8 ms·

The United States is the world's largest producer. Canada is about fourth. Norway is about 11th. The United Kingdom is about 17th. The "Western world" accounts

The United States is the world's largest producer. Canada is about fourth. Norway is about 11th. The United Kingdom is about 17th. The "Western world" accounts for a bit over 25% of the world's total production. If they all banded together to stop domestic oil production, that could have a big impact. But maybe other countries would just increase production? And maybe higher prices would spur more exploration? I don't think Western countries turning off the pipe is going to reduce oil consumption as much as climate experts think is necessary. Maybe banning or heavily taxing both production and consumption would create enough advances in e.g. electric vehicles that it would help the whole world move faster?

likecarter 5y ago
Spot on. Production cuts would actually lead to more countries with unscrupulous leaders ramping up their own production. We need to focus on consumption. I.e. moving to other sources.
- eru 5y ago
  I'm not sure it's that easy: if you just reduce consumption but don't touch production, someone with less scruples than you can buy (slightly) cheaper oil and use it. I guess the big deal is to come up with alternatives that can compete on cost with oil?
  - likecarter 5y ago
    It will definitely have to match or exceed performance based on cost. Right now, I think there is no truly viable alternative for electricity generation in most low income countries. Not enough money for renewables + battery storage. Not enough money for nuclear or hydro. We can only hope that more advanced countries can create the battery technology we desperately need for the whole world.
    - eru 5y ago
      > Not enough money for renewables + battery storage. Not enough money for nuclear or hydro. Do you mean those alternatives are more expensive per Joule, or do you mean that the alternative have higher up front capital costs? For the later, the global financial system can help: capital from rich country is more than happy to invest in poor countries as long as the risk-adjusted returns are there. (Thus driving down the risks is important!) There's also still the replacement of kerosene lamps by eg electric lights that going on.
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    Forcing reduced consumptipn will lower costs of alternative energy sources. It's already happening anyway, but governments can enact policies that accelerate this trend.
lenkite 5y ago
How would you cope with food prices rising 10x in cost ? And the famines ? And the breakdown of law and order accompanied with the failure of most industry and the military. ? Please propose a solution along with your oil-ban utopia.
- eru 5y ago
  What makes you think that a sub-25% reduction in oil production would raise food prices by 10x?
  - lenkite 5y ago
    A sub-25 reduction over several decades might be doable. But we will need to invent brand-new industrial processes and change world-wide practices. Because modern Agricultural Industry is deeply tied to Oil today and that dependence is barely reducing.
    - nautilius 5y ago
      We’re already reducing significantly per capita, without the desastrous consequences you decry. Oil consumption is essentially stagnant in the US since 2000 (1) while the population has grown by 50,000,000 (2), i.e. by ~17.8% (1) https://www.worldometers.info/oil/us-oil/#oil-consumption https://www.worldometers.info/oil/us-oil/#oil-consumption (2) https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu...
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Why do you think these things would happen? (Also, how is the military responsible for maintaining law and order?)
  - lenkite 5y ago
    The US Navy runs on oil. Without the Navy, say welcome and kneel to large-scale high-seas Piracy, extraordinary human-trafficking, drugs, smuggling, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_Sta... How will cargo ships run without heavy fuel oil ? They are responsible for global trade and keep world-economy and industry running. (Well one solution is nuclear...)
gpt5 5y ago
From a game theoretic perspective - fossil fuels will be depleted. Even if the US reduced its consumption to zero, other countries, as independent players that want to maximize their benefit will be glad to take over and enjoy the effects of reduced demand and price. This means that there are two ways to deal with it: 1. Force all countries to reduce use. To make this really worldwide, this can only worked by force, economical or military (i.e. a world cop). Unfortunately, even if we had that, it is not a stable solution since the short term benefits of using these fuels create constant political pressure. 2. Mitigate the emissions, for example by carbon sequestration. I'm a strong believer in technological progress and our ability to reduce the cost exponentially, the tricky part is to make profitable at any cost. 3. Direct the limited fossil fuel supplies towards economical uses that do not have the same negative impact. For example, by encouraging consumption of more plastics. Plastics essentially trap the carbon in the oil into a very stable form, essentially sequestering the carbon in the oil without first going into the atmosphere.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Please expand on #3, as I’m sure you’re aware that’s very much the opposite of what’s commonly said!
  - speedcoder 5y ago
    https://rumble.com/vh9js9-george-carlin-these-white-bourgeois-liberals-dont-give-a-sht-about-the-plan.html https://rumble.com/vh9js9-george-carlin-these-white-bourgeoi...
- loufe 5y ago
  I don't think even my great grandchildren would see the end of oil if we were to allow consumption to continue as it is today. There is an immense amount of reserves in the world. That being said, there is the option 4 which the EU and US are talking about right now: economic punishment. Adding a "you don't have a carbon tax" levy on imports is a good way to motivate other countries to adopt technologies and ways of thinking that the rich countries of the world are pioneering for high quality but low carbon lifestyles.
legutierr 5y ago
> And maybe higher prices would spur more exploration? Absent a global ban of hydrocarbon production and use, which would need to be implemented by every country through universal local enforcement, our only chance to reduce global carbon production is by making hydrocarbons uneconomical to produce and uneconomical to use. You are right, unilaterally cutting production in one region would only move production to another region, and global consumers will always use the cheapest energy source that they can get access to. In less-developed countries, there will be little that governments can do to prevent their citizens from burning hydrocarbons if hydrocarbons remain the cheapest form of energy available. The most effective policies will be those policies that individual countries can implement to impact the economics of hydrocarbon production and use within their borders, and globally. Carbon taxes, for example, that incentivize investment in renewable energy sources and storage and discourage the burning of hydrocarbons. Border taxes that impose penalties on imports from countries that rely too heavily on hydrocarbons in manufacturing or generally within their economies. Infrastructure investments in electricity transmission that link low-cost renewable electricity sources with large electricity markets. Heavy restrictions on the manufacturing and sale of internal combustion engines, and the banning of internal combustion engines in consumer vehicles. Research and development focused on new low-carbon technologies that compete favorably on cost with carbon-heavy production processes, and subsidies to encourage their wide adoption whey they reach near-parity in terms of cost. Foreign aid and technology transfer that work to establish low-cost low-carbon industries in less-developed countries, and which displace local high-carbon industries via price competition. There are policies that will make hydrocarbons too expensive to use for most purposes. Many of these policies have been tried to some extent, but there has never been a committed and concerted effort to implement all of them. Political focus should be on implementing these kinds of policies, which will actually be effective, unlike the outright banning of hydrocarbon production.
- jl2718 5y ago
  All you have to do is make oil more valuable. There are many options for that. Gold is valuable because it’s a legal form of banking reserve collateral. If the World Bank did that for oil reserves, petro states would lend reserves to banks instead of pumping it out. But of course this has been tried before, most recently in 2009-2011. I’ll leave the details as an exercise to the reader.
karthikkolli 5y ago
In the non oil producing countries, the cost of consumption adds to the fiscial deficit. They even have huge incentive to move away, but the alternative has to be cheaper or open IP. The producers who have a cash cow, have no reason to stop production even if they agree on the environmental issues.

