- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,505
- Reactions
- 24,331
I agree with your sentiment 100%, the only problem is, it is built on a lot of assumptions that are yet to materialise.If you have wind and solar power, and no oil or gas, it makes strategic sense to move to an energy platform that is not susceptible to external disruption.
That's aside from the health and environmental benefits achieved from an orderly transition to renewables.
Aside from that, EV's are likely to be produced more cheaply than ICE vehicles within a decade, aside from their running costs being less and their batteries being both repurposable and recyclable .
And it's aside from the fact that oil and gas are not long term solutions as they are finite resources.
So setting a target date for transition makes perfect sense from multiple perspectives.
As oil and gas are finite source, so are battery materials and as yet the recovery processes of their base materials in in its infancy.
Setting a target date is just a way of appeasing some, what if there are reasons that the targets can't be met? Just move the target as usual.
I think the general public get sick of being taken for bunnies by politicians making promises, that are outside their control.
As has been shown in recent history, all targets do, is give the media something to fill their content quotas with.
As happened with the vaccine roll out, the politicians promise it will be complete by a certain time, what happens? First not enough vaccine, now there is enough vaccine, not enough people want it. ?
Last edited: