this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
220 points (98.7% liked)

Canada

7226 readers
456 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TechNerdWizard42 -4 points 5 months ago (20 children)

Natural gas heating is very efficient and huge BTUs for low cost. When you live where it actually gets cold, it's important. As is heating water. Cooking at restaurants also important.

Not everything is binary. We don't need 100% renewables and 0% gas and 0% plastic and 0% ICE vehicles. Renewable energy is 68% in Canada or 20% in the USA in terms of energy production. Getting those USA numbers to 50% or both to 80% is more important.

FYI, in the USA natural gas is about 32% of the USA's energy use. 15% of natural gas is used by residences. That's 4.8% of the power. Which means this entire debate goes out the window if you just installed 5% more solar or wind energy.

Making people fight and become tribal over trivial things that mean nothing is an easy way to prevent anything from happening. Idiots are fighting over trying to reduce 4.8% of energy that is perfectly fine at what it's doing. Meanwhile the natural gas companies are happy to keep supplying the remaining 27% of the USAs entire power via gas, and not a damn thing is being done. Use your energy to get that 27% down to 22% and you've done better than you ever will with demanding residences be built with shitty alternatives.

[–] VelvetGentleman 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not everything is binary. We don't need 100% renewables and 0% gas and 0% plastic and 0% ICE vehicles.

As a species, we need to get to zero emissions, and ideally negative numbers. It's easy to point fingers at others and then do nothing, but there's too much of that going on right now. Any reduction is a good thing.

[–] TechNerdWizard42 -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You can't have 0 emmisions. Even a barren asteroid emits.

You can have net 0. And net 0 can include petrochemicals.

[–] VelvetGentleman 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

And net 0 can include petrochemicals.

Maybe at some point in the future when carbon capture is a viable technology. But we're already at the point where "we'll deal with it later" is not a good enough solution.

[–] DarthFrodo 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I agree that there's no way around petrochemicals, and we'll have to offset the emissions to reach net 0.

Gas heating has an alternative though. Heat pumps are already cheaper to run compared to gas heating, even without any carbon offsetting.

The pressure to reach net 0 is only gonna grow as the impacts of climate change get worse. To reach net 0 we'll have to offset all significant emissions. When the offsets are priced in, using gas heaters becomes insanely expensive in comparison to heat pumps.

It's just a matter of time until gas heating is essentially dead. It might be in 10 years or 20 years, but there's no way around it.

load more comments (18 replies)