I think there are a number of unintended consequences occurring as a result of the people's desire to do the right thing.
I can use a case study of ground-source heat pumps. You can either upgrade the efficiency of your natural gas furnace or you can install a ground-source heat pump. Without burying you in data, one continues to use a combustible fuel that requires pipeline distribution across the country. I'm going to ignore the job creation angle because that's a touchy subject this morning in another setting. You can also install a decentralized ground-source heat pump, which produces.... It literally is the only technology that is net zero, plus it produces more energy than you consume. We automatically win the battle.
My association needs to explain to Canadians that this is a viable option. The payback might take a bit longer but the environmental impact and the impact on your wallet are much lower. People do need to understand a lot more about energy. We need to stop talking about, with respect, 2°C. That doesn't mean anything to a Canadian.
How do you achieve the goal of maintaining 2°C? I think more data in presentable format would convince people to ask, again, if they should be going to electric cars if there is indeed a possibility that doing so will require more nuclear reactors?
I'm not disparaging electric cars, but are we proceeding on the correct path? Should we be having a lot of rebates and incentives? Here in Ontario, you can get a $20,000 rebate for a ground-source heat pump. The last time I was involved, Ontario Hydro gave a rebate of $2,000. The price went up $3,000. People didn't know. They're buying diapers, not because they have a baby but because there was a really great sale on diapers.
I'd like to avoid that type of market-skewing mechanism. The only way that is going to happen is by having an informed populace so they can make the right decisions.