This is why my solution to most things is “create a financial incentive”. Humans can, and have done some amazing shit when their lives acutely depend on it, or their bank account acutely depends on it.
2 Likes
Incentives work. I think this is how a large scale change will likely happen.
Look at the cars they drive in Europe. A ford focus isn’t a small car there. Their fuel costs a lot more, so people became efficient in their fuel use.
What are your thoughts on the narrative of a country going green will hurt the economy. I am not saying you are making the claim (just it seems you are potentially worried about it). I have heard the claim over and over, but have never seen it backed up.
One could counter that the green industry has the potential to create a ton of jobs (it already has). Now that isn’t necessarily enough to say it will help the economy, or won’t hurt it, but it is enough for me to doubt the truth of the claim that going green will hurt the economy.
A few years ago the total funding for nuclear fusion in the UK was less than that spent on ring tones. So I saw that as a very clever comment.
If you haven’t seen kurzegasagt (in a nutshell), they do some clever animations to explain complicated issues. You can probably pull it apart but I liked this vid. And I often use their vids to explain stuff to my kids, like ant super colonies and evolution.
1 Like
Solar and wind won’t support the petrochemical industry. It won’t produce jet fuel. If we kill off our oil exploration, we will kill vital industries and make us reliant on foreign sources.
Doing it poorly will do so, without question.
Compared to US shale and oil? I’d need to see some hard data to buy that the jobs gained are equivalent in terms of energy production and wages/skills vs the ones lost.
It could be true, but I’ve been hearing about this phantom for the better part of a decade and have yet to see much evidence of it on the horizon.
1 Like
This is true. The automobile didn’t support the blacksmith industry like the horse and buggy did, but did support a lot of replacement industries.
We will need oil for things like plastic, asphalt, lubrication, etc. for a long time even if we don’t burn it as fuel.
I guess I am just not convinced that green technology will hurt the economy. I lean towards it helping the economy in the long term, but won’t make that a claim.
I think it is just as much a phantom that green tech will hurt the economy.
As I said, I make no claim either way, but I don’t think those who are claiming that it will hurt the economy have met their burden of proof on their claim. They just keep claiming it, and I am skeptical in nature, so without evidence I will not accept it.
Will it be profitable to take it out of the ground if we aren’t also burning it? That’s the question I have.
Well, the pipeline stoppage is an observable act of self harm, it’s also not an improvement re: carbon emissions.
If someone wants to make a case that green can replace fossil fuels for jobs and energy, it’s a tough roe to hoe, at present.
I’d add, I’m not some Petro-enthusiast, but if you shut down supplies of energy prior to you altering the infrastructure to maintain that output, you’re being incredibly short sighted, both from an energy and climate point of view.
Edit: for example, the U.K. closed some coal fired reactors last year and came within the width of a bee’s dick of having black outs. Coal is a dirty fuel, but this plan was putting the cart before the horse in a demonstrable fashion.
1 Like
Yes. Supply will eventually drop enough to the point that supply and demand balance out, and the price will be at the intersection of supply and demand. The less efficient suppliers of oil will drop out of the market if they are not profitable at the market price, but as long as there is some demand (which there will be), there will be some people who choose to produce oil (and likely make profit doing so).
I would have just put my reply in one post, but T-nation is being stubborn with multiple quotes.
Anyways, I don’t think I am required to say I believe that green energy will replace fossil fuel for jobs and economic impact, to say I reject the claim that green will hurt the economy.
FWIW, I am against all the resistance to pipelines. I am against eminent domain in some / many cases though. To me a pipeline seems safer than truck or rail. I do understand people resisting when the company just gets a pass to put it on their property.
No, you don’t have to do that. You do have to have some evidence that the potential GDP and energy output is about par, which I do not see the evidence for at present.
If the energy output Is less per dollar spent or gdp contribution is less, then it is harmful to the economy.
Edit: for the sake of completeness, my side would have to include the environmental benefits in the cost analysis, which I would have to check.
What I am saying is that many of the right leaning politicians are making the claim that it is harmful to the economy. I haven’t seen their claims ever be substantiated. If their claims are not substantiated, I have no duty to show that green is roughly the same economically to reject their claim (they own the burden of proof). The original claim should just be rejected until proof is presented.
You can see the impact assessment I posted above from the Czech-Dutch government. Some of these green alternatives are ruinously expensive, which does go some way to substantiating the claim.
Maybe the technology improves to the point that it’s not, but solar and wind have the aura of white elephants to me.
2 Likes
I’m on board with all of that. I think many petard making “perfect” the enemy of “good” when it comes to this topic. A lot of left greenies seem to push back on natural gas because it’s “still a hydrocarbon fuel” . But to me you either have choices that are feasible but not perfect, or you have continuing what we’re doing until a perfect solution comes along… Which will be never.
And on the flip side you have people who don’t want to invest fed dollars at all in subsidy or incentive because of past failures. Which are basically inevitable as all research everywhere is an odds game. But then those same people will be fine with say, farm subsidies. And federal research grants through NIH. To me these are all the same in principle (fed subsidized goals) so a person has to either be against them all or not from a constitutional government power perspective.
One could only wish for such an energy source. Unlimited!
Definitely agree. There’s no point going all-in if it costs us the ability to lead. This is why I am not a fan of most conceptions of the Green New Deal in any way.
It’s still an issue here, because of the vast distance transmission lines would need to cross, and the inevitable loss of energy through electrical resistance on those lines. One of the key issues has always been that you need to store and transfer power generated from turbines, but they are universally located out in the middle of nowhere a long way from where the power is going to be used.
Also they mess with ecosystems and pasture land, and thus have effects on food chain.
I’ll give him that one. I didn’t like his gutting of the EPA, but his energy policy was significantly better (at least thus far, it could change).
The tech is improving super quickly- not only in the capture, but the storage, transfer and utilization of green energy. I don’t think wind will ever be that great either, but i think the possibilities with solar are endless and we are barely scratching the surface on harnessing its power.
I think it is naive to look at a burgeoning technology that is developing quickly with huge potential and compare it now, to a technology that has been around for decades and has mostly been optimized.
How so? What are the big differences you see?
One could make the very same argument for nuclear, I would note, and the cost benefit for nuclear is much more clearly in the black.
Solar could be a huge resource, I have some concerns about awaiting a breakthrough to make it viable vs Petro or nuclear, but that’s not me discarding it.