4 ms·
Yes, because the price of oil would go up and there'd be more incentive to reduce oil consumption
by goodoldneon 3y ago
Yes, because the price of oil would go up and there'd be more incentive to reduce oil consumption
- jstanley 3y agoDoes that necessarily make the world better off overall though?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- georgeg23 3y agoConsider the opposite, if every person produced oil at the rate of a Norwegian, then global oil production would be 50x higher than today. In that world we'd be lighting barrels of oil on fire for fun.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> if every person produced oil at the rate of a Norwegian, than global oil production would be 50x higher than today But if every person travelled like a Norwegian, oil demand would be down. Extrapolating per capita mechanics of a small country like this doesn't make sense.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoNot true. Oil demand would almost triple. An average Norwegian uses nearly 600 gallons per year while the world average is around 200.
- krona 3y agoThe price of oil turned substantially negative in 2020 due to ~50% overproduction, so no, that's not what would happen.
- rcme 3y agoThe price of oil was negative because no one had any place to store the oil and they absolutely needed to take delivery of it. It’s a very different issue.
- krona 3y agoIn other words, there was an oversupply and futures contracts couldn't be fulfilled. Partly due to Saudi and Russia having a disagreement over production cuts in response to the massive demand shock.
- rcme 3y agoNo it was a demand shock that caused demand to plummet meaning storage facilities were still full as futures created before the demand shift expired. Basically people bought futures expecting to have capacity to take delivery but then realized they wouldn’t.
- goodpoint 3y agoObviously yes.
- mk81 3y ago[dead]
- tivert 3y ago>> Would the world be better off if Norway drilled no oil and ran its energy like everyone else? > Yes, because the price of oil would go up and there'd be more incentive to reduce oil consumption That's a pretty over-simplistic analysis of "better off." By that logic, I could make us "better off" by bombing all the oil infrastructure, causing the price to go up even more, meanwhile hundreds of millions or more die because the modern economy and trade links collapse. That's an extreme example to prove a point: it's pretty important to consider what else would happen.
- melling 3y agoPlease quit asking to make fossil fuels more expensive. This gets people to vote for those who run on cheap gas and energy, and it plays well politically. Fix renewable energy, invest in the R&D, etc. Climate change is a slow train wreck happening over a century. it’s a bit embarrassing that we’ve done so little. We burn more coal now than ever before. https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set-to-reach-a-new-high-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set...
- wkat4242 3y agoRenewable is already 'fixed'. It's already way cheaper than fossil or nuclear. The one remaining issue is consistency but I'm countries with much hydro that's also a solved problem. The issue is more the installed base of fossil consumption, like vehicles. Also, for some categories like airplanes there's no viable alternative yet.
- melling 3y agoNope, we wouldn’t be using all that coal if… Aviation? Please look up the emissions for aviation va coal power.
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoHigher oil prices makes everything more expensive. There's a pattern of increasing productivity in lockstep with technological advances over the last couple of centuries. The question is: would making everything more expensive affect the speed of technological advancement, and how would that affect how fast we're able to reduce oil consumption?