Environment & Energy

hunter

(40,356 posts)

1. Fossil fuel generated electricity won't be replaced by renewables.

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:36 AM

Jul 2012

The ONLY way to reduce fossil fuel use is to restrict supply -- by banning new fossil fuel plants and removing old ones, by banning development of new fossil fuel extraction schemes (mountain top removal, fracking, arctic oil...) or by taxing these industries out of existence.

The "magic hand" of economics and efficiency will always push us in the wrong direction.

Extreme carbon taxes on the extraction industry might be a good place to start, and I would not direct these tax dollars into renewable energy or big industry of any kind; instead I'd make sure the money was used to create low energy, low environmental impact, comfortable and attractive urban communities.

We won't solve this problem by making our use of fossil fuels more efficient, we can only solve this problem by actively dismantling our fossil fuel industry.

If we want this civilization and what's left of our natural environment to survive, then the fossil fuel industry must die.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Paradox of Energy Efficiency [View all] GliderGuider Jul 2012 OP

Fossil fuel generated electricity won't be replaced by renewables. hunter Jul 2012 #1

Yes, I agree with you on all counts. Unfortunately... GliderGuider Jul 2012 #2

The fossil fuel industry won't die? Nederland Jul 2012 #6

Nope. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #7

Well history certainly supports you... kristopher Jul 2012 #9

Oh look - a trite, mindless cliche. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #10

GG is immune to historical evidence Nederland Jul 2012 #33

You know how we all laugh at people who say "This time it's different"? GliderGuider Jul 2012 #35

I take that to mean it will die when it runs out not so much that... joshcryer Jul 2012 #12

No Nederland Jul 2012 #32

You do me a disservice. I'm MUCH more pessimistic than that. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #34

For example, wind or solar cannot compete with inexpensive natural gas. hunter Jul 2012 #29

And that is precisely what the cited paper says. joshcryer Jul 2012 #13

Rush Limbaugh: Institute for Energy Research is "the energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation" bananas Jul 2012 #3

Know your wingnuts: Institute for Energy Research bananas Jul 2012 #4

Who are these guys? Yet more polluter-funded front groups hit the climate scene bananas Jul 2012 #5

It's telling that none of your posts addressed the substance of the article. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #14

LOL - "lack of political purity" - it's a politically-pure right-wing front group. nt bananas Jul 2012 #18

That sounds oddly familiar. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #19

This from someone who says anything more than a couple of sentences is too long to read kristopher Jul 2012 #20

My objection is not to reading, as you know. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #21

More Bullpuckey? kristopher Jul 2012 #22

Wow. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #23

More like ... kristopher Jul 2012 #24

I find it helps to look on such interactions GliderGuider Jul 2012 #25

. XemaSab Jul 2012 #26

Actual science on display here: GliderGuider Jul 2012 #31

The efficiency is good, but of little value with increased consumerism and greed. Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #8

The paper cited is correct, but they're arguing it from a poison pill POV. joshcryer Jul 2012 #11

What do you think would work to mitigate rebound? GliderGuider Jul 2012 #15

Socialism or high regulation. Rebound is a definite characteristic of capitalism. joshcryer Jul 2012 #16

Socialism and high regulation need to have this outcome as one of the goals. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #17

when all else fails invoke the USSR Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #28

Or you increase the fuel tax along with the efficiency requirements. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #27

Yes, the one mechanism that might work is a no-frills carbon tax. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #30