Long term, 100 percent. We need renewables and we should be Manhattan projecting fusion, energy storage, and transport lines.
But until we have breakthroughs, we are stuck with brown energy.
For those doubting/disputing this - it was over 50% in q1 2022 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-50-ger...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-companies-record-profits-20...
No idea how the math works out. It may be that the subsidies may be totally excessive.
I'm skeptical the layman's perspective on this is actually accurate. The reasoning presented screams "arguments made in bad faith by activists" to me. Stuff that seems super reasonable but breaks apart once you understand in depth.
What long-term projects are you imagining oil and gas to start investing in now? To hit 2030 / 2050 emission goals, we can't afford to invest in new long term oil and gas projects.
>I'm skeptical the layman's perspective on this is actually accurate. The reasoning presented screams "arguments made in bad faith by activists" to me. Stuff that seems super reasonable but breaks apart once you understand in depth.
Here are a couple of resources on how much these subsidies work out to be:
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-f...
[1]: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
It seems like for it to even have a chance we need to go big on fission fow now.
>Yes, we don't need subsidies.
>But wait for the war to be over and we know Germany won't be freezing, please.
If we're going to subsidize energy production until the war is over, might as well put all those subsidies into renewable energy that will further reduce Russia's global influence.