3 ms·
> An important aside here is that the US shale oil revolution now means that the US can produce oil domestically at similarly cheap prices. Perhaps, but certai
by fennecfoxen 7y ago
> An important aside here is that the US shale oil revolution now means that the US can produce oil domestically at similarly cheap prices.
Perhaps, but certain politicians like Elizabeth Warren would like to end that soon.
"On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere."
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170070887887986690 https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170070887887986690
Some analysis:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prospect-of-president-warren-spooks-energy-investors-11571650201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/prospect-of-president-warren-sp... (paywall)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/business/elizabeth-warren-oil-fracking-ban/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/business/elizabeth-warren-oil... (not paywall)
- pstuart 7y agoGood. We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels.
- hollerith 7y agoBanning something strikes me as a very heavy-handed way to stop subsidizing it. Why not stop the subsidies without banning it?
- fennecfoxen 7y agoCalls such as this one to "stop subsidizing" fossil fuels are not an honest exhortation to accomplish the limited objective stated. They are rhetorical, placed here to distract from the inconvenient geopolitical impacts of the proposed policy, and muddy the water with some sort of quasi-excuse that doesn't really do a great job of excusing. (But if you're talking about it, you've at least distracted people from the fact that the Warren plan sending more money to the Saudis).
- mensetmanusman 7y agoThere is a balance. If we stop the economy to stop all fossil fuels, that would be one solution, but then we would lose R&D support for the next step in our economic revolution.