HumbleAg04 said:

---

Why is it always assumed that a military will follow lock step to one side of a conflict? The same divisions are there in those organizations and it would be reflected in a conflict.

---

People always assumed that the majority would band together against government tyranny but then covid happened. So don't get your hopes up.

Sooner or later there will be a very long cold or hot spell with little wind and all those windmills and solar panels the elites have insisted upon will not produce anywhere near enough energy to keep people warm or cool. People will be up in arms, especially if loved ones are dropping like flies due to the cold or heat.

Same goes with food production. If there is a significant drought and we have taken large amounts of farmland out of production or reduced herd's' to reduce CO2 then there will be rioting in the streets.

I just don't get why these dumbasses want colder earth. How are they supposed to heat when cold?

Well, given the history that Europe has demonstrated over the last century, it seems highly unlikely that the European militaries will resist a repeat of previous genocides.

It will just be in the name of "klimate" this time.

beanbean said:

---

People always assumed that the majority would band together against government tyranny but then covid happened. So don't get your hopes up.

---

I think the one big difference may be that for COVID, people (or their wives) may have had some back-of-mind suspicion at the start about what if the government or CDC is actually right about this thing. And that may have softened the immediate resistance to populace control and """temporary""" power grabs.

In that regard, I wonder if the what-ifs of climate change would be a similar social intermediary that buffers against immediate, active resistance to climate demands.

They took COVID activism as far as they could for enacting social change before finally hitting refusal. Now they're transitioning the same agenda on the backs of the climate "crisis" until they find a similar refusal. In the meantime, look at all the page-3 thinkpieces that are being floated in the news. They're foreseeing the expiration date on climate change being effective, and are already seeking their next foothold.

They're smart to start with the soft stuff and take it as far as they can before flanking to something else. If they picked a topic that was much more concrete, resistance banding together would be swift and unified. That's why they're winning.

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

They won't use the military. They will use a police force. The police always fall in line and are willing to enforce tyranny.

Militaries always fracture when told to act upon their own civilians.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

War over climate change?

Every time a tard brings up climate change and CO2, I always respond "warmer earth is a good thing." I can trigger them all day.

---

I just tell them "Sure, Obama, Gore and other coastal elites will lose their vacation homes on the beach but think of all the food the now farmable land in Canada and Russia will produce along with all the new rainforests. It will be wonderful."

It usually leaves them speechless or "yeah, I bet you'd love Russia to get more powerful."

rocky the dog said:

---

---

We're already in a one sided cold civil war and the dems are mopping the floor with repubs. Republicans roll over to such an extent that it doesn't need to be a hot civil war.

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

---

Very well said. O&G companies are not only NOT opposed to clean energy, but will be the ones ushering it in through innovation. But it won't happen overnight. Those pushing an agenda outside of the normal capitalist cycles to bring innovation to market cheaply are just grifting.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

Truer memes were never made.

Aglaw97 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

---

Very well said. O&G companies are not only NOT opposed to clean energy, but will be the ones ushering it in through innovation. But it won't happen overnight. Those pushing an agenda outside of the normal capitalist cycles to bring innovation to market cheaply are just grifting.

---

Without the government subsidizing the "innovation", or regulating against the existing, the green agenda and new energy speculation would die off quickly outside of intensely, almost religious like fanaticism by ultra wealthy industry types. There's maybe a handful of those at best.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

They won't use the military. They will use a police force. The police always fall in line and are willing to enforce tyranny.

Militaries always fracture when told to act upon their own civilians.

---

The other reason is that many EU countries can barely field a military in the first place. If enough citizens revolt all they have to do is wait out the exhaustion of resources the military has available. I suspect the same thing is probably true of their police.

The EU military is the USA via NATO. Assuming we don't step in and interfere (which is probably wishful thinking) I'm not sure how long those governments can hold out. The Yellow Vest protests went on for months in Paris and those were fairly limited all things considered.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

---

Very well said. O&G companies are not only NOT opposed to clean energy, but will be the ones ushering it in through innovation. But it won't happen overnight. Those pushing an agenda outside of the normal capitalist cycles to bring innovation to market cheaply are just grifting.

