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.
"H-A: In return for the flattery, can you reduce the size of your signature? It's the only part of your posts that don't add value. In its' place, just put "I'm an investing savant, and make no apologies for it", as oldarmy1 would do."
- I Bleed Maroon (distracted easily by signatures)
