7 ms·

This is why I don't understand the opposition to domestic oil drilling. As long as we're still using oil, all that happens by not drilling ourselves is that we

This is why I don't understand the opposition to domestic oil drilling. As long as we're still using oil, all that happens by not drilling ourselves is that we enrich and enable the Saudi government instead.

hamandcheese 4y ago
We can also stop enriching the Saudi government by reducing dependence on oil in general.
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  Yes but why not both? It's this same logic that lead to German dependence on Russian natural gas.
  - yakak 4y ago
    The more domestic profit there is on oil the more impossible it will be to stop before all the profit opportunity is gone.
- zo1 4y ago
  We could just invade the whole region and take over all the oil fields.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    > We could just invade the whole region Yes, we could. > and take over all the oil fields. No, we couldn't.
    - arthurcolle 4y ago
      I don't agree with the premise of the comment you replied to but why couldn't we take over the oil fields? Are you referring to them sabotaging wells in anticipation of a potential takeover? Obviously stealing a country's resources is frowned upon, just wondering if you meant anything specific
      - alexvoda 4y ago
        Sabotage during the invasion stage is one aspect but there is also the fact that maintaining control over a hostile territory is orders of magnitude harder than invading it.
      - mcphage 4y ago
        As someone else said, maintaining control is something the US has struggled with, and while we may be able to project power over a really wide area, I don’t think we’ve shown that we can (or want to, really) maintain it.
majormajor 4y ago
I would rather use strategic resources located elsewhere first... Also seems like there are many other things we could do w.r.t. the Saudi government if we wanted to short of "well, shit, guess the only option is domestic drilling" so this seems like a wild digression with no real relevance here.
- pas 4y ago
  sorry, I have no ide what other strategic resources you mean and in general, can you please elaborate on what you mean? thanks!
  - least 4y ago
    It means use someone else’s oil first because at some point we may really need to tap into our own. It’s better to have that as an option in a legitimate oil crisis than not having any oil and being dependent on someone else for it.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Selling them weapons and giving them a pass on murdering journalists seems to be giving them the message that they can carry on.
cortic 4y ago
We could be using the influence trade gives us to pressure them to change.. I mean your argument doesn't solve anything more than sticking our collective fingers in our ears and humming loudly. Though honestly, in areas of free speech my country seems to treat Saudi Arabia as a fecking role model.
- decremental 4y ago
  You may not have been paying much attention to the news lately but the Saudis just showed us how little leverage we have on them. Biden tried to get them to ramp up production before the midterms and they basically ratted him out and told him to kick rocks.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  I think it’s clear that influence through trade, or what the Germans called Wandel durch Handel, is an abject failure and doesn’t work. Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia have only grown more extreme in the past twenty years despite ever tighter integration into global markets and higher value industrial development.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    It’s possible you are misunderstanding the parent post. What if the poster means that despotic regimes could be influenced though trade by refusing to trade when they behave badly?
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      Possibly, but I didn’t see anything in the parent post that suggests that’s the intended takeaway. In any case it also implies expanding trade, in order to have the drawdown of trade as a credible tool. However, sanctions, extra tariffs, and other trade-based punishments appear to have had little effect in positively influencing the behaviour of despotic regimes largely because of how hard despotic regimes work to prepare for their eventuality. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be used or that trade should be stopped. Only that trade in and of itself is not the moderating influence it was believed to be, and that despotic governments are not strongly deterred by refusals to trade. This is partially because those regimes put in a large amount of effort and money into ensuring that they’re as insulated as possible from slow downs in any trade area that western countries can easily refuse trade, while working to increase interdependence in areas where they have the advantage. For instance, there’s a reason Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 has such a huge defence industry component and why it focused first on being able to manufacture its own ammunition, bombs, missiles, etc (all the things easiest to cut off) and then on developing the skills to modify existing systems and substitute other components or elements if needed. The goal is to ensure the US (or another partner) can’t influence the kingdom by refusing to deliver bombs for a while. Much of the Middle East is moving in the same direction.
mlinksva 4y ago
This is why I don't understand the opposition to stiff carbon taxes... Let's do both!
belter 4y ago
And the Saudis are ..."Saudis ‘second largest investors’ in Twitter after Musk takeover" - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-holding-company-to-maintain-twitter-stake#:~:text=Saudi%20Arabia's%20Kingdom%20Holding%20Company,a%20statement%20released%20by%20the https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-hol...
bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
It’s not like the oil we drill domestically only gets used by us. It would go on the global market and depress prices by a few percent, maybe. We’d still be getting tons of Saudi oil, just for slightly cheaper.

hamandcheese 4y ago

We can also stop enriching the Saudi government by reducing dependence on oil in general.

