Yup. You tend to see it in countries that have the right geography (like Canada). There’s a relatively famous case between France and Switzerland I believe, but I can’t remember the name. There’s also talk of leveraging abandoned mines as well as a sort of gravity battery, but I don’t know of any actual applications of this model.
I appreciate that you’re not trying to deny climate change, but this talk of our inability to handle the economic consequences of the required action is also really common and it always has the same flaw: it ignores the economic cost of inaction.
I also think you’re misunderstanding the definition of standard of living if you’re equating it with one’s ability to waste energy. That’s a mindset born of the broken system that brought us here. A country that prioritises density and electrification is a country that uses far less energy… because it doesn’t need to waste it. Smaller cars use far less than SUVs, and e-bikes use a fraction of that, while moving in that direction offers you safer, cleaner, and quieter cities at a fraction of the price. The same applies to insulation and electrification of heat: cleaner, quieter, healthier, and cheaper.
I offer my own life as an example. I sold my car in 2008 and stuck to transit and cycling, renting a car for the occasional long weekend road trip. I saved roughly $10k/year, and bought a house in 2021 with about £300k down. I installed solar panels on my house for about £6000 and now my hydro bill is just £8/month while the rest of the country is choking on gas and paying around £150-£200/month for the privilege.
At the end of the day it’s about taking the long view and recognising that the cost of inaction far exceeds any short-term costs, then you do what a leader is supposed to do, take the nation with you and build the future you’ve convinced them they want.
Canada has been hooked on fossil fuels for so long that too many of us think that it’s the only way to live. This mindset has convinced many to decide that not setting the world on fire isn’t worth it, which is objectively insane.
Canada will not survive a 4° increase in global temperatures, so any argument that begins with “we can’t do what’s necessary” is an argument against our survival.
Yup. You tend to see it in countries that have the right geography (like Canada). There’s a relatively famous case between France and Switzerland I believe, but I can’t remember the name. There’s also talk of leveraging abandoned mines as well as a sort of gravity battery, but I don’t know of any actual applications of this model.
I appreciate that you’re not trying to deny climate change, but this talk of our inability to handle the economic consequences of the required action is also really common and it always has the same flaw: it ignores the economic cost of inaction.
I also think you’re misunderstanding the definition of standard of living if you’re equating it with one’s ability to waste energy. That’s a mindset born of the broken system that brought us here. A country that prioritises density and electrification is a country that uses far less energy… because it doesn’t need to waste it. Smaller cars use far less than SUVs, and e-bikes use a fraction of that, while moving in that direction offers you safer, cleaner, and quieter cities at a fraction of the price. The same applies to insulation and electrification of heat: cleaner, quieter, healthier, and cheaper.
I offer my own life as an example. I sold my car in 2008 and stuck to transit and cycling, renting a car for the occasional long weekend road trip. I saved roughly $10k/year, and bought a house in 2021 with about £300k down. I installed solar panels on my house for about £6000 and now my hydro bill is just £8/month while the rest of the country is choking on gas and paying around £150-£200/month for the privilege.
At the end of the day it’s about taking the long view and recognising that the cost of inaction far exceeds any short-term costs, then you do what a leader is supposed to do, take the nation with you and build the future you’ve convinced them they want.
Canada has been hooked on fossil fuels for so long that too many of us think that it’s the only way to live. This mindset has convinced many to decide that not setting the world on fire isn’t worth it, which is objectively insane.
Canada will not survive a 4° increase in global temperatures, so any argument that begins with “we can’t do what’s necessary” is an argument against our survival.