5 ms·

I think most people forget that the American oil industry is one of the largest in the world, i.e. it employs a ton of middle and upper class labor. For that re

by elamje 7y ago

I think most people forget that the American oil industry is one of the largest in the world, i.e. it employs a ton of middle and upper class labor. For that reason, it makes this a political issue. For instance, just one aspect of oil that is huge in the US is Shale production, which is not profitable at the current WTI price per barrel. What does that mean? Well, hundreds of thousands of people, or more likely millions, would permanently lose their jobs in the US, which is why this is politically untenable. I think it would be incredible for the US do push towards renewables and cut oil consumption, but sometimes you have to accept the world as it is, and not how you want it to be.

outside1234 7y ago
Oil jobs are not the only things these people can do. There is an argument to be made that renewables, like solar, actually would increase employment - especially of middle class labor.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Sure, but nobody wants to be the guy to go up to hundreds of thousands of people and tell them that they're fired. The skills needed to work in an oil production company aren't the same as solar.
- RestlessMind 7y ago
  So if someone is in their late 30's or 40's, having made an entire career in oil industry, with a family and mortgage - your proposal to them is to make their jobs obsolete and that they should seek a career in an at-best tangentially related field like solar? Look, I get that climate change is one of the most important problems we are facing. But if we want to devise a solution, it has to pass the "political viability" test. Else, you are only inviting a radicalized electorate. Example: "yellow vests" in France, which is supposed to be a rich society with plenty of resources to withstand the shock from rearranging an oil-based economy, with people supportive of generous social safety nets. If France can't get a gas tax passed without fierce nationwide protests, forget about making oil jobs redundant in Texas, let alone in developing countries like Nigeria or Kazakhstan.
natch 7y ago
I suspect battery storage will over time start to undercut shale production after prices rise again. So I'm thinking maybe shale is dead anyway. Good thing, since it is so dirty. Open to opposing points of view, though.. I don't know that much about this so would be glad to be educated. Also just want to borrow your phrasing to say I think it would be incredible for all those shale oil folks to keep pulling in those paychecks, but sometimes you have to accept the world as it is, and not how you want it to be.
fulafel 7y ago
Ah, the good old employment argument for destroying the planet. We are so wise and far sighted if we let this happen... It would be make more economic sense to pay these people to stay home and do nothing!
- cheez 7y ago
  try being poor
- RestlessMind 7y ago
  Sure - but would it make political sense to pay home to sit and do nothing? If so, can you point us to some locality where this has been accomplished?
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> I think most people forget that the American oil industry is one of the largest in the world You say American, but >40% of production is Texan, and the remainder are primarily low-population states like North Dakota and Alaska. Most of the demand isn't in the same states as most of the supply. So you do it in those other states, like New York or Illinois, that have people but not oil, and you can get rid of most of the demand because most of the people with oil jobs aren't in those constituencies. And the people who gain jobs from replacing them would be -- solar installations are inherently local. So would everyone receiving the dividend, even though part of it would be paid for by suppliers. And it's really the same in Europe -- Eastern Europe has most of the supply but Western Europe has most of the demand. And China and India have negligible oil production per capita. Texans can buy as many pickup trucks as they like, but if you stamp out 80% of the world demand like that, nobody is going to buy their oil. And once the jobs are already gone and the industry isn't interested in making ICE cars just for Texas and Russia and Saudi Arabia, there won't even be that.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  California is about 8% of US production. Which accounts for close to half the states consumption. 197 vs 424 million barrels. Thought of mine is as the number of electric cars increases California's oil imports will drop eventually to near zero.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    California could probably get a carbon tax passed. Especially if it's on the consumption side and not the production side, because the demand reduction would only be from California but the impact to producers would be spread across producers everywhere in the world and not hit the California producers especially hard. You could also just pay them off to shut up with some tax credits or something when it's a closer fight like that. It's not ideal, but destroying California's oil demand has the same outcome climate-wise whether some of the money goes to local oil producers or not. You basically tax the world oil production market to the tune of $1, of which California is less than a percent of, then give the local producers two cents out of the dollar, which is more than twice what they lost and should make them very happy. In theory that could even work in a state like Texas -- pass a carbon tax and give some of the money to the local oil producers as compensation for the correspondingly slightly lower wholesale global oil prices, so that they have to sell their oil outside the state and for a lower price but still come out ahead with the tax credit. But then you get a lower dividend for everybody else, in proportion to how many local oil producers there are that you have to pay off, and it's not exactly a popular proposition there to begin with, so the hope of getting that through in Texas still seems pretty slim.

by elamje 7y ago

outside1234 7y ago

Oil jobs are not the only things these people can do. There is an argument to be made that renewables, like solar, actually would increase employment - especially of middle class labor.

