Limiting supply of fossil fuels doesn't spur green technology. Investment in R&D does. Why not stop subsidizing that fossil fuel power instead? See as it stand if you just ban new sources, while continuing to subsidize the power, you protect existing players form competition, while feeding them tax payer money, and simultaneously ensuring that they can transform their (now government mandated) monopoly in fossil fuels into a similar monopoly in the next energy source. This is just corporate welfare policy dressed up as environmentalism.
>Why not stop subsidizing that fossil fuel power instead?
I agree with your post as a whole. Have to point out though, that a subsidization stop is also just an (albeit indirect) limitation to supply.
Both should happen. Fossile fuel should not be subsidized, tapping into new reservoirs should be forbidden, and we should definitely stop spending ludicrous amounts of taxpayer cash into pointless military expenditures, and start pumping that money into R&D.
Oil and gas have more uses than mere power generation and transportation. Petroleum products (oil, gas, bitumen, etc) are used in manufacturing probably more of the equipment we use today than most people realise.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. A ban would be counter-productive and silly.
6 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 28.6 ms ] threadI agree with your post as a whole. Have to point out though, that a subsidization stop is also just an (albeit indirect) limitation to supply.
Both should happen. Fossile fuel should not be subsidized, tapping into new reservoirs should be forbidden, and we should definitely stop spending ludicrous amounts of taxpayer cash into pointless military expenditures, and start pumping that money into R&D.
It does, since reduced supply increases price which make renewables as well as storage more attractive
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. A ban would be counter-productive and silly.