3 ms·

What would be more ecological is to leave the stuff in the ground in the first place. This is not a symbolic fight.

ars 10y ago
You are arguing the wrong side. What would be more ecological is using less oil. You can't block supply while demand is there, because the demand will be filled by someone, only this time by someone with less oversight [from you]. You want to make a difference add more "good" supply, or reduce demand. Bad supply will automatically go down if you do this, with no extra effort.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  Supply and demand don't only flow in one direction. Oil demand is absolutely responsive to price (and thus supply), in the form of energy users turning to alternative sources of energy, focusing more on energy efficient machinery, using less energy (driving less when the cost of driving rises).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ars 10y ago
    You are assuming no one else would sell them oil. This is incorrect. The is currently enough oil supply for everyone. Reducing/removing an oil source just means the oil comes from somewhere else, but it does NOT reduce oil consumption.
    - wutbrodo 10y ago
      No, I'm not. But I am assuming that access to the source we're talking about would have an appreciable effect on global supply. This isn't the first time this has happened: the plummet in oil prices in the last few years is in large part attributed to an increase in supply of US oil production. I don't remember the details off the top of my head but I recall reading that the drop in prices has also been accompanied by a halting of the momentum of consumer interest in things like fuel efficiency.
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  Extract less oil = prices go up = more incentive to look for other alternatives. So if you want to make a difference, yes, limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place.
  - ars 10y ago
    > more incentive to look for other alternatives. Which are still oil, just from elsewhere. The Saudis are quite happy to sell you as much oil as you want. > limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place. I covered that - all that would happen is people would get the oil from elsewhere. You can only induce people to pump less oil by increasing supply of other forms of energy, or by reducing demand. If you are going to pump oil at least do it where people actually care about the environment - don't make things so hard you just push production to places with less oversight.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    This only works if you're confident you can force every nation on earth to stop or slow down extraction from their oil reserves. Let me assure you, the resultant wars would be far more damaging to the environment than otherwise.
jeffdavis 10y ago
But that's not a proposal on the table, so it is a symbolic fight.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Ya, it would be more ecological if we leave modern civilization and go back to our hunter gatherer days.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  Or if we just slow down a bit.

ars 10y ago

You are arguing the wrong side. What would be more ecological is using less oil. You can't block supply while demand is there, because the demand will be filled by someone, only this time by someone with less oversight [from you]. You want to make a difference add more "good" supply, or reduce demand. Bad supply will automatically go down if you do this, with no extra effort.

wutbrodo 10y ago
Supply and demand don't only flow in one direction. Oil demand is absolutely responsive to price (and thus supply), in the form of energy users turning to alternative sources of energy, focusing more on energy efficient machinery, using less energy (driving less when the cost of driving rises).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ars 10y ago
  You are assuming no one else would sell them oil. This is incorrect. The is currently enough oil supply for everyone. Reducing/removing an oil source just means the oil comes from somewhere else, but it does NOT reduce oil consumption.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    No, I'm not. But I am assuming that access to the source we're talking about would have an appreciable effect on global supply. This isn't the first time this has happened: the plummet in oil prices in the last few years is in large part attributed to an increase in supply of US oil production. I don't remember the details off the top of my head but I recall reading that the drop in prices has also been accompanied by a halting of the momentum of consumer interest in things like fuel efficiency.
Scirra_Tom 10y ago
Extract less oil = prices go up = more incentive to look for other alternatives. So if you want to make a difference, yes, limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place.
- ars 10y ago
  > more incentive to look for other alternatives. Which are still oil, just from elsewhere. The Saudis are quite happy to sell you as much oil as you want. > limiting the supply is one way to do it by not extracting it in the first place. I covered that - all that would happen is people would get the oil from elsewhere. You can only induce people to pump less oil by increasing supply of other forms of energy, or by reducing demand. If you are going to pump oil at least do it where people actually care about the environment - don't make things so hard you just push production to places with less oversight.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  This only works if you're confident you can force every nation on earth to stop or slow down extraction from their oil reserves. Let me assure you, the resultant wars would be far more damaging to the environment than otherwise.

jeffdavis 10y ago

But that's not a proposal on the table, so it is a symbolic fight.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Ya, it would be more ecological if we leave modern civilization and go back to our hunter gatherer days.

jcoffland 10y ago
Or if we just slow down a bit.