5 ms·

Demand is partly driven by how cheap oil is. There is demand for energy. Cheap oil is a great source. If oil gets more expensive because it now has to be ship

Demand is partly driven by how cheap oil is. There is demand for energy. Cheap oil is a great source. If oil gets more expensive because it now has to be shipped with more risk in smaller quantities via rail/truck, then renewables can compete even better. I don't think there's any realistic policy option to reduce energy demand as a whole, but if we can reduce demand for certain types of energy we might have a shot.

jlmorton 5y ago
No doubt this is true, but it sure would be nice if we could instead tax the oil and raise revenue for the public good, rather than deliver profits to private railroad companies.
panny 5y ago
Biden lifted sanctions on Russia to allow an undersea pipeline, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674 I don't think demand reduction was an objective with Keystone.
- noizejoy 5y ago
  The first sentence in the linked article says it’s a gas pipeline, which is very different than an oil pipeline.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
skeeter2020 5y ago
this is only kind of true. WHile rail IS more expensive you can't compare a barrel in a pipeline with a barrel on a train. Pipelines need to carry diluted oil products to make them flow and then sometimes return that back to the source, so there's extra flow. Pipelines use far LESS energy to transport which is kind of ironic; and they are way, way safer. I don't see this as an environmental move based on the political signalling it buys and other moves made by the US administration. If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls.
- hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
  The Natural Resources Defense Council says: >Tar sands extraction emits up to three times more global warming pollution than does producing the same quantity of conventional crude. It also depletes and pollutes freshwater resources and creates giant ponds of toxic waste. Refining the sticky black substance produces piles of petroleum coke, a hazardous by-product. “This isn’t your grandfather’s typical oil,” [senior policy analyst for NRDC’s Canada project] says. “It’s nasty stuff.” https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-fight-over-canadian-tar-sands-oil https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-fight-over-canadian-tar-s...
  - prepend 5y ago
    This is unrelated to the claim that transport by pipeline is less environmentally harmful than transport by train or truck.
    - ericd 5y ago
      Seems related? Making Canadian crude less competitive means less tar sands oil extraction.
    - hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
      I was responding to the parent's last sentence: >If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls. I was pointing out that tar-sands oil probably does not meet the "relatively clean" criteria.
    - codeulike 5y ago
      If they can't transport as much by train or truck (due to capacity/expense) then thats a gain for the environment. If a big fat permanent pipeline makes it more cost effective to extract and sell even more tar-sand oil, then thats a loss for the environment.
vmception 5y ago
A high price of oil makes it profitable to sell oil. A market-based acceleration in renewables energy use requires well funded energy companies to pivot. High priced oil doesn't get them to do that. Low priced oil doesn't either, but a sharp drop in oil prices can. Some other incentive is still necessary.
- justaguy88 5y ago
  > A high price of oil makes it profitable to sell oil. Only if your costs are below the high price. Blocking this pipeline raises their costs to transport the oil, eating into profits.
  - vmception 5y ago
    It doesn't cause a shift into renewables. The providers along that pipeline might simply be fucked. The regional and global rate just stays more attractive to the more vertically integrated players.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- admax88q 5y ago
  You know there's more to the equation than that.
notatoad 5y ago
Oil is fungible and the market is global. Making it less efficient to transport oil in North America just reduces the profit margin for North Amereican oil companies. I'm all for reducing oil company profits, but I think it would be better to do that through carbon taxes than by forcing operational inefficiencies.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  It seems like the executive branch of the US government has the power to impair the oil industry in North America, but not to implement a carbon tax. It seems to me like it will help a little on the margin, but not nearly as much as carbon pricing would.
- admax88q 5y ago
  I agree with a carbon tax, but I also think we don't need to go out of our way to support north american oil companies. If that oil gets pumped out its going to get burned as well. Oil is fungible, but like any commodity it still obey's supply and demand.
  - notatoad 5y ago
    allowing a pipeline to be built isn't really "going out of our way". if it were being subsidized, that would be a problem. but in general, i think it's better to allow a local oil industry, and properly tax and regulate it, than it is to allow all those profits to go offshore to less-regulated, less taxed foreign operations. people aren't going to stop using oil just because they can't get the locally-produced stuff.
    - admax88q 5y ago
      The keystone XL received investment and loan guarantees from government. Beyond that there's a lot of goverment effort that's needs to happen to "allow" it to be built. Securing right of ways or emininent domain on land it passes through.