Mirioron 7y ago
Sure, but nobody wants to be the guy to go up to hundreds of thousands of people and tell them that they're fired. The skills needed to work in an oil production company aren't the same as solar.
RestlessMind 7y ago
So if someone is in their late 30's or 40's, having made an entire career in oil industry, with a family and mortgage - your proposal to them is to make their jobs obsolete and that they should seek a career in an at-best tangentially related field like solar? Look, I get that climate change is one of the most important problems we are facing. But if we want to devise a solution, it has to pass the "political viability" test. Else, you are only inviting a radicalized electorate. Example: "yellow vests" in France, which is supposed to be a rich society with plenty of resources to withstand the shock from rearranging an oil-based economy, with people supportive of generous social safety nets. If France can't get a gas tax passed without fierce nationwide protests, forget about making oil jobs redundant in Texas, let alone in developing countries like Nigeria or Kazakhstan.

natch 7y ago

I suspect battery storage will over time start to undercut shale production after prices rise again. So I'm thinking maybe shale is dead anyway. Good thing, since it is so dirty. Open to opposing points of view, though.. I don't know that much about this so would be glad to be educated. Also just want to borrow your phrasing to say I think it would be incredible for all those shale oil folks to keep pulling in those paychecks, but sometimes you have to accept the world as it is, and not how you want it to be.

fulafel 7y ago

Ah, the good old employment argument for destroying the planet. We are so wise and far sighted if we let this happen... It would be make more economic sense to pay these people to stay home and do nothing!

cheez 7y ago
try being poor
RestlessMind 7y ago
Sure - but would it make political sense to pay home to sit and do nothing? If so, can you point us to some locality where this has been accomplished?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> I think most people forget that the American oil industry is one of the largest in the world You say American, but >40% of production is Texan, and the remainder are primarily low-population states like North Dakota and Alaska. Most of the demand isn't in the same states as most of the supply. So you do it in those other states, like New York or Illinois, that have people but not oil, and you can get rid of most of the demand because most of the people with oil jobs aren't in those constituencies. And the people who gain jobs from replacing them would be -- solar installations are inherently local. So would everyone receiving the dividend, even though part of it would be paid for by suppliers. And it's really the same in Europe -- Eastern Europe has most of the supply but Western Europe has most of the demand. And China and India have negligible oil production per capita. Texans can buy as many pickup trucks as they like, but if you stamp out 80% of the world demand like that, nobody is going to buy their oil. And once the jobs are already gone and the industry isn't interested in making ICE cars just for Texas and Russia and Saudi Arabia, there won't even be that.

Gibbon1 7y ago
California is about 8% of US production. Which accounts for close to half the states consumption. 197 vs 424 million barrels. Thought of mine is as the number of electric cars increases California's oil imports will drop eventually to near zero.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  California could probably get a carbon tax passed. Especially if it's on the consumption side and not the production side, because the demand reduction would only be from California but the impact to producers would be spread across producers everywhere in the world and not hit the California producers especially hard. You could also just pay them off to shut up with some tax credits or something when it's a closer fight like that. It's not ideal, but destroying California's oil demand has the same outcome climate-wise whether some of the money goes to local oil producers or not. You basically tax the world oil production market to the tune of $1, of which California is less than a percent of, then give the local producers two cents out of the dollar, which is more than twice what they lost and should make them very happy. In theory that could even work in a state like Texas -- pass a carbon tax and give some of the money to the local oil producers as compensation for the correspondingly slightly lower wholesale global oil prices, so that they have to sell their oil outside the state and for a lower price but still come out ahead with the tax credit. But then you get a lower dividend for everybody else, in proportion to how many local oil producers there are that you have to pay off, and it's not exactly a popular proposition there to begin with, so the hope of getting that through in Texas still seems pretty slim.