4 ms·

Yes, I did have a little chuckle to myself about this irony until I realised there were probably (in total) millions dead at this point because stupid people ar

Yes, I did have a little chuckle to myself about this irony until I realised there were probably (in total) millions dead at this point because stupid people are allowed to run the world. The sooner we divest from oil reliance the better; hopefully this awful Trump presidency will give the left a mandate to do this in 4 years.

madez 10y ago
Yes, the worlds thirst for oil leads to conflicts and death in many areas of the world. The more countries reduce their oil needs, the better the world is off.
blisterpeanuts 10y ago
The Republican government in the U.S. favors domestic energy production including hydraulic fracturing techniques and expanded traditional exploration on federal lands. They are seeking to enable oil and gas exploitation of Indian lands as well. In addition, they are permitting the pipelines from the Canadian tar sands, which will increase Gulf of Mexico refinery output. The slight rise of international crude prices combined with an energy-friendly Administration has spurred domestic producers, especially frackers, to increase production. The likelihood of continued war in the Middle East, sanctions on Russia, and economic turmoil in Venezuela all are causing a big push to move away from these foreign energy sources. It's quite likely that over the next twenty years, the U.S. will emerge as the world's top energy producer and also the top exporter of raw oil and gas and energy products.
mseebach 10y ago
Obama had all the mandate he could have dreamt of with the 28 pages in the 9/11 report[1]. He also had the opportunity, with fracking and Keystone XL offering the potential for the US/Canada to becomes entirely energy-self-reliant. He didn't take it, preferring instead to accommodate domestic environmental concerns. Such is politics, it is about prioritising between sub-ideal options -- but there's no reason to expect the next president will have significantly different priorities, regardless of what havoc Trump will end up wreaking. De-carbonising the US economy to achieve energy-self-reliance through locally produced renewables through policy (as opposed to eg solar being market-competitive and taking over at scale through market processes) will take decades and be way out of reach for any one president to see through -- it will require a much deeper (in practise, bipartisan congressional) commitment. Also, anyway, these are not exclusive options. It's not materially different to decarbonise from domestically produced oil than from Saudi produced oil -- indeed, it might be easier, as domestic oil is fairly expensive and Saudi is pretty cheap. 1: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/congress-releases-28-pages-saudis-9-11/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/congress-releases...

madez 10y ago

Yes, the worlds thirst for oil leads to conflicts and death in many areas of the world. The more countries reduce their oil needs, the better the world is off.

blisterpeanuts 10y ago

The Republican government in the U.S. favors domestic energy production including hydraulic fracturing techniques and expanded traditional exploration on federal lands. They are seeking to enable oil and gas exploitation of Indian lands as well. In addition, they are permitting the pipelines from the Canadian tar sands, which will increase Gulf of Mexico refinery output. The slight rise of international crude prices combined with an energy-friendly Administration has spurred domestic producers, especially frackers, to increase production. The likelihood of continued war in the Middle East, sanctions on Russia, and economic turmoil in Venezuela all are causing a big push to move away from these foreign energy sources. It's quite likely that over the next twenty years, the U.S. will emerge as the world's top energy producer and also the top exporter of raw oil and gas and energy products.

mseebach 10y ago

Obama had all the mandate he could have dreamt of with the 28 pages in the 9/11 report[1]. He also had the opportunity, with fracking and Keystone XL offering the potential for the US/Canada to becomes entirely energy-self-reliant. He didn't take it, preferring instead to accommodate domestic environmental concerns. Such is politics, it is about prioritising between sub-ideal options -- but there's no reason to expect the next president will have significantly different priorities, regardless of what havoc Trump will end up wreaking. De-carbonising the US economy to achieve energy-self-reliance through locally produced renewables through policy (as opposed to eg solar being market-competitive and taking over at scale through market processes) will take decades and be way out of reach for any one president to see through -- it will require a much deeper (in practise, bipartisan congressional) commitment. Also, anyway, these are not exclusive options. It's not materially different to decarbonise from domestically produced oil than from Saudi produced oil -- indeed, it might be easier, as domestic oil is fairly expensive and Saudi is pretty cheap. 1: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/congress-releases-28-pages-saudis-9-11/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/congress-releases...