Unfortunately, planning for the long term makes you uncompetitive on the nation state scale in the short term, which can threaten the nation state’s survival/prosperity.
I am not sure how a different system would have changed things. Look at russia, half the middle east, etc. Not exactly the common definition of capitolist. Producing energy is about the most productive thing a country can do for its people, no matter its politics of distribution. The fact is that petroleum is/was the most efficient way to do that. Science first, then you can drag out your personal politics.
except.. russia is an oligarchy.. middle east is mostly a dictatorship; i don't think you know what capitalism means, it's an economic system, not a system of governance
He's saying that capitalist or not, "Producing energy is about the most productive thing a country can do for its people, no matter its politics of distribution".
With temperatures hardly going above zero for five months each year and easily reaching -40C in some parts, I doubt many people would call it home at all without the help of fossil fuels.
There are certainly better ways to produce the energy we need, and I can only hope we'll find them soon; but let's not forget how much we owe to fossil fuels: probably most people on earth owe their very existence to them; discounting them just as a bad and shortsighted idea isn't really a fair assessment.
Not at all. Now just go and tell the Alaskans that they can move out because you don't think that making their land uninhabited is "inherently a bad thing".
Then if it's fine I don't see the problem of "setting your kitchen on fire" for a century or so. When it's over you can always move and return the land to its uninhabited state. Right?
1/3 of all jobs in Alaska are provided by the oil and gas sector. How much climate change do you think is needed to balance the cumulative benefits of oil extraction in the last 50 years?
You make it seem as if the cumulative benefits would disappear if we stopped producing greenhouse gases. A better question would be to ask how much climate change would balance out any additional benefits we receive from continuing our current path as opposed to investing a sufficient amount of money into the transformation to a more sustainable energy economy.
Hasn't there been a glut of sockeye most of the last 20 years running now? I've enjoyed getting it in the grocery store for a decent price, since the more common farmed salmon has serious problems.
Another article: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/08/785634169/alaska-cod-fishery-...