- Reaction score
Good post.Different motivations. Short to mid term profit is the order of the day, when we’re talking about issues that are on generational timeframes. Governmental leadership and incentive is called for here. If we really wanted to have fun, we could look at governmental subsidies for fossil fuel extraction. Conversely, look at how many technologies emerged out of money sinks like the space program that could not, in that era, have been in a corporation's interest (or arguably ability) to fund themselves.
We're still learning tons about the properties and capabilities of various materials both natural and synthetic. Things like battery storage, solar cell power capture and the like have advanced considerably. Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.
At the end of the day, all of our daily pursuits consume energy. For a long time we got that energy by lighting things on fire and releasing chemical potential. That absolutely has detrimental impacts on the environment. But for a hundred years or so now we've seen the spread of electricity as a way to generate energy in one place and fashion and use it in another. That's the trajectory society and technology are on; it can be fought or it can be embraced. Economies that are dependent on that are not facing overnight extinction, but they ARE facing an existential crisis on a generational level. It doesn't need to be catastrophic if a transition is properly anticipated and led. That will mean showing people that they needn't fear for the roof over their head, and that they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood. The more single mindedly we prop up the petroleum economy, the harder and more painful the crash will eventually be. Plan on a twenty year timeframe to transition those regional economies to different sectors. There will still be some need and use for oil, but let's not assume the market will indefinitely sustain the demand that got us to where we are today. It won't. We're probably on the last generation of personal vehicles that will broadly use internal combustion, and transportation is fully two thirds of America's oil use, and probably similar up here. The pivot has already started.
One problem is there are hardline positions on both sides. There are those who take the position that oil and gas will be dead in ~10 years, ignoring the enormous list of products and materials that use them as feedstock. No doubt there will innovations to find other sources, but unless we are willing to go back to a time where we lived and died, and everything we consumed, came from within sight of the church steeple of the town we were born in, transition will be a very long road.
Innovations in battery technology in terms of energy density and cost is happening all the time, but I'm not convinced that we will see a curve similar to what happened with, say, computing memory. For sure, transportation will see a big change. I doubt I will own an EV but no doubt my kid will. But in many aspects of high demand commercial use, I have a hard time envisioning non-fossil use unless it can be grid tied. The drill rigs, necessary to explore for the very minerals needed to produce the batteries, operate for weeks and months in a clearing in the bush.
The proposed policy statement was just that. The 'how' would have come later. The natural corollary to not recognize climate is real is obvious.