Read on Twitter
There’s an aspect of the “NL oil is clean growth” argument that is disingenuous and this column is the best example I’ve seen. (Short thread) https://www.thetelegram.com/business/local-business/guest-column-canadas-offshore-oil-and-gas-industry-is-the-ticket-to-clean-growth-for-newfoundland-and-labrador-455761/?utm_source=Newsletters+%7C+The+Telegram&utm_campaign=9cb0a88de4-sjt_morning_headlines_email&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a106b3fd1f-9cb0a88de4-51979745
There’s this bit where authors start brainstorming about all the amazing ways to decarbonize oil extraction. And, like, okay - that’s neat.
But where has NOIA committed to doing *any* of this?
But where has NOIA committed to doing *any* of this?
And I’m sorry but a net zero by 2050 is not resonating because it’s the same commitment that majors are making all around the world (eg https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/04/17/news/oil-and-gas-giant-shell-targets-net-zero-emissions-2050). The problem here is without a plan and a pathway we can’t take it seriously.
I just can’t get behind this argument. If there is to be subsidy for petroleum it has to have *major* strings attached to make mandatory the types of things the article brainstorms about.
We can’t afford to be naive here
We can’t afford to be naive here
Also - if we want all those cool tech companies, why not subsidize cool tech companies?
Why does it *have* to be the commodity that the author acknowledges we are transitioning away from?
Why does it *have* to be the commodity that the author acknowledges we are transitioning away from?
In fact perhaps the author has stumbled across a middle ground without even realizing it.
What if we subsidized spinoff tech companies directly - but with caveat:
To receive $ you have to demonstrate your product or service can be used for something other than oil.
What if we subsidized spinoff tech companies directly - but with caveat:
To receive $ you have to demonstrate your product or service can be used for something other than oil.
