The oxymoron of the day: struggling energy sector!

Here's a mob of psychopaths totally unacquainted with the concept of struggle.

Isn't the usual complaint from the post modernists, a baying call under the full moon of madness it is, aimed against Christianity, as the arch-creator of civilisations mayhem?

God save us from the lie!

Dan

Well, those worried about climate change cannot look to either the coalition or labor for anything more than mere lip service or quite blatant pork barrelling, dressed up as action?

Those concerned about the loss of mining jobs? Need feel no concern! There'll be a plethora of new mines and mining jobs!

In rare earth, cobalt, graphene and last if not least, thorium and all the useful minerals that usually come with it!

I don't mind if the changes force the ( the bellowing and bullying, bellicose and belligerent) troglodytes to change their investment portfolios out of coal, gas and oil into those minerals like our mountain of rare earth, that have nothing but a huge upside as far as the climate changed future, is able to be foreseen!

Moreover, we will very likely need to mine additional metallurgical coal for a quite massively expanded, domestic steel industry?
Alan B.

Not a bad article;

Whilst the authors aim seems to stem from wanting to initiate climate change agendas sooner, and whereas I don't support the climate change agenda but I will support better ideas and policies.

Here's my red flag:

"Shell is the biggest dividend payer in the world. It wants to maintain that dividend of $16 billion per year. The bulk of cash flow comes from the oil and gas business"...
"Shell will not make the Schumpeterian move, to dump the old business before it is too late, and go whole hog into the new. Shell cannot afford to be disruptive. Somebody else will have to do it."

I look at the bigger picture of the bs narrative society would have me believe:

On one hand Shell doesn't want to give up it's dividend to shareholders.
On the other the earth will end in 12 years because of climate change.

Which one is it?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Society can't sell the narrative that the worlds going to end in 12 years if multi-national business elite won't sacrifice their share price via the dividend to invest in new technology.

If the world really was going to end in 12 years because of human caused climate change you'd be turning the taps off completely NOW.

"Presumably the market will (eventually) furnish the capital needed to decarbonize the economy";

By market, you mean consumers.

So the worlds going to end in 12 years, you want US to pay for all these changes, but your board executives don't want to give up nothing.

You want us to pay, but you won't pay.

And even if you did pay, you'd still pass it onto us, without us having any say in it.

My question is this:
Why does Bill Gates want this toilet?
How is it going to help regular people in any way?
Does he really care about others, or is he simply tapping into others ingenuity via a competition (lower cost than r&d) to make his own private toilet for his own private underground bunker?
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/bill-gates-waterless-toilet-2016-11?r=US&IR=T