Thanks! We desperately try to wriggle out of the room without using the door. There is no way in which we will achieve net zero without a drastic change in our lifestyles. I am not complaining nor I am implying that we should. I am only stating where we are: continue living on the planet we are used to or keep our lifestyle. We cannot have both. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Is there more money in Net Zero than in continuing to sell us oil? If no. then no. Corporations are designed to accomplish one thing. Generate profit for the shareholders. Period.
Probably not in the short term. The less ff there is and the harder it becomes to access, the higher the price and profit potential. This will likely continue until the EROI drops to 1:1. There would be increasing losses though. Companies will externalise these to the commons where they can. After the collapse that burning it is causing, definitely.
If everything we have known will collapse, isn't the cost more to do nothing? Insurance companies refusing to insure, flood waters in the metres in grandchildren's lives. Massive upheaval has a cost to everything that holds value now, a couple of major insurers closing down and policy shift by one govt, when it happens is far too late, so because of failing to reach Net Zero, which is all energy not just electricity. Depending on your age, you might see money become worthless, as all money is debt based, the things that debt is being entered into over could be coming to an end in the next few decades, isn't it better to discuss that possibility than saying, period, no?
@@antonyjh1234 I simply stated a fact. I didn't say I liked or supported it. I think it's terrible. If you think I'm going to bother reading your lengthy reply, you will be disappointed. Hope your rant made you feel better though.
@@PFWoody488 You stated your opinion as far as I was concerned that said NO, whether you read my novel or not which of course you did, does not matter, just the point that was made that went against your negativity and stating it as fact. If you thought it was a rant, realise your comment prompted it and take some responsibility for your comments because I didn't operate in a vacuum.
@@PFWoody488 After having re-read my original comment, if you thought that was a rant I would suggest thicker skin if you are going to put your opinion on a public page.
Net Zero is not an investment vehicle if money is still expected to have the same purchasing power of energy. Money has to be done away with and will or choice, take over.
Thanks!
We desperately try to wriggle out of the room without using the door.
There is no way in which we will achieve net zero without a drastic change in our lifestyles.
I am not complaining nor I am implying that we should. I am only stating where we are: continue living on the planet we are used to or keep our lifestyle. We cannot have both. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Wouldn't a global cap-and-trade system with a declining cap do the job?
Is there more money in Net Zero than in continuing to sell us oil? If no. then no. Corporations are designed to accomplish one thing. Generate profit for the shareholders. Period.
Probably not in the short term. The less ff there is and the harder it becomes to access, the higher the price and profit potential. This will likely continue until the EROI drops to 1:1.
There would be increasing losses though. Companies will externalise these to the commons where they can.
After the collapse that burning it is causing, definitely.
If everything we have known will collapse, isn't the cost more to do nothing?
Insurance companies refusing to insure, flood waters in the metres in grandchildren's lives. Massive upheaval has a cost to everything that holds value now, a couple of major insurers closing down and policy shift by one govt, when it happens is far too late, so because of failing to reach Net Zero, which is all energy not just electricity.
Depending on your age, you might see money become worthless, as all money is debt based, the things that debt is being entered into over could be coming to an end in the next few decades, isn't it better to discuss that possibility than saying, period, no?
@@antonyjh1234 I simply stated a fact. I didn't say I liked or supported it. I think it's terrible.
If you think I'm going to bother reading your lengthy reply, you will be disappointed. Hope your rant made you feel better though.
@@PFWoody488 You stated your opinion as far as I was concerned that said NO, whether you read my novel or not which of course you did, does not matter, just the point that was made that went against your negativity and stating it as fact. If you thought it was a rant, realise your comment prompted it and take some responsibility for your comments because I didn't operate in a vacuum.
@@PFWoody488 After having re-read my original comment, if you thought that was a rant I would suggest thicker skin if you are going to put your opinion on a public page.
Net Zero is not an investment vehicle if money is still expected to have the same purchasing power of energy. Money has to be done away with and will or choice, take over.
Transition? .. right, we burnt more fossil fuels in 24 that 23. Problem is we have everything but TIME
Private sector fails humanity yet again! Nothing new here.
LOL, the same clowns that got us here are gunna lead us out of the scheisse....guffaw! guffaw!