Society still needs oil and natural gas. We can't end its use instantly. Unfortunately, there are some things people are not willing to give up until a greener solution becomes available for at least equal if not lower cost. If Canada doesn't produce it, other countries will and they may do it in a more polluting manner. Removing oil and gas from the market may cause the prices to increase temporarily, pushing some people to renewable energy options, but when the price goes up, other countries will see an opportunity to start or increase their production of oil and gas, which will reduce the price again.

If environmentalists really want society to reduce the use of oil and gas, they should strive to be more effective by focusing on pushing for more research for, and the adoption of, more efficient renewable energy, which will reduce the demand for oil and gas. They should put out ads and publish articles about areas where renewable energy is not only cleaner but less expensive than oil and gas so people will consider switching. They should also focus on disproving myths about renewable energy that pervades the media, not only myths that were never true, but especially the myths that used to be true but no longer are. They should also focus on converting the use of oil to natural gas if renewable energy isn't suitable yet or is still more expensive than natural gas. People aren't using oil and natural gas because they want to pollute, they are using it because it's less expensive than renewable energy or where renewable energy isn't feasible.

As renewable energy efficiency improves, and it is improving fast and will improve much more, society will move eventually away from oil, and also natural gas, as they become infeasible and more expensive, and these pipelines will likely be repurposed for moving natural gas and eventually for moving critical resources like water instead. That said, there will always be some uses for oil and natural gas that will prevent it from not being used at all, and hopefully they will be used in ways that don't involve burning it and producing CO².

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The government should take the subsidies they give to the oil industry, and give it to green energy industry, so that we can become a world leader and can export our technology and expertise. Let's stop investing in a shrinking industry, and invest in a growing one instead.

You say "environmentalists should" as though they aren't already doing all those things. But the oil industry is also countering all those things, using government handouts.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

But bankers demand short term shit. None of that long term crap!

[–] Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I honestly think Carney missed the mark here. We just finished the twinning of Trans Mountain and are now selling that shit over to Asia with little issue. The same Asia that is pushing HARD to move to renewables, a dwindling market. What we should have done is built some new refineries to prop up our domestic gasoline supply and move away from shipping crude to the US to be refined and sent back to us at a premium. He should be building a nuclear backbone and pushing for domestic battery, Solar and EV production. We want future proofing and alignment on reducing climate change impacts while making our energy and transportation as resilient as possible. Complete these "nation building projects" rather than exporting MORE unrefined natural resources.

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Soapstone batteries too. They're dirt cheap to build and operate (nichrome + soapstone sand in a big dumb insulated tank) and can provide heating for industry or district heating/cooling for cities or towns while acting as peak shavers for overproductive renewables.

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

What if such were paid for by, say, a tax of $100 for every 1000 kg of carbon burned (probably less than 10¢ a liter)?