The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Odd how little we've heard about the IEA's report which is being treated as a major break elsewhere.

Where exactly? Perhaps the dumb states and European countries who've already charted a course for an energy-impoverished and expensive future. But Asian countries don't quite agree:

Akihisa Matsuda, the deputy director of international affairs at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), said the government has no plans to immediately stop oil, gas and coal investments.

"The report provides one suggestion as to how the world can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, but it is not necessarily in line with the Japanese government's policy," he said.

"Japan needs to protect its energy security including a stable supply of electricity, so we will balance this with our goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050."

In the Philippines, where coal is set to be the dominant power source for years even after a ban on new coal plant proposals, Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi said the energy transition should be "fuel and technology-neutral".

Cutting finance for oil, gas and coal without considering efficiency and competitiveness would "set back the Philippines' aspiration to join the ranks of upper middle-income countries," he said.

While the world is moving to renewable energy, demand for coal is still expected to be strong in the next few decades as some countries are still building new coal-fired power plants, said Hendra Sinadia, executive director at Indonesia Coal Mining Association.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...eid=4961da7cb1

I haven't seen a response from India and China and therefore assume they haven't stopped laughing yet.

Bureaucrats can hand wave things on paper like Hitler with his paper armies in 1945 but they can't ignore the physical realities of energy usage just like Nazi Germany couldn't ignore the real armies of the Allies.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not surprised that there would be a strong urban/rural divide when it comes to attitudes regarding EVs, but I wonder whether rural areas vary much in terms of their attitudes on this front?

Obviously driving an electric F150 up in Grande Prairie or anyplace in Alberta where people wear I ♥ Canadian Oil & Gas or Bleed Black hoodies won't make you any friends. But what about places that aren't on the oil map? What if someone drives an EV in Altona, MB, or Capreol, ON? Would anyone care or even notice?

Hmm. The leaders of the anti coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rockies were the rural farmers and ranchers who'd be mostly affected by the policy. Despite what many on this site like to do with their drive by smears, not all rural residents are slack jawed Neanderthals.

[esquire]

^ What does coal mining activism have to do with how electric vehicles are regarded in rural areas, though?

[milomilo]

Not that I am too unhappy with the resistance to coal mining, but that is essentially NIMBYism. The people who already have the stuff don't want their industry suffering because of a new one. Those ranchers don't give a shit about contaminating water up north or elsewhere.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ What does coal mining activism have to do with how electric vehicles are regarded in rural areas, though?

Its the constant blanket statements from a select few on this site which perpetuates stereotypes that only causes more distrust between rural and urban people. For every yokel who'll take a sledge to a Prius there is hundreds who couldn't care less what type a vehicle a person drives and the Prius is not their cup of tea.
There is still a lot of barriers for widespread electrical vehicle use outside of urban areas and major transportation corridors. Being called names because you have questions does nothing to help the acceptance of these vehicles.

[b31den]

I live in Grande Prairie. A lot of people on this forum are out of touch with reality. Yes Grande Prairie is more right leaning than somewhere like Edmonton, but its not a political monolith. Nobody here is gonna care what vehicle youre driving. I see priuses, teslas, smart cars, etc all the time. A huge portion of this city is people who moved here from Ontario to make money and then ended up staying.

To be honest, the electric f150 with its current range would be very impractical for this region. Distances are big here. It needs to have enough range to do GP to Edmonton in -30. No one is going to want to hang out in Fox Creek or Whitecourt waiting to recharge.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Where exactly? Perhaps the dumb states and European countries who've already charted a course for an energy-impoverished and expensive future.

Originally Posted by accord1999

Bureaucrats can hand wave things on paper like Hitler with his paper armies in 1945 but they can't ignore the physical realities of energy usage just like Nazi Germany couldn't ignore the real armies of the Allies.

Insults. Name calling. Sweeping assertions. Comparisons to the Nazis. The hysteria is quite revealing.

Originally Posted by accord1999

I haven't seen a response from India and China

Why would they comment on the reports of an agency they are not a member of?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why would they comment on the reports of an agency they are not a member of?

Because the IEA is telling the world to stop finding new oil, natural gas and coal. And the two are association countries of the IEA, and represent a huge chunk of future energy demand growth.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Because the IEA is telling the world to stop finding new oil, natural gas and coal. And the two are association countries of the IEA, and represent a huge chunk of future energy demand growth.

The IEA simply told the world that in any 1.5°C scenario, which requires net zero by 2050, there's no good return on investment on new extraction projects going forward. What the world does with the modeling is up to individual countries and investors.

If India and China don't intend to tackle climate change, maybe they should pony up for the new extraction projects that they think will be needed, over and above the IEA forecast. But for non-state actors, it's certainly great modeling to consider whether oil and gas projects with a 20-30 yr horizon will have the returns they desire.

Funny, nobody in oil and gas sector had any issues with IEA forecasts before. But one report that actually acknowledges how renewables and electrification are actually progressing and where it might go and we get hysteria on par with high school teen girls catching their boyfriends with a rival.

But I do hear it's getting hard to get insurance for these projects and insurance companies to invest in these projects. I wonder what the IEA modeling will do to that tend. This is starting to look a lot like the spiraling down of network effects that Rethink X was describing.

ps. Somebody should tell the CPC to stop being hostile to China. Clearly, we will need to be their bitch to sell them our oil in the future of plenty coming up.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Where exactly? Perhaps the dumb states and European countries who've already charted a course for an energy-impoverished and expensive future. But Asian countries don't quite agree:

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...eid=4961da7cb1

I haven't seen a response from India and China and therefore assume they haven't stopped laughing yet.

