The storied Canadian activist has created a template for a global agreement to cap and reduce fossil fuel production. I talked with her about why it's time to address supply and where the treaty could go in the future.
I totally get the frustration with "wonky" demand side measures that leads to these approaches. And protecting places does get folks whipped up. I guess if a shortage of fossil fuels is created, their prices will go up and the alternatives will get used. Maybe, but probably not great optics.
Additionally there is a full court press by the fossil fuel industries to use their own wonky laws, regs, and proceedings to slow and stop those alternatives. That seems to be working most effectively in the places where we need to build renewable infrastructure.
The cities which pass these resolutions to stop fossil fuel expansion and have 100% renewable energy are going to need to get energy from the countryside. And that countryside is being whipped into an anti-renewables frenzy:
It's not going to be like the Amazonian tribal elder described, joyfully plugging his laptop into a small solar panel. What about all the panels needed to power the boats and planes that service these communities. To say nothing about the solar "farm" to send power to a city. Those Nebraska farmers; they're also trying to stop or have stopped a powerline for (mostly) wind power.
I still think we need "wonky" "demand-side" measures. They just need to be far more stringent and effective, and that may mean someone will need to spend some bucks. And that means these measures need outpourings of support, both emotional and dispassionate.
And just one more thing, the "demand side" community has great PR, but that PR, and greenwashing PR from utilities in particular, creates the impression that the deployment of these measures is much more widespread, faster, easier and cheaper than it really is. And that impression reduces support for more stringent measures. I'd say we need to treat fossil fuels more like we treated lead paint, and lead in gas, back in the 70s.
I don't understand. A supply strategy works on politically vulnerable targets. But carbon is fungible, and there is plenty of carbon that is hard to target. I don't do podcasts, since they consume too much time. But maybe there is something I'm missing that another commenter will catch.
I totally get the frustration with "wonky" demand side measures that leads to these approaches. And protecting places does get folks whipped up. I guess if a shortage of fossil fuels is created, their prices will go up and the alternatives will get used. Maybe, but probably not great optics.
Additionally there is a full court press by the fossil fuel industries to use their own wonky laws, regs, and proceedings to slow and stop those alternatives. That seems to be working most effectively in the places where we need to build renewable infrastructure.
The cities which pass these resolutions to stop fossil fuel expansion and have 100% renewable energy are going to need to get energy from the countryside. And that countryside is being whipped into an anti-renewables frenzy:
https://energynews.us/2021/07/07/how-misinformation-propped-up-ohio-lawmakers-latest-attack-on-renewables/
It's not going to be like the Amazonian tribal elder described, joyfully plugging his laptop into a small solar panel. What about all the panels needed to power the boats and planes that service these communities. To say nothing about the solar "farm" to send power to a city. Those Nebraska farmers; they're also trying to stop or have stopped a powerline for (mostly) wind power.
I still think we need "wonky" "demand-side" measures. They just need to be far more stringent and effective, and that may mean someone will need to spend some bucks. And that means these measures need outpourings of support, both emotional and dispassionate.
And just one more thing, the "demand side" community has great PR, but that PR, and greenwashing PR from utilities in particular, creates the impression that the deployment of these measures is much more widespread, faster, easier and cheaper than it really is. And that impression reduces support for more stringent measures. I'd say we need to treat fossil fuels more like we treated lead paint, and lead in gas, back in the 70s.
I don't understand. A supply strategy works on politically vulnerable targets. But carbon is fungible, and there is plenty of carbon that is hard to target. I don't do podcasts, since they consume too much time. But maybe there is something I'm missing that another commenter will catch.