Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
And all you do is stick your head in the sand in the hope that everyone will believe you when you say fossil fuels have to go.
Hint - fossil fuels will still be around 100 years from now. Likely thriving.
What do you think it takes to make those fancy solar panels you think will save the world? Farts and unicorns?  |
The amount of fossil fuels that go into making a solar panel or a wind turbine is far lower than the amount of fossil fuels offset by using the green energy produced by that panel or turbine. And this becomes even more true as we gradually decarbonize our manufacturing processes.
If fossil fuels are still being burned for energy 100 years from now, it will be happening atop the graves of billions of people who died prematurely as a result of climate change impacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-world-...on-bottom.html
But, but, but I thought if I recycle and take out another mortgage to buy an EV that I am really helping the planet!
Shocker, I know that the same people who fly to climate change summits with their private jets and tell the rest of the world how we should live are actually the ones making this mess worse to begin with.
|
What you're saying is... people flying around in private jets is a horrible thing for the environment? So glad we agree.
But help me understand your thought process here. Exporting LNG around the world will somehow result in less people flying around in private jets?
If you have any ideas on how to achieve a reduction in overall private jet use, I'm all ears...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK
This isn't fair.
I'm in Azure's camp, meaning that the conversation needs to be about the mid-transition. That energy source is absolutely LNG.
Neither Azure, nor I am arguing that net zero is not the ultimate target. The debate is how and at what cost.
Alberta will be off coal by Q2 2024 (Capital Power is behind schedule), well ahead of plan. There are new SAGD projects going into service next year that will dramatically lower the emissions of bitumen extraction. Suncor is repowering some of their sites from essentially burning bunker fuel, to lower intensity gas.
Things are moving in the right direction. It would be helpful if you'd remove your rose coloured glasses and recognize that.
The behaviour you exhibit only emboldens the far right and which is all too supportive of our Premier pulling the stunts that she did in the electricity file.
|
If correctly assessing the nature of the predicament we're in is "bad behavior", then I guess I'm going to continue behaving badly.
If anything, I'd argue it's your behavior that is giving the right wing exactly what it wants. They want us to believe that the entire scope of reasonable conversation on this topic is either 1) simply do what's best for the economy; take no climate action and scrap the carbon tax, or 2) take very modest climate action; basically do nothing beyond what we're already doing.
Posts like yours fixate on the idea that we're already doing enough on climate, and the current pace of decarbonization is sufficient. Well, I disagree. We can and we ought to do more. A lot more.
Look, replacing coal with LNG is generally a good thing. I'll concede that. However, the problem with making LNG exports such a huge priority is that there are costs (both money and time) associated with setting up the infrastructure in countries around the world to set them up for LNG use. I'm worried that these are valuable resources that may come at the expense of renewables R&D, and the expansion of green energy infrastructure.
I'm also worried that once all coal is replaced with LNG, the world will no longer have the same sense of urgency regarding the need to fully decarbonize. Once emissions are reduced, a lot of people will wrongfully believe that "the job is done" and there's "no longer a need for renewables".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
That assumes people are willing to sacrifice the present for the future. The degree of which people are willing to do that is quite small.
I think that any widespread solutions to energy use will be economic base.
Why are electric cars becoming more and more popular? Because they are cheaper to operate than gas
Why is solar being installed? Because it is cheaper than gas.
The entire process of moving off carbon needs to be economically beneficial to people. The idea that people need to choose to sacrifice to save the world is a non-starter.
|
I've spoken to people in the geothermal energy industry and the one common theme that keeps getting brought up is the importance of carbon pricing. Simply put, the carbon tax plays a crucial role in making their projects finacially viable and their products economically competitive. I have absolutely no doubt that similar things can be said for wind and solar.
Without the carbon tax, a lot of R&D projects that are underway today simply wouldn't be.
Not only should we keep the carbon tax, we ought to increase it. In addition to that, we need a more flexible, streamlined regulatory framework in Canada to allow more renewable energy projects to get going more quickly than they do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
investing in public transit is more likely to reduce emissions.
|
A great idea. But again the problem comes down to cost. How would you fund it if it were up to you?