Bureaucrats can hand wave things on paper like Hitler with his paper armies in 1945 but they can't ignore the physical realities of energy usage just like Nazi Germany couldn't ignore the real armies of the Allies.

Apparently Sleepy Joe hasn’t gotten around to reading the IEA memo either (or perhaps he decided he really needs those Alaskan senator votes)?

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is defending a huge Trump-era oil and gas project in the North Slope of Alaska designed to produce more than 100,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 30 years, despite President Biden’s pledge to pivot the country away from fossil fuels.

The decision comes just days after the International Energy Agency, the world’s top energy body, warned that governments must stop investing in new fossil fuel projects if they want to keep the increase in average global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, compared to preindustrial levels. That’s the threshold beyond which scientists say the Earth will experience irreversible damage.
It also stands in stark contrast to Mr. Biden’s pledge to cut United States emissions about in half by 2030, replace fossil fuels with solar, wind and other renewable energy and enhance protections for public lands and waters.
“This is especially disappointing coming from a president who promised to do better,” said Siqiñic Maupin, executive director of Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic in Alaska.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/c...gtype=Homepage

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The IEA simply told the world that in any 1.5°C scenario, which requires net zero by 2050, there's no good return on investment on new extraction projects going forward. What the world does with the modeling is up to individual countries and investors.

If India and China don't intend to tackle climate change, maybe they should pony up for the new extraction projects that they think will be needed, over and above the IEA forecast. But for non-state actors, it's certainly great modeling to consider whether oil and gas projects with a 20-30 yr horizon will have the returns they desire.

Funny, nobody in oil and gas sector had any issues with IEA forecasts before. But one report that actually acknowledges how renewables and electrification are actually progressing and where it might go and we get hysteria on par with high school teen girls catching their boyfriends with a rival.

But I do hear it's getting hard to get insurance for these projects and insurance companies to invest in these projects. I wonder what the IEA modeling will do to that tend. This is starting to look a lot like the spiraling down of network effects that Rethink X was describing.

ps. Somebody should tell the CPC to stop being hostile to China. Clearly, we will need to be their bitch to sell them our oil in the future of plenty coming up.

China is inking long term oil deals with countries like Iran.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/3...aining-us-ties

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Apparently Sleepy Joe hasn’t gotten around to reading the IEA memo either (or perhaps he decided he really needs those Alaskan senator votes)?

He's also proposing massive green legislation.

100 steps forward, 1 step back.

Nobody said oil is gone forever and we'll never extract another drop.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

China is inking long term oil deals with countries like Iran.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/3...aining-us-ties

As they should if they think that's in their best interest.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

He's also proposing massive green legislation.

100 steps forward, 1 step back.

Nobody said oil is gone forever and we'll never extract another drop.

Our War room cohort has a penchant for strawman arguments. In their minds, supporting effort on climate change must mean someone is 100% opposed to oil and gas. And that's why they think this is a "Gotchya!"See the same thing in Canada with pipelines.

Oil isn't going away. But investors should also be aware of the risk here. Automakers are starting to put firm projections out there and committing to real capex to meet those goals. GM is spending $27B and aiming for 100% EV by 2035. Ford is spending $30B and aiming for 40% globally by 2030 (100% in Europe). Volkswagen is spending €73B and aiming for half its sales to be EVs by 2030. This is not 2010 anymore where carmakers talk about EVs and point at things like the Prius and Leaf. We're at the start of a massive development cycle that will see carmakers offering competitively priced EVs in nearly every segment by the end of the decade. Anybody thinking this won't dent oil demand at all? You know what they say about fools and their money....

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

He's also proposing massive green legislation.

100 steps forward, 1 step back.

Nobody said oil is gone forever and we'll never extract another drop.

Looks like we can make that 2 steps backward! And borrowing $6 trillion to fund a bevy of dubious "green" projects won't look so good in a few years when the inevitable failures mount up and the money is all spent ala the first go-round of Obama-Biden.

“The President knows that gas prices are a pain point for Americans,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement Friday. “President Biden is opposed to any proposals to raise the gas tax. And it’s why we will continue to monitor prices, and are glad that Americans can get on the road again.”

Gasoline demand is roaring back close to levels seen before the pandemic as the world’s largest economy opens up and avid drivers take to the roads after a year of lockdowns and restrictions.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...ice-since-2014

[MolsonExport]

another fine post from the wart room.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Looks like we can make that 2 steps backward! And borrowing $6 trillion to fund a bevy of dubious "green" projects won't look so good in a few years when the inevitable failures mount up and the money is all spent ala the first go-round of Obama-Biden.

Why you so obsessed with Biden?

You sound worried that those plans might actually be effective.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Gasoline demand is roaring back close to levels seen before the pandemic as the world’s largest economy opens up and avid drivers take to the roads after a year of lockdowns and restrictions.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...ice-since-2014[/I]

Things returning to pre-pandemic levels. Who could have possibly predicted such a thing?

[vid]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Things returning to pre-pandemic levels. Who could have possibly predicted such a thing?

This inflation will continue forever!!

[ssiguy]

Kind of two-faced of Biden to open up Alaska to oil but he is a politician thru & thru and the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.

We will always need oil but it's main usage of transportation will quickly fall off the cliff as well as for industrial usages like mining, manufacturing, and agriculture where hydrogen will be the fuel of choice.