You are mistaking indecision and science.
I take a scientific approach to this issue and indeed pretty much everything. Consider the available evidence, form a conclusion based up on it, but always remain open to new information should it emerge.
At a personal level well I've understood this problem my entire adult life and have with few exceptions sought to minimise my contribution to it. No change you'll find me driving a gas guzzler, indeed I'd be rather embarrassed to do so. Much the same approach with everything else too.
That does not mean I won't question the issue and my understanding of it. Given we're talking about the future and it's all based upon assumptions of emissions and modelling of their effects, it's entirely reasonable to pose the question as to what's happening in reality at any given time. It's not like, say, the issue that smoking causes cancer for which millions of experiments have been conducted, that is everyone who's been a long term smoker, and the health impacts are clearly observable. We haven't actually cooked a planet before so it's not unreasonable to keep a check to see if it's going as expected or not.
Needless to say, as the actual effects have become more apparent and in line with expected outcomes I've become more convinced that those models are correct or at least good enough. That doesn't change the fact that I thought it was a problem long ago, it just means I'm now more convinced that the models are correct.
Keeping an open mind is always wise though with anything. On a big picture level in the energy field, well if you'd asked pretty much anyone back in 1980 about 2020 then they'd have got it profoundly wrong. They'd all have scoffed at the idea of natural gas being a significant source of electricity anywhere other than the USSR or Middle East for example. It was practically zero in the UK at the time and in the USA policy, which had been enacted as law, required it to be completely phased out to literally zero by 1990. Fast forward to 2020 and reality is the opposite of previous expectations in so many ways.
Go back just 10 years and even the solar industry itself saw rooftop systems as nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Even those selling the systems didn't generally comprehend that the uptick in sales marked the start of a major boom and wasn't merely a blip.
And so on. Having an open mind to new information is never a bad thing since the reality is that most predictions of most things do turn out to be at least partly wrong. Exceptions of course but in general that's the case.
To the extent that I do have any doubts about the climate issue it comes down to the absolutism displayed by many who in truth don't really know what they're on about. They'll protest about brown coal for example but ask them to explain why, exactly, it's such a problem and you won't get a proper answer which suggests that whatever's motivating them to protest isn't a real understanding of the issue.
In Australia yes but even that was contentious with a lot of "should they be allowed to export?" questions being raised at the time.
In Australia yes but even that was contentious with a lot of "should they be allowed to export?" questions being raised at the time.
Meanwhile in the USA the law, the actual law at that time, banned the use of gas in new power stations from 1984 and in all existing facilities by 1990. That was a hard and fast phase out.
Western Europe was all broadly similar. Keep gas for essential uses and get it, and oil, completely out of power generation was the thinking. That was the primary trigger for France building so many nukes - they relied heavily on oil prior to that.
Australia signed too by the way. We committed to not building new oil-fired steam raising plant, either government owned or in private enterprise, unless no practical alternative existed. That's where we also committed to holding fuel stocks and so on too.
As with most things, there was one fatal flaw. When Exxon management testified to the US Congress on the issue they'd failed to grasp that the failure to find gas, and hence Exxon's view that the future of it was extremely limited, was simply because nobody had intentionally looked for the stuff. At that point, late 1970's, pretty much all gas had been found accidentally whilst drilling for oil or even water. Once the industry went and consciously started looking for gas, unsurprisingly they found it but pretty much all the "big" oil companies missed that point at the time, it was the small ones that went and did it meanwhile Mobil burned $ billions trying to cook oil out of rocks and Shell went around buying up coal deposits (and accidentally gave one away many years later but that's another story).
Fact is we haven't tested it even once on the real planet earth or a replica. Not that I'm suggesting we ought to, but fact is all we've done is lab experiments, models, simulations and so on but it has never been tried for real. As anyone who's been involved with large scale physical things will be all too aware, what happens in practice doesn't always match the theory when it comes to the detail.
I will simply say that I have no idea whether you are misunderstanding what I've said, are just being silly, or something else. I don't take offence however.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
