3 ms·

How about just buying the oil and putting it into storage somewhere (maybe just buy oil ships with oil in them). This will drive up price of oil for everyone w

by oezi 5y ago

How about just buying the oil and putting it into storage somewhere (maybe just buy oil ships with oil in them). This will drive up price of oil for everyone which is the most effective way to accelerate the adoption of renewables. The world spends 6-9bn USD per day on oil (100m barrels at 60-90 USD), maybe we start with spending 1bn per day. Edit: Fixed calculation.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
Buying oil incentivizes producing more oil
- oezi 5y ago
  We will pump the earth empty anyway, right?
  - input_sh 5y ago
    Yeah with oil reserves we know of today, most estimates put it around 50 years before we run out of it (that's with the current consumption, it doesn't take into account a completely possible increase in consumption). That doesn't mean that a) we should extract all of it, and b) we won't find more of it.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Only if we don’t develop cheaper energy sources. If something else is cheaper, nobody is going to bother looking for expensive oil.
idolaspecus 5y ago
FWIW 100m * 100 = 10bn
- oezi 5y ago
  Thx
knodi123 5y ago
> How about just buying the oil and putting it into storage somewhere What about burying it in the ground?
PeterisP 5y ago
If you want to drive up the price of oil for everyone, then instead of buying some oil and putting it into storage, you can just tax it, gaining revenue (that can be used for subsidizing renewables) instead of spending money to buy oil. The problem is that driving up the price of oil for everyone significantly (so much that there would be a meaningful reduction in usage, not just a slight decrease) is politically unacceptable. Looking at historical gas crises, even literally doubling the price of gas probably would not cause sufficient reduction in driving; but a government intentionally doubling the price of gas to reduce driving would not get popular support, it get voted out for daring to impose such punitive measures.
- oezi 5y ago
  You are certainly right from a national perspective, but the climate crisis is a global issue. By reducing supply for everyone, this wouldn't give way to loopholes and cheating (as we see for instance with carbon credits). You are also right that raising prices was very unpopular in the past. But some things need to be done to curb fossil fuel use and support alternatives. High oil prices are the most effective way.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    While climate crisis is a global issue, almost all the power for taking major, large-scale action resides at the national level. The international structure is (and is explicitly designed to be) nearly incapable of forcing major nations to do anything without their consent, so global agreements and major multilateral action (e.g. affecting the global oil supply) are feasible if and only if they are aligned with what's acceptable and desired by the separate nations. In that regard, if we're looking at how to motivate change to actually happen, it is appropriate to look at the incentives that would/wouldn't make sense from the national perspective - because otherwise it's just empty PR and wishful thinking, proposals that have no chance to get implemented. And, to put it explicitly, climate change is not currently overriding most other aspects of national interests, far from it, it's not (yet?) the #1 or even #3 concern in most countries elections or unelected leader motivations.

by oezi 5y ago

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

Buying oil incentivizes producing more oil

oezi 5y ago
We will pump the earth empty anyway, right?
- input_sh 5y ago
  Yeah with oil reserves we know of today, most estimates put it around 50 years before we run out of it (that's with the current consumption, it doesn't take into account a completely possible increase in consumption). That doesn't mean that a) we should extract all of it, and b) we won't find more of it.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Only if we don’t develop cheaper energy sources. If something else is cheaper, nobody is going to bother looking for expensive oil.

idolaspecus 5y ago

FWIW 100m * 100 = 10bn

oezi 5y ago
Thx

knodi123 5y ago

> How about just buying the oil and putting it into storage somewhere What about burying it in the ground?

PeterisP 5y ago

If you want to drive up the price of oil for everyone, then instead of buying some oil and putting it into storage, you can just tax it, gaining revenue (that can be used for subsidizing renewables) instead of spending money to buy oil. The problem is that driving up the price of oil for everyone significantly (so much that there would be a meaningful reduction in usage, not just a slight decrease) is politically unacceptable. Looking at historical gas crises, even literally doubling the price of gas probably would not cause sufficient reduction in driving; but a government intentionally doubling the price of gas to reduce driving would not get popular support, it get voted out for daring to impose such punitive measures.

oezi 5y ago
You are certainly right from a national perspective, but the climate crisis is a global issue. By reducing supply for everyone, this wouldn't give way to loopholes and cheating (as we see for instance with carbon credits). You are also right that raising prices was very unpopular in the past. But some things need to be done to curb fossil fuel use and support alternatives. High oil prices are the most effective way.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  While climate crisis is a global issue, almost all the power for taking major, large-scale action resides at the national level. The international structure is (and is explicitly designed to be) nearly incapable of forcing major nations to do anything without their consent, so global agreements and major multilateral action (e.g. affecting the global oil supply) are feasible if and only if they are aligned with what's acceptable and desired by the separate nations. In that regard, if we're looking at how to motivate change to actually happen, it is appropriate to look at the incentives that would/wouldn't make sense from the national perspective - because otherwise it's just empty PR and wishful thinking, proposals that have no chance to get implemented. And, to put it explicitly, climate change is not currently overriding most other aspects of national interests, far from it, it's not (yet?) the #1 or even #3 concern in most countries elections or unelected leader motivations.