---

Without the government subsidizing the "innovation", or regulating against the existing, the green agenda and new energy speculation would die off quickly outside of intensely, almost religious like fanaticism by ultra wealthy industry types. There's maybe a handful of those at best.

---

I disagree. I was in Washington DC back in 2020 with several executives from large O&G operators and service companies. The point of the meetings with members of Congress was to highlight that the energy sector is not against clean energy. The industry realizes its the future. It will never completely displace fossil fuels but it will represent a larger portion of our energy needs. However, that's won't happen overnight. Many companies are investing their own money into these efforts knowing there won't be returns for decades and those efforts are not being subsidized by government. And I can almost assure you the big players today will be the big players of tomorrow in clean energy.

Aglaw97 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

---

Very well said. O&G companies are not only NOT opposed to clean energy, but will be the ones ushering it in through innovation. But it won't happen overnight. Those pushing an agenda outside of the normal capitalist cycles to bring innovation to market cheaply are just grifting.

---

Without the government subsidizing the "innovation", or regulating against the existing, the green agenda and new energy speculation would die off quickly outside of intensely, almost religious like fanaticism by ultra wealthy industry types. There's maybe a handful of those at best.

---

I disagree. I was in Washington DC back in 2020 with several executives from large O&G operators and service companies. The point of the meetings with members of Congress was to highlight that the energy sector is not against clean energy. The industry realizes its the future. It will never completely displace fossil fuels but it will represent a larger portion of our energy needs. However, that's won't happen overnight. Many companies are investing their own money into these efforts knowing there won't be returns for decades and those efforts are not being subsidized by government. And I can almost assure you the big players today will be the big players of tomorrow in clean energy.

---

Yet with no regulations against O&G, the lack of return thus far on that investment would be so poor that it the efforts would have already been abandoned. It's taken either subsidization or intense regulatory framework to even start to open up consumerism related to alternate energy.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

---

Very well said. O&G companies are not only NOT opposed to clean energy, but will be the ones ushering it in through innovation. But it won't happen overnight. Those pushing an agenda outside of the normal capitalist cycles to bring innovation to market cheaply are just grifting.

---

Without the government subsidizing the "innovation", or regulating against the existing, the green agenda and new energy speculation would die off quickly outside of intensely, almost religious like fanaticism by ultra wealthy industry types. There's maybe a handful of those at best.

---

I disagree. I was in Washington DC back in 2020 with several executives from large O&G operators and service companies. The point of the meetings with members of Congress was to highlight that the energy sector is not against clean energy. The industry realizes its the future. It will never completely displace fossil fuels but it will represent a larger portion of our energy needs. However, that's won't happen overnight. Many companies are investing their own money into these efforts knowing there won't be returns for decades and those efforts are not being subsidized by government. And I can almost assure you the big players today will be the big players of tomorrow in clean energy.

---

Yet with no regulations against O&G, the lack of return thus far on that investment would be so poor that it the efforts would have already been abandoned. It's taken either subsidization or intense regulatory framework to even start to open up consumerism related to alternate energy.

---

Back to my original comments. This isn't happening over night and your response above is still looking through a decade or two lens.

Humans have conquered and mastered several forms of energy consumption throughout history. The blip on the timeline of human existence from mass fossil fuel consumption to now is minuscule. It is very short sighted and arrogant to believe this phase of human history is so much more important than others in regards to the whole timeline.

Things will change. I'm not sure exactly how but it will through innovation as there will be money to be made as R&D gets further along. I'm all for smart and fair regulation to point the compass towards where we collectively need to go, but nudging the train towards the best possible next stop is different than throwing down the roadblocks and making the train careen off a cliff.

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

---

Very well said. O&G companies are not only NOT opposed to clean energy, but will be the ones ushering it in through innovation. But it won't happen overnight. Those pushing an agenda outside of the normal capitalist cycles to bring innovation to market cheaply are just grifting.

