5 ms·

This is absurd. Everybody has known for absolutely decades that a big problem with oil is that most of the petrostates are nuts. Russia is, by oil-producer stan

This is absurd. Everybody has known for absolutely decades that a big problem with oil is that most of the petrostates are nuts. Russia is, by oil-producer standards, about middle of the pack when it comes to behaviour. Everybody is going to have to get off oil at some point anyway, why not do it now when the will is there? Or do people just think global warming will go away?

bigodbiel 5y ago
Midterms just around the corner... better get oil back to winnable levels before then
genocidicbunny 5y ago
The change wont happen overnight, but meanwhile if the price of oil climbs high, it both helps Russia, and economically hurts a lot of countries that rely on oil. Oil is also an input in more than just the energy sector -- lots of plastics rely on oil. There's an argument to be made that these are all negative things, and I don't disagree. But any change will take time. In the meanwhile there's also the geopolitical goal -- it would make sense for the US to crash or at least keep down the price of oil right now.
Wiseacre 5y ago
I remember talks during the 90s about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. If we did not make the transition to renewables decades ago then we kind of deserve the insane prices.
- mek6800d2 5y ago
  In 9th grade c. 1970, I was in a special studies class where, one quarter, we had to write a paper on any subject. My father, an economist, suggested I write about "Oil Import Control" (not a topic to excite a 9th grader, but very interesting when I got to be an adult). He got copies from the GPO of contemporary Senate hearings studying the subject of limiting oil exports for security reasons. (Not exciting reading for a 9th grader!) So, the federal government was actively looking into our foreign dependence on oil back c. 1970 (and no doubt at times in prior decades). 50 years later and all we've got are "Drill, baby, drill!" slogans and slow movement to renewables.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
> Everybody is going to have to get off oil at some point anyway, why not do it now when the will is there? Or do people just think global warming will go away? Broad strokes, people who buy low fuel economy vehicles (SUVs, pickup trucks) vote their feelings [1], and there is overlap with the same folks who don't believe in climate change. Arguably, the pain is good (economic incentive and signal), but you have to create a one way ratchet so we can only push harder to getting off oil, and everyone doesn't go back to buying combustion SUVs and pickup trucks when (if?) the price of oil recedes again. If 50 years [2] isn't enough time to get away from oil, I'm unsure what'll do it. It's also a marketing campaign: you have to sell EVs as an energy security issue to those who economics and climate change benefits won't appeal to. More incentives for EVs would also be helpful. Very much agree it's absurd though. [1] https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/what-your-car-might-say-about-how-you-vote/ https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/what-your-car-might-say-a... ("Republicans make up 55% of the full-size utility (SUV) market and 53% of the heavy duty pickup market (table below); Democrats make up 38% and 36% of the small and mid-size APT (hybrids, EVs) market, respectively. The single greatest Republican-Democrat disparity is the heavy duty pickup truck segment, where Republicans buy eight pickups to one for each Democratic buyer.") [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  I take issue with your representations here. Republicans have more trucks because there are more Republicans in areas where trucks are currently necessary for life. Republicans may also vote with their feelings more (in my opinion that's both true and a ridiculous blanket statement), but that has nothing to do with truck ownership other than some very nuanced answers as to "why" these people choose to vote Republican.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    I encourage you to have a conversation with someone with a pickup truck whether they “need” it (versus an all wheel drive vehicle of better fuel efficiency) and if they’re willing to pay more (ie the true cost) for fuel to live their lifestyle. I have had the conversation, numerous times, with predictable results. I mean this seriously, go get some ground truth if your circumstances permit. You don’t need a pickup truck to live in a rural area, even in the winter, and if you do need it (frequent towing/bed hauling), there is a cost that should not be subsidized by others. I stand by my broad assertions based on too much reading and too many greasy spoon diner conversations from the East Coast to the Rockies. We could get off of oil much, much faster, but most folks would rather hold on to the bitter end. Edit: I appreciate the data point even when it contradicts my thesis. Thanks for asking them! (I live in the South, not California fwiw) I owe you a beer for the trouble.

bigodbiel 5y ago

Midterms just around the corner... better get oil back to winnable levels before then

genocidicbunny 5y ago

The change wont happen overnight, but meanwhile if the price of oil climbs high, it both helps Russia, and economically hurts a lot of countries that rely on oil. Oil is also an input in more than just the energy sector -- lots of plastics rely on oil. There's an argument to be made that these are all negative things, and I don't disagree. But any change will take time. In the meanwhile there's also the geopolitical goal -- it would make sense for the US to crash or at least keep down the price of oil right now.

Wiseacre 5y ago

I remember talks during the 90s about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. If we did not make the transition to renewables decades ago then we kind of deserve the insane prices.

mek6800d2 5y ago
In 9th grade c. 1970, I was in a special studies class where, one quarter, we had to write a paper on any subject. My father, an economist, suggested I write about "Oil Import Control" (not a topic to excite a 9th grader, but very interesting when I got to be an adult). He got copies from the GPO of contemporary Senate hearings studying the subject of limiting oil exports for security reasons. (Not exciting reading for a 9th grader!) So, the federal government was actively looking into our foreign dependence on oil back c. 1970 (and no doubt at times in prior decades). 50 years later and all we've got are "Drill, baby, drill!" slogans and slow movement to renewables.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

> Everybody is going to have to get off oil at some point anyway, why not do it now when the will is there? Or do people just think global warming will go away? Broad strokes, people who buy low fuel economy vehicles (SUVs, pickup trucks) vote their feelings [1], and there is overlap with the same folks who don't believe in climate change. Arguably, the pain is good (economic incentive and signal), but you have to create a one way ratchet so we can only push harder to getting off oil, and everyone doesn't go back to buying combustion SUVs and pickup trucks when (if?) the price of oil recedes again. If 50 years [2] isn't enough time to get away from oil, I'm unsure what'll do it. It's also a marketing campaign: you have to sell EVs as an energy security issue to those who economics and climate change benefits won't appeal to. More incentives for EVs would also be helpful. Very much agree it's absurd though. [1] https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/what-your-car-might-say-about-how-you-vote/ https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/what-your-car-might-say-a... ("Republicans make up 55% of the full-size utility (SUV) market and 53% of the heavy duty pickup market (table below); Democrats make up 38% and 36% of the small and mid-size APT (hybrids, EVs) market, respectively. The single greatest Republican-Democrat disparity is the heavy duty pickup truck segment, where Republicans buy eight pickups to one for each Democratic buyer.") [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis

jimmygrapes 5y ago
I take issue with your representations here. Republicans have more trucks because there are more Republicans in areas where trucks are currently necessary for life. Republicans may also vote with their feelings more (in my opinion that's both true and a ridiculous blanket statement), but that has nothing to do with truck ownership other than some very nuanced answers as to "why" these people choose to vote Republican.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  I encourage you to have a conversation with someone with a pickup truck whether they “need” it (versus an all wheel drive vehicle of better fuel efficiency) and if they’re willing to pay more (ie the true cost) for fuel to live their lifestyle. I have had the conversation, numerous times, with predictable results. I mean this seriously, go get some ground truth if your circumstances permit. You don’t need a pickup truck to live in a rural area, even in the winter, and if you do need it (frequent towing/bed hauling), there is a cost that should not be subsidized by others. I stand by my broad assertions based on too much reading and too many greasy spoon diner conversations from the East Coast to the Rockies. We could get off of oil much, much faster, but most folks would rather hold on to the bitter end. Edit: I appreciate the data point even when it contradicts my thesis. Thanks for asking them! (I live in the South, not California fwiw) I owe you a beer for the trouble.