likecarter 5y ago

Spot on. Production cuts would actually lead to more countries with unscrupulous leaders ramping up their own production. We need to focus on consumption. I.e. moving to other sources.

eru 5y ago
I'm not sure it's that easy: if you just reduce consumption but don't touch production, someone with less scruples than you can buy (slightly) cheaper oil and use it. I guess the big deal is to come up with alternatives that can compete on cost with oil?
- likecarter 5y ago
  It will definitely have to match or exceed performance based on cost. Right now, I think there is no truly viable alternative for electricity generation in most low income countries. Not enough money for renewables + battery storage. Not enough money for nuclear or hydro. We can only hope that more advanced countries can create the battery technology we desperately need for the whole world.
  - eru 5y ago
    > Not enough money for renewables + battery storage. Not enough money for nuclear or hydro. Do you mean those alternatives are more expensive per Joule, or do you mean that the alternative have higher up front capital costs? For the later, the global financial system can help: capital from rich country is more than happy to invest in poor countries as long as the risk-adjusted returns are there. (Thus driving down the risks is important!) There's also still the replacement of kerosene lamps by eg electric lights that going on.
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  Forcing reduced consumptipn will lower costs of alternative energy sources. It's already happening anyway, but governments can enact policies that accelerate this trend.

lenkite 5y ago

How would you cope with food prices rising 10x in cost ? And the famines ? And the breakdown of law and order accompanied with the failure of most industry and the military. ? Please propose a solution along with your oil-ban utopia.

