born of people looking for profit. The internet wasn't created because it would make the founders of eBay and PayPal, etc.. rich. It was founded because a bunch of computer geeks wanted to talk to each other. Wireless communication was created just because Tesla wanted to prove it to be possible (and maybe provide a means to transfer large amounts of energy wirelessly, making energy cheap to free), not because Apple or Samsung (or walkie talkie makers) decided to make phones that could use it.

It's only once these things are accepted and adopted by the masses that people actually start to create businesses around it and profit from it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Sure but the basic point still stands, the scenario still has a large role for fossil fuels.

What I find frustrating about the previous pages of discussion is just how ready many posters are to build some strawman to which they can start extolling ALL of their grievances on. Some mythical hypocritical environmentalist conspiracy lead by the evil witch Naomi Klein is out there with crazy ideas to shut down all fossil fuel production immediately and throw us back to the dark ages if we don't stand up and point out just how stupid and evil their ideas are.

Meanwhile there's a whole field of policy experts, economics, engineers, academics, politicians who are meticulously trying to advance policy and avoid calamity from climate change. But screw all them! This is about winning an argument with David Suzuki and not trying to work our way out of one of the greatest problems humanity has had to overcome.

It's like saying that the whole NDP is a bunch of communists hell bent on destroying Alberta and all that we hold dear... oh wait.

We agree that even in a "green future" fossil fuels will still play a role. IMO solving electricity generation alone would probably get us to a healthy equilibrium since electric cars will continue to propagate.

The problem people have (at least myself) is this constant "durr the oil companies, evil corps, blah blah" which is a basic tenant of even the less extreme voices. Sorry, this is us, not corporations. Corporations will sell us what we want for as long as we want it. This whole sanctimonious stance people take when it comes to this is tiring and people need to accept that we're the ones responsible for this, not "them".

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yup. Because were talking about the potential destruction of the environment in which our species (and all species) lives.

When thinking about in that context, no, I don't think what investors want should really matter.

Profit drives (and has driven) a lot of great innovations, but it's also holding back important things while allocating valuable knowledge and resources to useless consumer products. It can't be the only force of change we use or adhere to.

Life is going to be very disappointing for you.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

Life is going to be very disappointing for you.

Maybe. Steve Jobs didn't give a f*** what investors wanted either. He just wanted to make stuff that people would use.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Maybe. Steve Jobs didn't give a f*** what investors wanted either. He just wanted to make stuff that people would use.

ROFL holy ####.

Steve Jobs was one of the most pure cut throat CEO's ever. Pure, angelic Steve Jobs! Shipped all his jobs to a sweat shop in China and gave a tiny tiny fraction of the money other billionaires do to charity. Number one goal was to maximize profits and hide it away to avoid taxes.

You should pick a better example of altruistic people.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

ROFL holy ####.

Steve Jobs was one of the most pure cut throat CEO's ever. Pure, angelic Steve Jobs! Shipped all his jobs to a sweat shop in China and gave a tiny tiny fraction of the money other billionaires do to charity.

You should pick a better example of altruistic people.

Fair enough. He started doing that once profit became the goal. But him and Wozniak sitting in their garage building computers wasn't about money. I don't think Jobs had dollar signs in his eyes at that point. He just wanted to make something that people could use without a computer science degree.

Musk. Gates. Einstein. Tesla.

These people created/discovered because they saw things differently than others. Some of them made money, some of them didn't. I'm sure Tesla wishes he died a wealthy man, but if he could see the impact his ideas and inventions have had on humanity, he would probably be pretty pleased with his contribution.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How much oil will it take to build these solar cells, and advanced electronics and materials and plastics?

Last time I checked the energy return of solar is about 50:1.