2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Ripples of Hope [View all]malthaussen
(17,193 posts)... let's stipulate, for the present, that there is an ongoing energy crisis that is generally unknown because it is kept out of the media. The fact that we are maintaining high levels of energy output despite the rising difficulty of extraction supports this idea (as the supply of easily-extracted materials runs out, we switch to materials that are harder and harder to extract profitably, as with tar sands and fracking).
Now, let us also stipulate that yeah, switching to alternative energy sources is both time-consuming and requires much labor. But the same applies to using marginal extraction techniques. Fracking has been with us since the 1940s, but has only exploded relatively recently due to the closing off of other options.
It is ridiculous to suggest that a major energy company has neither the resources nor the expertise to change production methods to one that is efficient and safe, and yet when push came to shove, they preferred to promote an ancient and marginal and unsafe extraction method instead. One wonders why. I'd like to see a good cost/benefit balance sheet on what the bottom line difference is to shifting to non-extractive production methods, rather than extractive ones. Sure, an energy company has more experience with the latter, but I wonder just how much the changeover would have damaged their bottom lines, if they had chosen to make it.
It's still amazingly short-sighted, because not only are extractive methods dirty, unsafe, and poison the environment and the people, they are ultimately finite. Once they run out, what next? Do the technologists think that we will continue to improve the cost-effectiveness of the old methods enough to stave off the crisis? At what point do the diminishing returns diminish to nothing? Well, clearly beyond the tenures of the executives making the decisions, which is likely all they care about. It might be of concern to one who takes a longer-term view of the situation, though: as a statesman should.
-- Mal