eru 5y ago
What makes you think that a sub-25% reduction in oil production would raise food prices by 10x?
- lenkite 5y ago
  A sub-25 reduction over several decades might be doable. But we will need to invent brand-new industrial processes and change world-wide practices. Because modern Agricultural Industry is deeply tied to Oil today and that dependence is barely reducing.
  - nautilius 5y ago
    We’re already reducing significantly per capita, without the desastrous consequences you decry. Oil consumption is essentially stagnant in the US since 2000 (1) while the population has grown by 50,000,000 (2), i.e. by ~17.8% (1) https://www.worldometers.info/oil/us-oil/#oil-consumption https://www.worldometers.info/oil/us-oil/#oil-consumption (2) https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu...
wizzwizz4 5y ago
Why do you think these things would happen? (Also, how is the military responsible for maintaining law and order?)
- lenkite 5y ago
  The US Navy runs on oil. Without the Navy, say welcome and kneel to large-scale high-seas Piracy, extraordinary human-trafficking, drugs, smuggling, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_Sta... How will cargo ships run without heavy fuel oil ? They are responsible for global trade and keep world-economy and industry running. (Well one solution is nuclear...)

gpt5 5y ago

From a game theoretic perspective - fossil fuels will be depleted. Even if the US reduced its consumption to zero, other countries, as independent players that want to maximize their benefit will be glad to take over and enjoy the effects of reduced demand and price. This means that there are two ways to deal with it: 1. Force all countries to reduce use. To make this really worldwide, this can only worked by force, economical or military (i.e. a world cop). Unfortunately, even if we had that, it is not a stable solution since the short term benefits of using these fuels create constant political pressure. 2. Mitigate the emissions, for example by carbon sequestration. I'm a strong believer in technological progress and our ability to reduce the cost exponentially, the tricky part is to make profitable at any cost. 3. Direct the limited fossil fuel supplies towards economical uses that do not have the same negative impact. For example, by encouraging consumption of more plastics. Plastics essentially trap the carbon in the oil into a very stable form, essentially sequestering the carbon in the oil without first going into the atmosphere.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Please expand on #3, as I’m sure you’re aware that’s very much the opposite of what’s commonly said!
- speedcoder 5y ago
  https://rumble.com/vh9js9-george-carlin-these-white-bourgeois-liberals-dont-give-a-sht-about-the-plan.html https://rumble.com/vh9js9-george-carlin-these-white-bourgeoi...
loufe 5y ago
I don't think even my great grandchildren would see the end of oil if we were to allow consumption to continue as it is today. There is an immense amount of reserves in the world. That being said, there is the option 4 which the EU and US are talking about right now: economic punishment. Adding a "you don't have a carbon tax" levy on imports is a good way to motivate other countries to adopt technologies and ways of thinking that the rich countries of the world are pioneering for high quality but low carbon lifestyles.

legutierr 5y ago

> And maybe higher prices would spur more exploration? Absent a global ban of hydrocarbon production and use, which would need to be implemented by every country through universal local enforcement, our only chance to reduce global carbon production is by making hydrocarbons uneconomical to produce and uneconomical to use. You are right, unilaterally cutting production in one region would only move production to another region, and global consumers will always use the cheapest energy source that they can get access to. In less-developed countries, there will be little that governments can do to prevent their citizens from burning hydrocarbons if hydrocarbons remain the cheapest form of energy available. The most effective policies will be those policies that individual countries can implement to impact the economics of hydrocarbon production and use within their borders, and globally. Carbon taxes, for example, that incentivize investment in renewable energy sources and storage and discourage the burning of hydrocarbons. Border taxes that impose penalties on imports from countries that rely too heavily on hydrocarbons in manufacturing or generally within their economies. Infrastructure investments in electricity transmission that link low-cost renewable electricity sources with large electricity markets. Heavy restrictions on the manufacturing and sale of internal combustion engines, and the banning of internal combustion engines in consumer vehicles. Research and development focused on new low-carbon technologies that compete favorably on cost with carbon-heavy production processes, and subsidies to encourage their wide adoption whey they reach near-parity in terms of cost. Foreign aid and technology transfer that work to establish low-cost low-carbon industries in less-developed countries, and which displace local high-carbon industries via price competition. There are policies that will make hydrocarbons too expensive to use for most purposes. Many of these policies have been tried to some extent, but there has never been a committed and concerted effort to implement all of them. Political focus should be on implementing these kinds of policies, which will actually be effective, unlike the outright banning of hydrocarbon production.

jl2718 5y ago
All you have to do is make oil more valuable. There are many options for that. Gold is valuable because it’s a legal form of banking reserve collateral. If the World Bank did that for oil reserves, petro states would lend reserves to banks instead of pumping it out. But of course this has been tried before, most recently in 2009-2011. I’ll leave the details as an exercise to the reader.

karthikkolli 5y ago

In the non oil producing countries, the cost of consumption adds to the fiscial deficit. They even have huge incentive to move away, but the alternative has to be cheaper or open IP. The producers who have a cash cow, have no reason to stop production even if they agree on the environmental issues.