4 ms·

> It Will Cost More Than Total Future Production to Clean Up California Oil Sites Title is misleading. Please change title to original. Article says the cost

> It Will Cost More Than Total Future Production to Clean Up California Oil Sites Title is misleading. Please change title to original. Article says the cost to cleanup will be greater than the profit. This is not the total value to the economy, it is the rent extracted by the miners. Since we all benefit from petroleum fuels, maybe it's wiser to compare cleanup vs total value instead of profit.

bombcar 3y ago
This is an important distinction, $1t in oil could be extracted, with only $10b profit, and the cleanup costs $15b. But the country received the benefit of $1t-15b.
- ThrustVectoring 3y ago
  The country also had to pay the $1t in your example. The actual proper analysis is to measure the difference in consumer surplus between the different points on the supply-and-demand curve hit with versus without the additional production.
- imtringued 3y ago
  So you are saying oil companies are an arm of the government? I don't know why but a lot of "blind capitalism" reeks of socialism with double standards. After all, if we followed this idea to its conclusion then the US should nationalize the oil industry. Except that isn't capitalism.
gsk22 3y ago
If you include the costs of pollution and climate change, I'm sure the "total value" of the extracted oil is well in the negative. Either way, there is no reason to let companies off the hook for their negative impacts just because the product they produce has some societal benefit.
- MaxHoppersGhost 3y ago
  > If you include the costs of pollution and climate change, I'm sure the "total value" of the extracted oil is well in the negative. This is absolutely not true. Oil and gas has lifted billions out of poverty and increased everyone’s quality of life hugely. Especially in “third world” countries where there are no affordable alternative energy sources.
  - gsk22 3y ago
    Both things can be true. Fossil fuels have certainly helped improve the lives of billions. At the same time, the negative impact can't be overstated, and only gets worse with time (the more the climate changes, the higher the future cost). Additionally, oil extracted in California for domestic consumption doesn't affect third world countries, so it's irrelevant what positive impact it might make halfway across the world.
    - MaxHoppersGhost 3y ago
      The negative impact is greatly outweighed by the positives. Oil is a global market, so oil extracted in California impacts global supply and demand.
      - imtringued 3y ago
        >negative impact is greatly outweighed by the positives. You can't know that yet because it hasn't happened and climate change predictions tell us the opposite.
  - ftubgfikhrfjj4 3y ago
    [dead]
  - bostik 3y ago
    So the value for present is being extracted from the future. Or in more familiar terms: we've been eating our young.
  - 3y ago
hedora 3y ago
I agree. I would also prefer the original, but I couldn’t make it fit.
dang 3y ago
Thanks, we've put the original title up there now. Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
imtringued 3y ago
If the benefit of burning carbon exceeds the costs associated with burning carbon then people will burn CO2 and society will get wealthier. If the costs exceed the benefits, then society will get wealthier simply from stopping self destructive behaviour. Amazing right? Except we don't charge the full cost of the negative externalities so oil companies cause a lot of damage because they are under the mistaken impression that their current extraction rates are useful to society. The reason why we care about the negative externalities of fossil fuels is that they are most likely permanent but the benefit is temporary. So the cost benefit analysis tells us we are burning too much and this ends up harming us actually and it is just that we haven't experienced most of the harm yet.

bombcar 3y ago

This is an important distinction, $1t in oil could be extracted, with only $10b profit, and the cleanup costs $15b. But the country received the benefit of $1t-15b.

ThrustVectoring 3y ago
The country also had to pay the $1t in your example. The actual proper analysis is to measure the difference in consumer surplus between the different points on the supply-and-demand curve hit with versus without the additional production.
imtringued 3y ago
So you are saying oil companies are an arm of the government? I don't know why but a lot of "blind capitalism" reeks of socialism with double standards. After all, if we followed this idea to its conclusion then the US should nationalize the oil industry. Except that isn't capitalism.

gsk22 3y ago

If you include the costs of pollution and climate change, I'm sure the "total value" of the extracted oil is well in the negative. Either way, there is no reason to let companies off the hook for their negative impacts just because the product they produce has some societal benefit.

MaxHoppersGhost 3y ago
> If you include the costs of pollution and climate change, I'm sure the "total value" of the extracted oil is well in the negative. This is absolutely not true. Oil and gas has lifted billions out of poverty and increased everyone’s quality of life hugely. Especially in “third world” countries where there are no affordable alternative energy sources.
- gsk22 3y ago
  Both things can be true. Fossil fuels have certainly helped improve the lives of billions. At the same time, the negative impact can't be overstated, and only gets worse with time (the more the climate changes, the higher the future cost). Additionally, oil extracted in California for domestic consumption doesn't affect third world countries, so it's irrelevant what positive impact it might make halfway across the world.
  - MaxHoppersGhost 3y ago
    The negative impact is greatly outweighed by the positives. Oil is a global market, so oil extracted in California impacts global supply and demand.
    - imtringued 3y ago
      >negative impact is greatly outweighed by the positives. You can't know that yet because it hasn't happened and climate change predictions tell us the opposite.
- ftubgfikhrfjj4 3y ago
  [dead]
- bostik 3y ago
  So the value for present is being extracted from the future. Or in more familiar terms: we've been eating our young.
- 3y ago

hedora 3y ago

I agree. I would also prefer the original, but I couldn’t make it fit.

dang 3y ago

Thanks, we've put the original title up there now. Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

imtringued 3y ago

If the benefit of burning carbon exceeds the costs associated with burning carbon then people will burn CO2 and society will get wealthier. If the costs exceed the benefits, then society will get wealthier simply from stopping self destructive behaviour. Amazing right? Except we don't charge the full cost of the negative externalities so oil companies cause a lot of damage because they are under the mistaken impression that their current extraction rates are useful to society. The reason why we care about the negative externalities of fossil fuels is that they are most likely permanent but the benefit is temporary. So the cost benefit analysis tells us we are burning too much and this ends up harming us actually and it is just that we haven't experienced most of the harm yet.