6 Comments

thanks for such kind words!

Expand full comment

The WSJ had an article with quotes from Toyoda (head of Toyota). He argues hybrids are better for the environment because they need far fewer batteries, which require mining. It's a transition engine, which makes sense to me.

I own a hybrid (I average about 47-50mpg 3 seasons of the year about 42 in winter). Eventually, RVs will make sense for me, but not now. I'm not opposed to EVs, but I think we'd be better off if more people switched from exclusive ICE to hybrids.

Expand full comment

that's a good point. I just bought an ICE car, was really torn about that vs hybrid or EV. My compromise was a high-MPG ICE. I know it will be the last one I ever purchase that runs solely on petrol.

Expand full comment

Folks that I know who are dead set against Natural Gas production say the bugaboo isn't necessarily the fuel itself (although the fact that it's not carbon free is a big deal to them), but rather how it's produced; in particular the use of fracking to release the fuel from complex rock formations. The idea of fracking creating earthquakes or poisoning water aquifers that many rely on are what many are uptight about, not to mention the amount of energy it takes to frack, liquify, and transport the fuel.

Do a search someday for "Coastal GasLink" to see the battle in British Columbia of getting vast supplies of LNG to tidewater for Asian nations to purchase and consume. It's an ongoing saga.

Expand full comment

thanks for noting. 20 years ago I did an oped for the NYT saying we should build the McKenzie Valley gas pipeline because methane can only get more important vs coal. from standpoint of the ecology it doesn't matter where the gas goes, so long as it replaces coal

Expand full comment

We applaud your visionary and well-researched predictions over the years, Mr. Easterbrook...especially your very prescient predictions on the Space Shuttle program!

Expand full comment