5 ms·

Our profits margins are lacking, please do force some artificial scarcity so we get some of our power back after the competition in our field eroded our power!

Our profits margins are lacking, please do force some artificial scarcity so we get some of our power back after the competition in our field eroded our power! Notice how every suggestion for fighting climate change always involves preventing new oil competitors from developing while doing nothing about existing oil fields? They are laughing all the way to the bank as they know the world depends on them and can't possibly detach that dependence, renewables barely make a dent in that. They don't care about total oil consumption only profit margins.

simmerup 3y ago
There’s nothing artificial about the budget of carbon emissions we have before each temperature increase is bought. Increasing the cost of fossil fuel is a good way to make alternative energy more appealing to investors
- myshpa 3y ago
  Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel... ... fossil-fuel subsidies rose by $2 trillion over the past two years as explicit subsidies (undercharging for supply costs) more than doubled to $1.3 trillion ... Our analysis shows that consumers did not pay for over $5 trillion of environmental costs last year. This number would be almost double if damage to the climate was valued at levels found in a recent study published in the scientific journal Nature ...
  - myrmidon 3y ago
    I'm not defending our irresponsible Co2 emission behavior in any way, and this only applies to a part of your link, but I feel calling negative (future?) externalities "government subsidies" is simply dishonest reporting. I'd also argue that this framing is actively harmful, because it perpetuates the view that "big government" and "big oil corporations" are mainly to blame for lackluster action, but the inconvenient truth is that the average western citizen just does NOT want to sacrifice neither vacation air travel nor personal car, nor is he willing to pay more for energy/electricity. Government action (or lack thereof) mainly mirrors this popular sentiment-- its not a big lobbying conspiracy...
    - myshpa 3y ago
      > calling negative (future?) externalities "government subsidies" is simply dishonest reporting If the government knows about those negative externalities, and chooses not to prevent or tax the behavior, but instead subsidizes that sector, how else would you describe it? > "big government" and "big oil corporations" are mainly to blame for lackluster action If one government takes action, those actions often get reversed within a few years. The issue isn't just one specific government; it's the system itself. Critics argue that neither capitalism nor communism can resolve this, but they're not the only systems possible. The real culprits include the growth imperative in our financial system, politicians' focus on short-term actions at the expense of long-term vision, the slow adoption of renewable energy, and subsidies for harmful sectors decades after their impacts are known, etc. We have only a few years/decades to reverse the effects of past actions; after that point, they'll become irreversible. We're in the overshoot for 50 years at this point, after all. Blaming one political side or the other doesn't solve the issue. We must tackle problems like climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, overfishing, inequality, and the need for Universal Basic Income/Services across multiple fronts. We need a Great Reset/Rewrite; otherwise, we should brace for a Great Simplification.
      - myrmidon 3y ago
        > If the government knows about those negative externalities, and chooses not to prevent or tax the behavior, but instead subsidizes that sector, how else would you describe it? E.g. as "negative externatilites that were not appropriately taxed". Because "subsidies" implies tax dollars being spent to deteriorate the situation, while the reality is basically the reverse. And it is VERY obvious that this doesn't simply happen because "big oil" did so much lobbying that the government misrepresents the will of the people-- voters were visible in favor of subsidies and lower fuel prices (especially blatant during Ukraine-price spikes in Europe). Just picture running on a "100% fossil fuel taxation to be spent on improved public transport" platform-- what country you think would elect that right now? Much less re-elect... > We have only a few years/decades to reverse the effects of past actions; after that point, they'll become irreversible. I disagree with this viewpoint: I think long term consequences are already completely inevitable, any current and future actions are only gonna change the exact magnitude.
fsloth 3y ago
The only way to make non-fossil energy sources more appealing, is to make fossil sources more expensive. The side-effect of this is, yes, unfortunately increased profits for oil companies. I don't know if these could be cut down using some windfall tax scheme.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Not if the increased cost is due to tax
  - DoughnutHole 3y ago
    Exactly, fuel should be more expensive because the negative externalities of its consumption should be priced in. The extra value extracted from pricing in those externalities should be directed by the state towards offsetting the damage, it shouldn’t just be pocketed by the companies causing the damage.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Why would a much higher fuel tax, imposed on crude oil, and scaled in at 30% immediately and 10% over each the next 7 years, not work?
  - fsloth 3y ago
    I'm wondering what effect that would have on food prices, which is a critical factor looking at stability of societies globally? I am not an expert and have no answers, I just wanted to point out the situation is non-trivial form systems design point of view.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      That's a valid concern and is the reason to scale the tax in over a many year period. That tax revenue doesn't have to be consumed by a swelling government, but part of it could be directly distributed as a dividend to each member of the society on an equal per-capita basis or biased towards lower income members of the society.

