A subject near and dear to the heart of SDA Nation, from a western Canadian author.
|
|
“Sparing no sacred cows, Terry Etam cuts through the media rhetoric, government propaganda, and widespread ignorance of the energy sector to get to the heart of what needs to change—and what needs to stay the same—if the challenges of moving away from fossil fuels are to be met, while maintaining the quality of life we have come to expect and rely on.” |
Those who want to kill the oil industry have no desire to maintain “the quality of life we have come to expect and rely on”. They want the masses to be in poverty and to perpetually depend upon the state.
By the way, Captcha, a combine is not a tractor.
‘A combine is not a tractor’.
To the left they are both something to be replaced… with hammers and sickles.
joe, a combine would look ridiculous on our flag.
You think the state wants us living in conditions they wouldn’t keep a dog in?
We should be so lucky. What the people who control the state want is to relieve us of our wealth before turning us into dogfood.
Miss Fluffypants will dine well on your grandchildren—the ones not pretty enough for her master to bother raping and murdering on weekend game night anyway.
Enviromentalisms become a dangerous new age pagan cult that demands the sacrifice of virgins and children to be fed to the Big Green Monster called Deep Ecology
The new way looks a whole lot like a very old way circa 1775.
I was thinking more like 1917 in slow motion.
Are you running short on toilet paper?
“if the challenges of moving away from fossil fuels are to be met”
That’s where I stopped reading; the premise is flawed right from the start. The fact that heavy polluters like China and India are exempt from international reduction agreements tells you all you need to know that the whole thing is a sham.
No thanks, Kate, I’ll pass.
“if the challenges of moving away from fossil fuels are to be met”
If you stop reading there you don’t know if the author believes in the flawed premise or is using it to entice the true believers of the false premise into a trap where they will come face to face with the facts. There are limited options. If we can’t persuade them we’ll either have to go along with their nonsense, to disaster, or we’ll have to fight and destroy them.
As a former professional soldier I’ve studied the extermination campaigns in history, e.g. those of the Nazis. They don’t work. Killing that many people, selectively isn’t practical and most people who are assigned the task can’t stand it for long, the few who aren’t bothered or who become inured to it are the kind of people you don’t want to have around in your society, even if they are on your side. Unleashing autonomuous non-human agents that will do the work for you carries too much risk that they will attack the wrong targets, i.e. you.
The argument will be lost by one side or the other, (or perhaps and the other.) If one side won’t engage it will certainly lose. The other might lose, too.
This book seems to offer probably not the easy and complete solution – that doesn’t exist – but at least something useful.
You do not start a compromise by conceding a pivotal premise.
“if the challenges of moving away from fossil fuels are to be met” is indeed such a concession. It accepts that moving away from “fossil” fuels is good, the only question is how to meet the challenge. That is hogwash, and anyone who concedes that is not looking for an acceptable compromise.
Here are two points of fact that cannot be conceded:
First, there is abundant “fossil” fuel. Without debating its origin, we can agree that there is enough known reserve at least until the end of this century. Second, carbon dioxide is essential to life. A drop of less than 100 ppm would be the end of all life. Doubling of it, on the other hand, will simply bring it up to the level of most homes, and less than half of the concentration in the Jurassic, which the Earth survived without runaway global warming.
Following are subjects I concede are up for debate, even though I hold my own opinions. Is oil regenerated by the Earth and thus practically inexhaustible? Is too much carbon dioxide (and I am talking Jurassic levels here) bad for the plants? Are “renewable” energy really renewable? Why do prominent AGW advocates invariably have such humongous “carbon footprints”? With over forty years of hindsight, what can we say about the actual effects of raised atmospheric carbon dioxide on the Earth?
Very, very, well said OB
Because the Author, in the books Forward, claims the supply of fossil fuels is finite … I shall not be reading his book. I am guessing he also “believes” Global Warming is “REAL” … and is caused by fossil fuels. Sorry. Not interested in the “depth” of his fossil fuel knowledge with those two premises.
I came across a recommendation for this book yesterday. Neither “fossil fuels are fine” or “global warming is real” blah, blah are the focus of the book. However, mentioning these points helps to break down barriers and resistance on the left. He already will get resistance because he works in the fuel industry. People need to read the book. If he can create a bridge between the environmentalists and the oil industry, that would be quite a breakthrough.
