5 ms·

So the countries that are net energy exporters, colored in a friendly blue - they don't receive any compensation for that energy? They're just giving it away? A

So the countries that are net energy exporters, colored in a friendly blue - they don't receive any compensation for that energy? They're just giving it away? And that is why that energy shouldn't count towards their greenhouse gas emissions?

dredmorbius 5y ago
I don't see any basis for reaching the conclusion that energy exports are uncompensated based on the article. Several of the net-embedded-energy exporters are also major fuel producers, notably Russia, Canada, Australia, and Brazil. Whether or not direct fuel exports are counted isn't clear to me.
- danw1979 5y ago
  I can't think of any major export from Russia other than natural gas that would account for it being a net exporter in this analysis.
  - rini17 5y ago
    It also exports crude[1] and metals (which embody the energy used in smelting). [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhba_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhba_pipeline
  - freemint 5y ago
    You forgot dashcam videos. One of Russia's rare non-resource exports where they have a dominant market position world wide /s
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    That's pretty much my thought. Six of Russia's top ten exports are fuels, including all the top four. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Generally, the burning of the fuel is counted in the country that burns it. However, the process of extracting fossil fuels also has a carbon impact, and that is usually counted against the producer country.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with this particular study / analysis. I am familiar with various other analyses which count fuel production or consumtion by originating or selling country or territory. E.g., Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela. Or the case of Gibralter, which is a major fuel-bunkering depot, and for which marine fuel use is attributed in at least some analyses. That strikes me as ... rather distortionary in several regards. Marine fuel use allocation (about 6% of petroleum consumption IIRC) might be counted against: - The country of the ship's owner(s). - The country of the ship's registration ("flag of convenience). - The countries of origin and destination of a given voyage. Bunkering is no doubt the easiest figure to arrive at by tracking flows and expenditures. That's an availability heuristic, however. (Not uncommon in economic analysis, FWIW.)

dredmorbius 5y ago

I don't see any basis for reaching the conclusion that energy exports are uncompensated based on the article. Several of the net-embedded-energy exporters are also major fuel producers, notably Russia, Canada, Australia, and Brazil. Whether or not direct fuel exports are counted isn't clear to me.

danw1979 5y ago
I can't think of any major export from Russia other than natural gas that would account for it being a net exporter in this analysis.
- rini17 5y ago
  It also exports crude[1] and metals (which embody the energy used in smelting). [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhba_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhba_pipeline
- freemint 5y ago
  You forgot dashcam videos. One of Russia's rare non-resource exports where they have a dominant market position world wide /s
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  That's pretty much my thought. Six of Russia's top ten exports are fuels, including all the top four. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Generally, the burning of the fuel is counted in the country that burns it. However, the process of extracting fossil fuels also has a carbon impact, and that is usually counted against the producer country.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with this particular study / analysis. I am familiar with various other analyses which count fuel production or consumtion by originating or selling country or territory. E.g., Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela. Or the case of Gibralter, which is a major fuel-bunkering depot, and for which marine fuel use is attributed in at least some analyses. That strikes me as ... rather distortionary in several regards. Marine fuel use allocation (about 6% of petroleum consumption IIRC) might be counted against: - The country of the ship's owner(s). - The country of the ship's registration ("flag of convenience). - The countries of origin and destination of a given voyage. Bunkering is no doubt the easiest figure to arrive at by tracking flows and expenditures. That's an availability heuristic, however. (Not uncommon in economic analysis, FWIW.)