8 ms·

This is inline with climate goals how..?

murph-almighty 8y ago
I think it's more in line with foreign policy goals. I don't love that we're doing this either, but I like Russia and SA not having money to fuel their escapades.
- patagonia 8y ago
  I don’t know that it is necessarily in line with foreign policy goals on balance. Yes it is serving the US well in the short term in our dealing with said countries. However, the argument has been made that runaway climate change will have very bad economic and security implications for the US. We’re once again borrowing from the future with the hopes that 1) we can find a fix and 2) it’ll be worse for “them” than it will be for us.
  - murph-almighty 8y ago
    This is also true! I was thinking on a very short term scale. We could also invest in green energy to the point where the means of capture and storage are isolated to our borders, though I'm doubtful that we can do the same for the manufacture of the products that get us there (batteries, solar panels).
- athenot 8y ago
  On the other hand, we're internalizing the pollution associated with that form of energy production. CO₂ is one issue; but pollution of aquifers seems to be overlooked until it will be too late, contaminating many fresh water supplies.
  - zjaffee 8y ago
    Most of the fracking that is happening for this oil is in West Texas, nowhere near any substantial water table as is the case when looking at the fracking done in North Dakota, and also in one of the least populated parts of the country.
vkou 8y ago
It's not. (Not that the current administration has any climate goals.) If the rest of the world adopted America's energy policy, and patterns of energy use, we'd be looking at ~4C warming by the end of the century. [0] We need radical change, and we need it today, if we want our children to avoid an unprecedented catastrophe. There is currently no political will to make such a change. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/climate-change-champions-still-pursuing-devastating-policies-new-study-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/climate-...
- jessaustin 8y ago
  There is currently no political will to make such a change. We can agree on that, at least. Maybe if you work on the rest of your message it might become more sensible to the average voter?
ancorevard 8y ago
Well, instead of daily transporting all the oil US is consuming half way around the globe with all the emissions that entails from these tankers, producing locally would seem like a better idea.
- patagonia 8y ago
  Are you suggesting non US production will be reduced in kind? Are you suggesting ocean transportation will be reduced overall? Are you suggesting US oil / gas will not be sold overseas where it will need to be delivered via tankers?
  - ancorevard 8y ago
    I feel your pain brother! The US is almost at parity in oil consumption and production. This mean lesser need for oil to be transported from around the world for US consumption. That is a good thing. "Thing global, buy local".
    - gramstrong 8y ago
      It doesn't seem that much has changed in terms of local consumption. We've reduced our crude oil imports by almost the same amount that we've increased our crude oil exports. At least that is what I'm lead to believe by the EIA website.
      - adventured 8y ago
        By 2002-2011 US crude oil production was down to averaging about 5.5 +/- million barrels per day. It's now at 11.6 million. A gain of roughly six million barrels per day. US crude oil exports will average around two million barrels per day for 2018. Net difference for 2018 is at about four million barrels per day, of less oil imported versus ~2011 and prior. We're importing a lot less oil than a decade ago, while we're simultaneously at a tipping point where oil consumption is about to begin declining (previously we had already dramatically expanded our economy while using far less oil per inflation adjusted dollar of GDP output; next we'll press downward on actual oil consumption). The US isn't using much more oil than what it was in 1978 approximately (most of the growth is population growth based). The per capita use has declined considerably and is back to about where it was 50 years ago.
philwelch 8y ago
It's actually very synergistic--if your geopolitical goal is to undermine the Russian and Saudi states, you want to reduce the price of oil. How do you reduce the price of something? Two ways: increase supply and decrease demand. So why not both?

I think it's more in line with foreign policy goals. I don't love that we're doing this either, but I like Russia and SA not having money to fuel their escapades.

patagonia 8y ago
I don’t know that it is necessarily in line with foreign policy goals on balance. Yes it is serving the US well in the short term in our dealing with said countries. However, the argument has been made that runaway climate change will have very bad economic and security implications for the US. We’re once again borrowing from the future with the hopes that 1) we can find a fix and 2) it’ll be worse for “them” than it will be for us.
- murph-almighty 8y ago
  This is also true! I was thinking on a very short term scale. We could also invest in green energy to the point where the means of capture and storage are isolated to our borders, though I'm doubtful that we can do the same for the manufacture of the products that get us there (batteries, solar panels).
athenot 8y ago
On the other hand, we're internalizing the pollution associated with that form of energy production. CO₂ is one issue; but pollution of aquifers seems to be overlooked until it will be too late, contaminating many fresh water supplies.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Most of the fracking that is happening for this oil is in West Texas, nowhere near any substantial water table as is the case when looking at the fracking done in North Dakota, and also in one of the least populated parts of the country.

vkou 8y ago

It's not. (Not that the current administration has any climate goals.) If the rest of the world adopted America's energy policy, and patterns of energy use, we'd be looking at ~4C warming by the end of the century. [0] We need radical change, and we need it today, if we want our children to avoid an unprecedented catastrophe. There is currently no political will to make such a change. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/climate-change-champions-still-pursuing-devastating-policies-new-study-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/climate-...

jessaustin 8y ago
There is currently no political will to make such a change. We can agree on that, at least. Maybe if you work on the rest of your message it might become more sensible to the average voter?

ancorevard 8y ago

Well, instead of daily transporting all the oil US is consuming half way around the globe with all the emissions that entails from these tankers, producing locally would seem like a better idea.

patagonia 8y ago
Are you suggesting non US production will be reduced in kind? Are you suggesting ocean transportation will be reduced overall? Are you suggesting US oil / gas will not be sold overseas where it will need to be delivered via tankers?
- ancorevard 8y ago
  I feel your pain brother! The US is almost at parity in oil consumption and production. This mean lesser need for oil to be transported from around the world for US consumption. That is a good thing. "Thing global, buy local".
  - gramstrong 8y ago
    It doesn't seem that much has changed in terms of local consumption. We've reduced our crude oil imports by almost the same amount that we've increased our crude oil exports. At least that is what I'm lead to believe by the EIA website.
    - adventured 8y ago
      By 2002-2011 US crude oil production was down to averaging about 5.5 +/- million barrels per day. It's now at 11.6 million. A gain of roughly six million barrels per day. US crude oil exports will average around two million barrels per day for 2018. Net difference for 2018 is at about four million barrels per day, of less oil imported versus ~2011 and prior. We're importing a lot less oil than a decade ago, while we're simultaneously at a tipping point where oil consumption is about to begin declining (previously we had already dramatically expanded our economy while using far less oil per inflation adjusted dollar of GDP output; next we'll press downward on actual oil consumption). The US isn't using much more oil than what it was in 1978 approximately (most of the growth is population growth based). The per capita use has declined considerably and is back to about where it was 50 years ago.

philwelch 8y ago

It's actually very synergistic--if your geopolitical goal is to undermine the Russian and Saudi states, you want to reduce the price of oil. How do you reduce the price of something? Two ways: increase supply and decrease demand. So why not both?