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?
Another article: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/08/785634169/alaska-cod-fishery-...