simmerup 3y ago

There’s nothing artificial about the budget of carbon emissions we have before each temperature increase is bought. Increasing the cost of fossil fuel is a good way to make alternative energy more appealing to investors

myshpa 3y ago
Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel... ... fossil-fuel subsidies rose by $2 trillion over the past two years as explicit subsidies (undercharging for supply costs) more than doubled to $1.3 trillion ... Our analysis shows that consumers did not pay for over $5 trillion of environmental costs last year. This number would be almost double if damage to the climate was valued at levels found in a recent study published in the scientific journal Nature ...
- myrmidon 3y ago
  I'm not defending our irresponsible Co2 emission behavior in any way, and this only applies to a part of your link, but I feel calling negative (future?) externalities "government subsidies" is simply dishonest reporting. I'd also argue that this framing is actively harmful, because it perpetuates the view that "big government" and "big oil corporations" are mainly to blame for lackluster action, but the inconvenient truth is that the average western citizen just does NOT want to sacrifice neither vacation air travel nor personal car, nor is he willing to pay more for energy/electricity. Government action (or lack thereof) mainly mirrors this popular sentiment-- its not a big lobbying conspiracy...
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > calling negative (future?) externalities "government subsidies" is simply dishonest reporting If the government knows about those negative externalities, and chooses not to prevent or tax the behavior, but instead subsidizes that sector, how else would you describe it? > "big government" and "big oil corporations" are mainly to blame for lackluster action If one government takes action, those actions often get reversed within a few years. The issue isn't just one specific government; it's the system itself. Critics argue that neither capitalism nor communism can resolve this, but they're not the only systems possible. The real culprits include the growth imperative in our financial system, politicians' focus on short-term actions at the expense of long-term vision, the slow adoption of renewable energy, and subsidies for harmful sectors decades after their impacts are known, etc. We have only a few years/decades to reverse the effects of past actions; after that point, they'll become irreversible. We're in the overshoot for 50 years at this point, after all. Blaming one political side or the other doesn't solve the issue. We must tackle problems like climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, overfishing, inequality, and the need for Universal Basic Income/Services across multiple fronts. We need a Great Reset/Rewrite; otherwise, we should brace for a Great Simplification.
    - myrmidon 3y ago
      > If the government knows about those negative externalities, and chooses not to prevent or tax the behavior, but instead subsidizes that sector, how else would you describe it? E.g. as "negative externatilites that were not appropriately taxed". Because "subsidies" implies tax dollars being spent to deteriorate the situation, while the reality is basically the reverse. And it is VERY obvious that this doesn't simply happen because "big oil" did so much lobbying that the government misrepresents the will of the people-- voters were visible in favor of subsidies and lower fuel prices (especially blatant during Ukraine-price spikes in Europe). Just picture running on a "100% fossil fuel taxation to be spent on improved public transport" platform-- what country you think would elect that right now? Much less re-elect... > We have only a few years/decades to reverse the effects of past actions; after that point, they'll become irreversible. I disagree with this viewpoint: I think long term consequences are already completely inevitable, any current and future actions are only gonna change the exact magnitude.

fsloth 3y ago

The only way to make non-fossil energy sources more appealing, is to make fossil sources more expensive. The side-effect of this is, yes, unfortunately increased profits for oil companies. I don't know if these could be cut down using some windfall tax scheme.

quickthrower2 3y ago
Not if the increased cost is due to tax
- DoughnutHole 3y ago
  Exactly, fuel should be more expensive because the negative externalities of its consumption should be priced in. The extra value extracted from pricing in those externalities should be directed by the state towards offsetting the damage, it shouldn’t just be pocketed by the companies causing the damage.
sokoloff 3y ago
Why would a much higher fuel tax, imposed on crude oil, and scaled in at 30% immediately and 10% over each the next 7 years, not work?
- fsloth 3y ago
  I'm wondering what effect that would have on food prices, which is a critical factor looking at stability of societies globally? I am not an expert and have no answers, I just wanted to point out the situation is non-trivial form systems design point of view.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    That's a valid concern and is the reason to scale the tax in over a many year period. That tax revenue doesn't have to be consumed by a swelling government, but part of it could be directly distributed as a dividend to each member of the society on an equal per-capita basis or biased towards lower income members of the society.