3 ms·
> I'd rather a democracy be the biggest producer than an autocracy But, it's not a game, and we don't NEED to consume as much oil. By rolling back car mileage
by cronix 8y ago
> I'd rather a democracy be the biggest producer than an autocracy
But, it's not a game, and we don't NEED to consume as much oil. By rolling back car mileage standards, we will in fact use MORE, not less, so our reliance grows instead of shrinking. We should be moving to alternatives and funding research at a much higher level. Who cares if someone else is the largest producer of oil, if we no longer need it anyway. By not consuming it, they can't profit from it and they will become less powerful regimes.
When we raise output, OPEC immediately counters and lowers theirs to keep prices the same. It's basically a zero sum game. So we end up drilling more and wasting more, and they save theirs for later since they're not pumping as much. How does that help anything besides cause us to run out faster then they do? Are they having to resort to fracking? Nope. They have plenty still, and when theirs gets low they will start doing more fracking and still be ahead. They just aren't as low as we are so they're not having to scrape the bottom of the barrel like we are. If we don't shift off oil, we will run out before they do and prices will soar, which would really damage our economy. We're delaying the inevitable for short term gain and profit.
- chr1 8y agoIf most of oil usage is going to be replaced by other energy sources soon, then using most of oil reserves asap is a good strategy.
- gshubert17 8y ago> using most of oil reserves asap is a good strategy ... only if one assigns no cost to all the CO2 produced. Burning a barrel of oil creates about 340 kg CO2, about half of which ends up in the atmosphere (oceans absorb some, etc.) World oil reserves are over a trillion barrels. Burning 46 billion barrels of oil adds 1 ppm to atmospheric CO2. So those trillion barrels will boost CO2 by over 20 ppm. Of course, coal is much worse. World coal reserves are around a trillion tons. Burning 5 billion tons of coal raises CO2 by a part per million. Burning all that coal would raise atmospheric CO2 by nearly 180 ppm. Burning fossil fuels is not the only source of carbon dioxide; there's also deforestation. But leaving as much fossil fuels in the ground as possible, would make achieving desirable CO2 goals that much easier.
- chr1 8y agoSure burning oil is bad and not only because CO2, but also because of other more toxic gases it produces. The comment i was replying to, says that US producing more oil doesn't mean that more oil will be burnt in total, because others have to produce less in response, and saving oil for later would be better for those who save it. Even though i wish the second part was true, so that oil prices could go up reducing its usage, i have to admit that unfortunately, selling as much oil as possible while there is a demand for it, is the rational strategy for people who own the oil.
- philwelch 8y agoProduction and consumption are different levers. Yes, it would reduce the geopolitical power of KSA and Russia to reduce oil consumption. Reducing the global demand for oil will, in isolation, lower the price and undermine these autocratic regimes. However, reducing the global demand for oil while simultaneously increasing the supply for oil from the free world will not only lower the price even more, it will also make it easier for the free world to achieve resource independence from autocratic oil states.