Try this one then
I’m reading Ian Plimer’s “Not for Greens”
IMO you could describe it as “the book that contains everything that the supporter of green electricity needs to know”
Focussing solely on CO2 without considering reliability and affordability is the biggest flaw of environmentalists. Affordable, practical changes over a reasonable time period would have prevented the energy battles. Phasing out coal as the generating units passed their effective lifespan, replacing coal with natgas and then transitioning to nuclear (when technology and cost improves) would have been painless, affordable and efficient over a span of 30-50 years. Only once you have reliable, affordable electricity can you move to electric vehicles and electric heating. Backlash would have been mild because energy prices would not have skyrocketed and job losses would have been minimized.
But, no, environmentalists had to go for broke and try to get every big government, anti-free market, anti-individualist, anti-development idea they’d been dreaming of for generations. So electricity prices skyrocketed, big and sudden job losses, weaponized NIMBYism, whole communities economically damaged, class warfare (blue collar vs. chattering class) individual choice and standard of living threatened by environmentalist/political control freaks (sin taxes). Predictably, the backlash has been huge and everyone has dug in for a long period of trench warfare.
If we’d simply gone from coal to natgas to nuclear in a slow,steady transition period then we’d already be halfway there.
Absolutely!! 100% ++++
Let me repeat your wise words … reliable and affordable Any energy source that fails to achieve those two characteristics is insane. CA has managed to make me pay a shitload MORE $$$ for my energy than my fellow Americans. Idiots.
There is merit in that.
Book ordered and added to my summer reading list, though I’m sure to sneak a peek before them.
Common sense, forget CAGW, talk about actual pollution and realistic ways to replace fossil fuels.
Let’s see, actual renewable like hydroelectric, 4th generation nuclear and pipelines to move crude and other resources.
BTW, the idea that if we actually get rid of pollution, that CO2 is reduced too, is lost on leftism, a power outage to their fantasies.
You need not agree with every premise of a book to gain knowledge from it, you know…
Of course. However, I am extremely cautious about CAGW proponents since it is a 100% fabrication by Worldwide Socialists propagated through the UN. It has nearly destroyed all legitimate science and has already cost $T’s in wasted resources.
“Accepting” CAGW to “facilitate conversation” has a really creepy feeling to it. All reasonable-sounding and whatnot … only to disguise the ultimate agenda of destroying Free Market Capitalism and consumer FREEDOM.
Sorry, I cannot accept myth … for the sake of a ‘civil conversation’
Someone should spring for a gift copy for Climate Barbie — and Bozo too! Opps. I forgot. She is probably “doesn’t have time” to read it.
And Prinz Dummkopf probably won’t read it unless there are pictures he can colour in.
About twelve years from now she might realise
that contrary to her current expectations, she has more time than she thought she would. I’m hopeful that she may even have some openings in her shedule in as little as seven months.
Whenever I hear the term, Fossil Fuels, I stop listening. If you will not acknowledge the simple fact that these are not Fossil Fuels, then there is no point reading the rest of the propaganda.
100% +++++ !!!!
One way to get people to pay attention is to phrase an issue in their language.
The term “fossil fuels” was coined in the mid 1750s from a translation by a German scientist who had visited England and was commenting on its resources such as iron ore and coal (which was found in layers of fossils). The term was meant to identify the layers of coal (fuel) that were found within layers of fossils.
Today we know that fossil fuels do not come from fossils but most of us have no idea of the origin of the term.
I thought that this might fit in here. The fix is in and going according to the Liberal plan. Shut everything down.
Canadian Oil Sands’ New Growth Is Stymied by Pipeline Delays
https://energynow.ca/2019/03/canadian-oil-sands-new-growth-is-stymied-by-pipeline-delays/?source=de&wtv
The list of companies that have abandoned their stake, shares, investment, and assets in Alberta and Saskatchewan have reached epic proportions of such that one can no longer provide a list of these companies. It is easier to note who is still remaining.
But then our supposed leader gets caught bribing his own officials and claims it’s in the interest of saving jobs in Quebec. That is too much for an electorate to take. Either we stand for something, or abandon what we once believed, and seek a new path.
I think a lot of the investment abandonment in Alberta has to do with the US being able to produce so much cheap “fossil” fuel (oil & gas) due to fracking. Canada’s largest customer is the USA and Alberta’s oil & gas is land-locked. And yes, Trudeau is a moron. Notice how there are no protests about fracking anymore?
I’m stockpiling books to burn, the carbon tax is too much. It’s like free fuel.