3 ms·
I don't really understand his conclusion. If I understand it correctly, it boils down to: Fossil fuels are cheaper (better ROI) than renewables, therefore chang
by V__ 4y ago
I don't really understand his conclusion. If I understand it correctly, it boils down to: Fossil fuels are cheaper (better ROI) than renewables, therefore changes/improvements to fossil fuels did more to reduce CO2 than renewables. My work on "utopian energy" didn't have the effect I wished it had.
Climate change is a problem. Just because gas, oil, and coal are cheaper and made improvements doesn't change a thing about that.
- svnt 4y agoHe wanted to be a hero and when that didn’t work out he got embarrassed and switched sides. Instead of learning about technology cycles, when life gave him lemons he said fuck the lemons and bailed.
- XorNot 4y agoHe's a self-promotionist who seems to have built quite the profile marketing himself as providing energy "truth". It's inevitably going to turn out he represents oil and gas in some way because boy does he just gloss over the subsidies those industries receive while uncritically spruiking the benefits. EDIT: oh look, the very next story he has on this site is how fossil fuel companies can improve their image "to protect our prosperity" [1] [1] https://briangitt.com/how-to-win-the-energy-war-tell-better-stories/ https://briangitt.com/how-to-win-the-energy-war-tell-better-...