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
Yes but why not both? It's this same logic that lead to German dependence on Russian natural gas.
- yakak 4y ago
  The more domestic profit there is on oil the more impossible it will be to stop before all the profit opportunity is gone.
zo1 4y ago
We could just invade the whole region and take over all the oil fields.
- mcphage 4y ago
  > We could just invade the whole region Yes, we could. > and take over all the oil fields. No, we couldn't.
  - arthurcolle 4y ago
    I don't agree with the premise of the comment you replied to but why couldn't we take over the oil fields? Are you referring to them sabotaging wells in anticipation of a potential takeover? Obviously stealing a country's resources is frowned upon, just wondering if you meant anything specific
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      Sabotage during the invasion stage is one aspect but there is also the fact that maintaining control over a hostile territory is orders of magnitude harder than invading it.
    - mcphage 4y ago
      As someone else said, maintaining control is something the US has struggled with, and while we may be able to project power over a really wide area, I don’t think we’ve shown that we can (or want to, really) maintain it.

majormajor 4y ago

I would rather use strategic resources located elsewhere first... Also seems like there are many other things we could do w.r.t. the Saudi government if we wanted to short of "well, shit, guess the only option is domestic drilling" so this seems like a wild digression with no real relevance here.

pas 4y ago
sorry, I have no ide what other strategic resources you mean and in general, can you please elaborate on what you mean? thanks!
- least 4y ago
  It means use someone else’s oil first because at some point we may really need to tap into our own. It’s better to have that as an option in a legitimate oil crisis than not having any oil and being dependent on someone else for it.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  Selling them weapons and giving them a pass on murdering journalists seems to be giving them the message that they can carry on.

cortic 4y ago

We could be using the influence trade gives us to pressure them to change.. I mean your argument doesn't solve anything more than sticking our collective fingers in our ears and humming loudly. Though honestly, in areas of free speech my country seems to treat Saudi Arabia as a fecking role model.

decremental 4y ago
You may not have been paying much attention to the news lately but the Saudis just showed us how little leverage we have on them. Biden tried to get them to ramp up production before the midterms and they basically ratted him out and told him to kick rocks.
_djo_ 4y ago
I think it’s clear that influence through trade, or what the Germans called Wandel durch Handel, is an abject failure and doesn’t work. Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia have only grown more extreme in the past twenty years despite ever tighter integration into global markets and higher value industrial development.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  It’s possible you are misunderstanding the parent post. What if the poster means that despotic regimes could be influenced though trade by refusing to trade when they behave badly?
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    Possibly, but I didn’t see anything in the parent post that suggests that’s the intended takeaway. In any case it also implies expanding trade, in order to have the drawdown of trade as a credible tool. However, sanctions, extra tariffs, and other trade-based punishments appear to have had little effect in positively influencing the behaviour of despotic regimes largely because of how hard despotic regimes work to prepare for their eventuality. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be used or that trade should be stopped. Only that trade in and of itself is not the moderating influence it was believed to be, and that despotic governments are not strongly deterred by refusals to trade. This is partially because those regimes put in a large amount of effort and money into ensuring that they’re as insulated as possible from slow downs in any trade area that western countries can easily refuse trade, while working to increase interdependence in areas where they have the advantage. For instance, there’s a reason Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 has such a huge defence industry component and why it focused first on being able to manufacture its own ammunition, bombs, missiles, etc (all the things easiest to cut off) and then on developing the skills to modify existing systems and substitute other components or elements if needed. The goal is to ensure the US (or another partner) can’t influence the kingdom by refusing to deliver bombs for a while. Much of the Middle East is moving in the same direction.

mlinksva 4y ago

This is why I don't understand the opposition to stiff carbon taxes... Let's do both!

belter 4y ago

And the Saudis are ..."Saudis ‘second largest investors’ in Twitter after Musk takeover" - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-holding-company-to-maintain-twitter-stake#:~:text=Saudi%20Arabia's%20Kingdom%20Holding%20Company,a%20statement%20released%20by%20the https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-hol...

bobbylarrybobby 4y ago

It’s not like the oil we drill domestically only gets used by us. It would go on the global market and depress prices by a few percent, maybe. We’d still be getting tons of Saudi oil, just for slightly cheaper.