---

Without the government subsidizing the "innovation", or regulating against the existing, the green agenda and new energy speculation would die off quickly outside of intensely, almost religious like fanaticism by ultra wealthy industry types. There's maybe a handful of those at best.

---

I disagree. I was in Washington DC back in 2020 with several executives from large O&G operators and service companies. The point of the meetings with members of Congress was to highlight that the energy sector is not against clean energy. The industry realizes its the future. It will never completely displace fossil fuels but it will represent a larger portion of our energy needs. However, that's won't happen overnight. Many companies are investing their own money into these efforts knowing there won't be returns for decades and those efforts are not being subsidized by government. And I can almost assure you the big players today will be the big players of tomorrow in clean energy.

---

Yet with no regulations against O&G, the lack of return thus far on that investment would be so poor that it the efforts would have already been abandoned. It's taken either subsidization or intense regulatory framework to even start to open up consumerism related to alternate energy.

---

Back to my original comments. This isn't happening over night and your response above is still looking through a decade or two lens.

Humans have conquered and mastered several forms of energy consumption throughout history. The blip on the timeline of human existence from mass fossil fuel consumption to now is minuscule. It is very short sighted and arrogant to believe this phase of human history is so much more important than others in regards to the whole timeline.

Things will change. I'm not sure exactly how but it will through innovation as there will be money to be made as R&D gets further along. I'm all for smart and fair regulation to point the compass towards where we collectively need to go, but nudging the train towards the best possible next stop is different than throwing down the roadblocks and making the train careen off a cliff.

---

Except there has been no nudging. It's been government picking winners and losers while crushing the middle class and sending us on a crash course with a widespread energy crisis due to failed and non-viable "clean" initiatives and lack of traditional capacity, I'm not sure myself nor my son will care what happens in 50 years.

Bludgeoning the current population to benefit future populations in the name of "green", "clean", or "innovative" is not the answer. If the free market wants it, let the free market fund and secure it. Not the government either through direct subsidy or regulatory actions.

And if progress and betterment of the world was a true concern, companies would be funneling their attention to the oncoming clean water crisis, using cheap, viable, accessible traditional energy sources to come up with a solution to an actual problem. Instead, we are cutting off our foot and slapping ourselves across the face with it while bragging about the cool prosthetic leg that should be available at some point in the future.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

---

Very well said. O&G companies are not only NOT opposed to clean energy, but will be the ones ushering it in through innovation. But it won't happen overnight. Those pushing an agenda outside of the normal capitalist cycles to bring innovation to market cheaply are just grifting.

---

Without the government subsidizing the "innovation", or regulating against the existing, the green agenda and new energy speculation would die off quickly outside of intensely, almost religious like fanaticism by ultra wealthy industry types. There's maybe a handful of those at best.

---

I disagree. I was in Washington DC back in 2020 with several executives from large O&G operators and service companies. The point of the meetings with members of Congress was to highlight that the energy sector is not against clean energy. The industry realizes its the future. It will never completely displace fossil fuels but it will represent a larger portion of our energy needs. However, that's won't happen overnight. Many companies are investing their own money into these efforts knowing there won't be returns for decades and those efforts are not being subsidized by government. And I can almost assure you the big players today will be the big players of tomorrow in clean energy.

---

Yet with no regulations against O&G, the lack of return thus far on that investment would be so poor that it the efforts would have already been abandoned. It's taken either subsidization or intense regulatory framework to even start to open up consumerism related to alternate energy.

---

It's both. A lot of O&G companies are not receiving subsidies to conduct their R&D and M&A efforts. They realize it's a sunk cost right now with no ROI for decades. But they know we are moving that way and aren't going to be left behind. And many willingly embrace it. They just don't believe the government should be involved.

Another Civil War thread!

Aglaw97 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Aglaw97 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Newsflash. Net zero is not economical. It is still political theatre for the most part. Ford loses 130k+ or something per EV sold (saw some other thread headline).

