The Carbon Enemy

[AndrewM]

An interesting read that puts some perspective into our carbon footprint. Also not surprising is the author was unable to get this published in any of the traditional media venues.

https://www.c2cjournal.ca/2018/12/03...-and-he-is-us/

[calgarychef]

That’s a great article, very poignant.

[Walleyedude]

Good read for sure.

[bubba300]

good article

[ChickakooKookoo]

Not that the point's he's making aren't valid but....

Steve Larke, CFA, is a former top-ranked energy equity analyst who has been writing about Canadian and global energy trends for institutional clients for over 20 years. He is a former Managing Director of Peters & Co., and most recently held the role of Advisory Board Member for Azimuth Capital Management. Adam Le Dain, CFA, is an Associate at Azimuth Capital Management.

From Peters & Co Website
Peters & Co. is a full service investment dealer that has specialized in the Canadian oil and natural gas, midstream, and oilfield services industries for over 47 years.

I'm not sure why I would take this type of advice from a financial adviser to the O&G Industry. I prefer to listen to scientists when it's comes to science.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

Not that the point's he's making aren't valid but....

Steve Larke, CFA, is a former top-ranked energy equity analyst who has been writing about Canadian and global energy trends for institutional clients for over 20 years. He is a former Managing Director of Peters & Co., and most recently held the role of Advisory Board Member for Azimuth Capital Management. Adam Le Dain, CFA, is an Associate at Azimuth Capital Management.

From Peters & Co Website
Peters & Co. is a full service investment dealer that has specialized in the Canadian oil and natural gas, midstream, and oilfield services industries for over 47 years.

I'm not sure why I would take this type of advice from a financial adviser to the O&G Industry. I prefer to listen to scientists when it's comes to science.

From the author:
I had a very hard time getting this published in traditional media venues – tumbleweeds – so thanks to C2C for being the sole outlet. This is no rant, nor is it a political piece - it is just math surrounding global energy demand (the frank conclusion is “we need pretty much all types of energy molecules in a hurry and the media/political prognosticated pace of transition appears comically wrong”). The sources are all public and the article is thoroughly researched – if you want the sources, I will share them. Crazily, the story keeps going – i.e., there are more arguments than just the ones in the below, but brevity matters.

[AndrewM]

Also what science in the article is invalid or that you are questioning as invalid? Not a ton of science in it and more simple math.

[ChickakooKookoo]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Also what science in the article is invalid or that you are questioning as invalid? Not a ton of science in it and more simple math.

Was just pointing out the inherit bias of the author.

Sorry, I don't plan on getting into an argument about climate change on AO.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

Was just pointing out the inherit bias of the author.

Sorry, I don't plan on getting into an argument about climate change on AO.

Not looking for an argument. Was just looking for your reasoning. The author didn't mention anything about climate change. He was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the producers taking all the blame when in the end there wouldn't be any supply if there was no demand. Consumers need to look in the mirror prior to looking at others. Doesn't take a scientist to point out these facts.

[ChickakooKookoo]

Well ok, I'll bite.

Absolutely, demand creates supply. It also works the other way though, Says Law indicates that supply creates demand. A couple obvious examples of Says Law are the iPhone and photocopiers. No one knew they needed them until someone invented them.

So to put the blame on consumers just isn't valid, certainly not in our capitalist society where everyone needs the newest and best of everything all the time. The keeping up with the Jones' mentality is a different discussion for another day though.

So with that in mind, the only real solution to a decrease in demand is to make supply prohibitively expensive from a consumer standpoint. Note, I'm not arguing for a carbon tax here, trust me I hate it, but I'm certainly not aware of a different solution and telling people to live there lives differently doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

The other obvious solution is cutting off the problem at the source. Not really going to get into that here though.

[Vovchyk]

Generally serious journals have every paper to go through a peer review. If there is a hard time publishing something it means that fellow scientists either don't agree with the methods and conclusions, or maybe they think that science is not present in the article.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by Vovchyk

Generally serious journals have every paper to go through a peer review. If there is a hard time publishing something it means that fellow scientists either don't agree with the methods and conclusions, or maybe they think that science is not present in the article.

CBC publishes a pile of opinion pieces. If you have a look you will see a thread about boycotting them due to their bias against guns.

[Parker Hale]

I see what the author is saying, something I have wondered about is what is the carbon foot print of producing an iphone or smart phones in general. It uses petroleum products (plastics) as well as mined products ie rare earth minerals and whatever else goes into the making of phones. Be it Apple or Samsung or any other manufacturer, what is the need for a new model every year or two? That's a lot of manufacturing and shipping.

[AndrewM]

So much of our economy is catering towards disposable items. Look at ikea, clothing and appliance qualities to show a few.