4 ms·

I completely disagree with that method of promoting renewables, so there's no "we" here. The people who would be most impacted by rising petroleum prices would

by cal5k 7y ago

I completely disagree with that method of promoting renewables, so there's no "we" here. The people who would be most impacted by rising petroleum prices would be those least able to afford it. America is built on the automobile and most working families can't afford a Tesla at this point - intentionally pushing up oil prices by cutting supply would essentially be a regressive tax. Tesla is approaching this the right way, however - make electric products that are superior to what's on the market, then aim for economies of scale to dramatically reduce prices and make them affordable. No supply-side manipulation of oil prices necessary, it just takes time.

ilikehurdles 7y ago
The people most impacted by any price change of any product anywhere are the ones the least able to afford the thing whose price is changing. It’s a cute tautological sound bite that is meaningless without numbers to realize the impact. There is a real cost to the environment, communities, and people’s health that is completely externalized and unaccounted for by the fossil fuel lobby. It’s a real cost that will eventually be paid by taxes and lives, not a manipulation. Ignoring that cost in the price of oil is the opposite of market-driven.
- cal5k 7y ago
  It's tautological only insofar as you are intentionally ignoring context. If we were talking about the rising price of yachts or some other niche item it would be irrelevant, but almost all working Americans commute. To address negative externalities there are other proposed solutions - such as a carbon tax - which would not require the intentional scuttling of pipeline projects, although I'm not a huge fan of those either. My solution would be to walk down the list of emitting sources and tackle each individually. Electricity production is #1, and utility-scale anything is much easier to influence at the policy level. Subsidize the shit out of nuclear and remove the regulatory barriers to getting projects done. Ditto with grid-scale solar and wind. Transportation is next... get the cost of electric vehicles down by encouraging economies of scale. You can use specific positive incentives here rather than broad-based negative ones. Anyway, you get the point. Given the complexity of energy policy I find the idea that a soundbite-worthy policy would be the panacea to be laughable. Not building pipelines would just hurt the petroleum industry and have nearly zero measurable impact on carbon emissions.
jogjayr 7y ago
> The people who would be most impacted by rising petroleum prices would be those least able to afford it. The people who will be most impacted by climate change and rising seas will also be those least able to afford it. You can tax carbon and offset it with a tax credit, so it doesn't hurt poor households as much. British Columbia does it.
adrianN 7y ago
The poorest are also least equipped to deal with the consequences of catastrophic global warming.
- cal5k 7y ago
  This we can agree on. You'll note that I never said "global warming isn't real" or that "we should sit on our hands". I criticized this particular policy proposal as being both ineffective and economically punitive. There are better ways to tackle global warming... I proposed a few ideas above.

by cal5k 7y ago

ilikehurdles 7y ago

The people most impacted by any price change of any product anywhere are the ones the least able to afford the thing whose price is changing. It’s a cute tautological sound bite that is meaningless without numbers to realize the impact. There is a real cost to the environment, communities, and people’s health that is completely externalized and unaccounted for by the fossil fuel lobby. It’s a real cost that will eventually be paid by taxes and lives, not a manipulation. Ignoring that cost in the price of oil is the opposite of market-driven.

cal5k 7y ago
It's tautological only insofar as you are intentionally ignoring context. If we were talking about the rising price of yachts or some other niche item it would be irrelevant, but almost all working Americans commute. To address negative externalities there are other proposed solutions - such as a carbon tax - which would not require the intentional scuttling of pipeline projects, although I'm not a huge fan of those either. My solution would be to walk down the list of emitting sources and tackle each individually. Electricity production is #1, and utility-scale anything is much easier to influence at the policy level. Subsidize the shit out of nuclear and remove the regulatory barriers to getting projects done. Ditto with grid-scale solar and wind. Transportation is next... get the cost of electric vehicles down by encouraging economies of scale. You can use specific positive incentives here rather than broad-based negative ones. Anyway, you get the point. Given the complexity of energy policy I find the idea that a soundbite-worthy policy would be the panacea to be laughable. Not building pipelines would just hurt the petroleum industry and have nearly zero measurable impact on carbon emissions.

jogjayr 7y ago

> The people who would be most impacted by rising petroleum prices would be those least able to afford it. The people who will be most impacted by climate change and rising seas will also be those least able to afford it. You can tax carbon and offset it with a tax credit, so it doesn't hurt poor households as much. British Columbia does it.

adrianN 7y ago

The poorest are also least equipped to deal with the consequences of catastrophic global warming.

cal5k 7y ago
This we can agree on. You'll note that I never said "global warming isn't real" or that "we should sit on our hands". I criticized this particular policy proposal as being both ineffective and economically punitive. There are better ways to tackle global warming... I proposed a few ideas above.