Anyone with a brain knows we can't just flip a switch to a new energy source. Until it's actually feasible this won't make it to the point you're describing.

We can talk about it all day but the economic decline and infrastructure going to **** in areas that push the agenda more will keep the issue in check for the short term in reality (taking out the internet echo chamber rah rah)

When I take a step back and look at energy and industrial innovation Ind revo to now. I view this chapter as the internal shift to constrain fossil fuel R&D expansion and shift it to cleaner energy R&D. If everyone would stfu and actually discuss reality it's a smart idea to do so but at a multi generational level.

It's a shame we can't be open and honest about this. Take politics out and all get behind wanting to provide humanity with cleaner energy over time. While fully understanding what our current constraints are to keep energy output up to necessary levels to not prohibit the advancement of other technological and societal advancements.

ETA: said another way. If you were a tech/energy advisor to a culture throughout time and decade/generational time wasn't your lifetime. (Ie localized politics is irrelevant and you just view it as the advancement of a culture/civilization). Where we're at makes sense and you slowly shift energy platforms as you advance (like we have since humans existed). It's not like we found oil, Nat Gas and by products and this is the end all be all to supply energy demands to humans.

But it's obtuse to think a political movement can fundamentally change the world in a few decades. Money can be made during the long transition and the free market should be naturally figuring out what the next phase is.

rant over.

---

Very well said. O&G companies are not only NOT opposed to clean energy, but will be the ones ushering it in through innovation. But it won't happen overnight. Those pushing an agenda outside of the normal capitalist cycles to bring innovation to market cheaply are just grifting.

---

Without the government subsidizing the "innovation", or regulating against the existing, the green agenda and new energy speculation would die off quickly outside of intensely, almost religious like fanaticism by ultra wealthy industry types. There's maybe a handful of those at best.

---

I disagree. I was in Washington DC back in 2020 with several executives from large O&G operators and service companies. The point of the meetings with members of Congress was to highlight that the energy sector is not against clean energy. The industry realizes its the future. It will never completely displace fossil fuels but it will represent a larger portion of our energy needs. However, that's won't happen overnight. Many companies are investing their own money into these efforts knowing there won't be returns for decades and those efforts are not being subsidized by government. And I can almost assure you the big players today will be the big players of tomorrow in clean energy.

---

Yet with no regulations against O&G, the lack of return thus far on that investment would be so poor that it the efforts would have already been abandoned. It's taken either subsidization or intense regulatory framework to even start to open up consumerism related to alternate energy.

---

It's both. A lot of O&G companies are not receiving subsidies to conduct their R&D and M&A efforts. They realize it's a sunk cost right now with no ROI for decades. But they know we are moving that way and aren't going to be left behind. And many willingly embrace it. They just don't believe the government should be involved.

---

I can see that, maybe. But with the known intrusion of ESG and the punishing result of not conforming, it's extremely unlikely these companies would have been pouring funds into investments that, at best, would only start providing a return in decades. You would think investors would punish companies who don't provide a solid ROI. Why are they not? Because the only investors that matter are the ones pushing the agenda. And they pull a lot of strings outside of the corporate level as well, mainly in lobbying government policy and government funds toward the causes they support while punishing others.

Except this is about Europe...

Calling solar and wind "green" is the biggest lie of the century, just ahead of "safe, free and effective"...

ShinerAggie said:

---

Except this is about Europe...

---

As often as 'Civil war' predictions are made on F16 and other social media of that ilk, I was curious what the active non-international conflicts around the globe actually were. There are a few current ones to choose from for message board banter while waiting around for new ones. Like the conflicts just south of us vs the Mexican Drug Cartels.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-international_armed_conflicts

The majority of that list involves the Religion of "Peace."

Climate Change
Palestine / Gaza
LGBTQIA2++
BLM

All communist backed

Don't believe the hype

I now see some posts about "I am a young conservative who wants to save the planet " popping up. They are doing their homework, and work.