jlmorton 5y ago

No doubt this is true, but it sure would be nice if we could instead tax the oil and raise revenue for the public good, rather than deliver profits to private railroad companies.

panny 5y ago

Biden lifted sanctions on Russia to allow an undersea pipeline, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674 I don't think demand reduction was an objective with Keystone.

noizejoy 5y ago
The first sentence in the linked article says it’s a gas pipeline, which is very different than an oil pipeline.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

skeeter2020 5y ago

this is only kind of true. WHile rail IS more expensive you can't compare a barrel in a pipeline with a barrel on a train. Pipelines need to carry diluted oil products to make them flow and then sometimes return that back to the source, so there's extra flow. Pipelines use far LESS energy to transport which is kind of ironic; and they are way, way safer. I don't see this as an environmental move based on the political signalling it buys and other moves made by the US administration. If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls.

hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
The Natural Resources Defense Council says: >Tar sands extraction emits up to three times more global warming pollution than does producing the same quantity of conventional crude. It also depletes and pollutes freshwater resources and creates giant ponds of toxic waste. Refining the sticky black substance produces piles of petroleum coke, a hazardous by-product. “This isn’t your grandfather’s typical oil,” [senior policy analyst for NRDC’s Canada project] says. “It’s nasty stuff.” https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-fight-over-canadian-tar-sands-oil https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-fight-over-canadian-tar-s...
- prepend 5y ago
  This is unrelated to the claim that transport by pipeline is less environmentally harmful than transport by train or truck.
  - ericd 5y ago
    Seems related? Making Canadian crude less competitive means less tar sands oil extraction.
  - hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
    I was responding to the parent's last sentence: >If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls. I was pointing out that tar-sands oil probably does not meet the "relatively clean" criteria.
  - codeulike 5y ago
    If they can't transport as much by train or truck (due to capacity/expense) then thats a gain for the environment. If a big fat permanent pipeline makes it more cost effective to extract and sell even more tar-sand oil, then thats a loss for the environment.

vmception 5y ago

A high price of oil makes it profitable to sell oil. A market-based acceleration in renewables energy use requires well funded energy companies to pivot. High priced oil doesn't get them to do that. Low priced oil doesn't either, but a sharp drop in oil prices can. Some other incentive is still necessary.

justaguy88 5y ago
> A high price of oil makes it profitable to sell oil. Only if your costs are below the high price. Blocking this pipeline raises their costs to transport the oil, eating into profits.
- vmception 5y ago
  It doesn't cause a shift into renewables. The providers along that pipeline might simply be fucked. The regional and global rate just stays more attractive to the more vertically integrated players.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
admax88q 5y ago
You know there's more to the equation than that.

notatoad 5y ago

Oil is fungible and the market is global. Making it less efficient to transport oil in North America just reduces the profit margin for North Amereican oil companies. I'm all for reducing oil company profits, but I think it would be better to do that through carbon taxes than by forcing operational inefficiencies.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
It seems like the executive branch of the US government has the power to impair the oil industry in North America, but not to implement a carbon tax. It seems to me like it will help a little on the margin, but not nearly as much as carbon pricing would.
admax88q 5y ago
I agree with a carbon tax, but I also think we don't need to go out of our way to support north american oil companies. If that oil gets pumped out its going to get burned as well. Oil is fungible, but like any commodity it still obey's supply and demand.
- notatoad 5y ago
  allowing a pipeline to be built isn't really "going out of our way". if it were being subsidized, that would be a problem. but in general, i think it's better to allow a local oil industry, and properly tax and regulate it, than it is to allow all those profits to go offshore to less-regulated, less taxed foreign operations. people aren't going to stop using oil just because they can't get the locally-produced stuff.
  - admax88q 5y ago
    The keystone XL received investment and loan guarantees from government. Beyond that there's a lot of goverment effort that's needs to happen to "allow" it to be built. Securing right of ways or emininent domain on land it passes through.