Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Energy Superpower Status Threatened As World Shifts Off Fossil Fuel (www.cbc.ca)
Robson Fletcher, reporting for CBC News: Canada's status as an "energy superpower" is under threat because the global dominance of fossil fuels could wane faster than previously believed, according to a draft report from a federal government think-tank obtained by CBC News. "It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status," reads the conclusion of the 32-page document, produced by Policy Horizons Canada. "It's absolutely not pie in the sky," said Michal Moore from the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy. "These folks are being realistic -- they may not be popular, but they're being realistic." Marty Reed, CEO of Evok Innovations -- a Vancouver-based cleantech fund created through a $100-million partnership with Cenovus and Suncor -- had a similar take after reading the draft report.
You need to know the definitions of censorship before you cry about it.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I suppose it depends on your definition of "superpower." From the wikipedia article, Canada's GDP is 10th in the world, and 15th per capita (nominal). It's a first world nation with a very high HDI. It's also a member of the G7 nations, which represent 64% of the world's wealth.
I think one thing people overlook is that Canada has a massive treasure trove of natural resources and a very good setup for a modern economy (good income equality, good infrastructure). This combined with a high rate of immigration means the population is growing and companies will flourish (ideally). But, you never know. Resources are 20% of the GDP of Canada (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/key-facts/16013) so if that all went away at once it'd be a huge problem. I doubt it would go down like that though.
Around here, we tend to be okay with dissenting views, as long as you provide evidence or interesting reasoning that poses new questions. When your post gets modded down, it will be because we're still waiting for you to provide either of those things....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Your comment has zero evidence or claims to back it up simply a statement of what you believed and a claim that you'd be downvoted which you equated to censorship. In fact, the only moderation to your comment so far has been +3 interesting. It sounds like you have a bit of a persecution complex.
We're going to wean ourselves off fossil fuels faster than anyone thinks? I'm not sure how that's going to happen.
According to Bloomberg Business, "Electric Cars Could Wreak Havoc on Oil Markets Within a Decade"
Conventional energy will be obsolete by 2030 according to Swedbank: there are four key categories of technologies all of which are improving by double and triple digit basis every year. Each one of them is disruptive in it's own way.
This is a suspect phrase: "cheap renewable electricity".
It will only be "cheaper" by boosting the prices for all other types of electricity.
Boosting by attempting to properly price the complete costs of existing sources of energy to include all their current externalities?
If it takes a generation or two to transition to electric vehicles, we are screwed. I think it will probably take one generation. By about 2025 they will be as cheap to buy as petrol cars and much, much cheaper to run. The second hand market will also have taken off.
The real tipping point is closer than you think. It's not when 90% of vehicles are not using fossil fuels, it's when demand starts to fall significantly enough that it has a major financial impact on Canada and other countries currently doing quite well out of them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not necessarily. As supplies eventually wane, the price of crude may actually skyrocket, and savvy investors could make a killing. Demand is still going to be there. Are we going to have realistic alternatives for technologies that require hydrocarbon-based fuel, like airliners? The ones we're building *right now* will undoubtedly still be in service in 20-30 years.
Besides, people have been predicting the death of the oil industry since the 50's, and it's always been "20 years out". I guarantee you that twenty years from now, someone else will also be predicting the end of oil "20 years from now". No one is foolish enough to believe oil supplies will last forever, but we've certainly managed to skirt past peak-oil predictions by almost half a century so far. If that track record holds true, I'd say the oil industry is going to be around for another half century at least, until it's eventually no longer economical to drill for natural oil, at which point everyone will turn to biofuel or synthetics, I suppose.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Just because a private organization can censor speech within its domain, doesn't mean that it's not censorship.
And a private legally censoring opinions is just a morally and ethically objectionable as is a government censoring opinions.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"...Fossil fuels have enabled civilization to progress more in the last 150 years or so they've been in use, than in all of man's history..."
A similar assertion could have been made for slavery. However that's not a valid reason alone to keep it.