I enjoyed your article but I still do not see where the energy is going to come from to power this new world that folks are speaking of.

Current technology is not there yet. Wind and solar do not appear to be the answer unless we plan to cut usage. Natural gas can only decrease the GHG emissions of coal by a third.

Nuclear will face the same back lash from the environmental folks. The same stuff that currently is dished out to pipelines. This will happen after the first hint of a radiation incident anywhere in the world.

Once the oil companies have been soundly beaten by environmentalists, I suspect their next target will be bio-mass projects. A poor alternative at best. Environmentalists who support these should be ashamed.

Today, I can jump into my old Ford and drive from here in Edmonton to Vancouver in a long day. I don't believe that would be possible with an electric car, even with the infrastructure in place to recharge when needed. If I need to run the heater or wipers, the difference might be measured in days or weeks.

Personally, I think that less frivolous travel on aircraft and cruise ships would be fine. Using less power will be a huge change in lifestyle but I could manage and might enjoy some of the challenges.

Moving from oil and gas seems inevitable. I just think our leaders need to let us know where we are moving to. The world will not look as it does today.

By the way, never voted for Kenney, never will. His constant whining embarrasses Alberta.

These days, in the absence of free press and proper journalism, we must rely on opinion pieces and internet "Influencers" to provide facts. You don't gain followers by suggesting that we need to be careful as we move on from Hydrocarbons.

If real journalists cannot question our direction, I can only hope hope that they will start asking questions and providing facts about the destination.

D.E. Wright

Expand full comment

I am always surprised at the lack of forethought that all the green energy promoters have. India is a relatively warm country with a massive population. Canada is a cold, large and sparely populated country with the majority of the population on the border of the US trying to get as warm as possible. After watching the fiasco in Texas and their green energy in the cold I think perhaps a little more thought must be put into this. I am thinking you must live in one of the warmer cities in Canada and not the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, or the prairie provinces. Where the cold can gel propane and oil along with freezing the water in your pipes in less than an hour when the power shuts down at 40 below. Where the Canadian shield or tundra are a swarm of insects can drive you mad if you work outside. With much covered in rock, muskeg and water where you have to wait until the water freezes solid to build an ice road to get to some remote communities. No roads except a few and where the only way to get to communities is by air. Yes I am sure they will be pleased when you show up to put in windmills and solar panels or attempt to put in a power grid. It will be a trial just to get anything there, let alone the fact that when the darkness of winter descends its for 24 hours a day for months on end. Yes. Please I am waiting for your green energy where you may have to work at 40 below with nothing but ice fog due to no wind when the temperatures dip to those low, low, low points. I am always amazed at how small some Canadian minds can reach and only take into consideration their personal area of where they live and work and forget that an entire country of massive proportions and cold climates that can vary to the extreme is the majority of this country.

Expand full comment