6 ms·

And our government has literally made it its mission to limit domestic oil production (canceling keystone, blocking permits, ceasing to lease federal land. I’m

And our government has literally made it its mission to limit domestic oil production (canceling keystone, blocking permits, ceasing to lease federal land. I’m guessing all the net zero regressives were quite happy about the high prices too I remember at the time Biden was asking (failingly) Saudi & even China to pump more oil lol

Pet_Ant 2y ago
If the prices mean that we move off of oil... we'll it's painful medicine. The planet's capacity to absorb CO2 is limited and too many people are too happy to be deficit spending on that account because it's not as visible. When that bill comes due, it won't be as easy to pay it off with green rectangles.
- highwayman47 2y ago
  Even if this were true, China, Russia and India aren’t going to reduce their emissions. So they will thrive with the cheap energy and overtake the west.
  - ComputerGuru 2y ago
    This is old and incorrect. China is leading the way in terms of electrification and EV-adoption, ahead of even the darling child Norway.
    - albertopv 2y ago
      China is building more new coal power plants than rest of the world combined.
      - 0xdde 2y ago
        And more renewables.
      - fnordpiglet 2y ago
        That’s a bit of a red herring. Their rate of growth in coal has fallen dramatically over the last 15 years and other sources are growing rapidly. As a share of the total coal is declining as is oil and renewables is increasing. Assuming this trend continues over the next 20 years coal will become a distinct minority share. But their overall demand for energy is so immense that they’re still adding more coal power plants - and every other source of energy as well. The metric you quoted is pretty devoid of broader context and tells a story that’s pretty skewed when the reality is fairly nuanced. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2010..latest&country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
        albertopv 2y ago
        Reality is G7 is getting rid of coal and have carbon taxes, China and India are still building new coal. China is already first world polluter and will be much more with new coal. There are no nuances in this.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      China does not produce enough oil to run its current fleet of cars and trucks. They get most of their oil from the Persian Gulf and they correctly worry that that supply line will be pinched (or cut off entirely) if the US gets angry at them (similar to how the US is angry with Russia now) or if some actor like Iran stops the flow of oil out of the Gulf. Most of the oil and oil products China gets from Russia leave Russia on ships from Russia's European ports -- another long supply line. So for sensible national-security reasons that do not apply to the US (namely, making sure it can continue to transport things like food to all its citizens if its national-security competitor gets angry at it or if the Persian Gulf becomes unstable) China is interested in electrifying its vehicle fleet since China has plenty of coal with which to generate electricity. Because coal is the fossil fuel that produces the most carbon dioxide per unit of heat produced, it might be the an electric car in China will more greenhouse gas than a gas-powered car in the US.
- google234123 2y ago
  As long as you (and the Democratic Party) are honest about it during elections. I’d love for you to say this publically, see how the American people want to suffer and go back to a lower standard of living so that you can feel better about yourself.
  - lambdaxyzw 2y ago
    I'm ambivalent towards American politics, but that's an argument to be made that voting people (and media) don't think in timescales longer than 5 years, and it will be the humanity downfall if we don't focus on the Earth's long term problems. There are no easy solutions, and I don't pretend to have an answer, but "close your eyes and wait for our doom (or a miracle)" is not one.
  - mjmsmith 2y ago
    If I can't squander my children's future for my own selfish desires, what's the point of America?
  - klyrs 2y ago
    Aye? And are Republicans gonna be honest with farmers about the long-term consequences of not swallowing this bitter pill? Are your politicians prepared to talk about the real welfare queens in this country, the truck-driving rural population whose lifestyle is propped up by oil & gas subsidies?
  - piva00 2y ago
    > so that you can feel better about yourself. I don't grasp this sentiment. It's clear it's not about feeling better about oneself but being preoccupied about a materially predicted catastrophe that can tear the fabric of many societies if left without action. Even if it means lowering some standards of living for a while, and spending money to move us out from the high consumption of fossil fuels, it's worth it long term both in economical and social aspects. You don't want a world where social strife due to mass starvation, mass migration, destroying societies that want to protect themselves from the potential millions that will seek refugee elsewhere where they can have food, is possible because it would be a little bit inconvenient to some of the richest folks on Earth. Those will also cause massive economical impacts, broken supply chains, less supply of some raw materials, more protectionism from nations wanting to hoard resources, wars between nations when water sources move borders or disappear altogether. Yeah, there might be some inconveniences that are required, but previous generations had to deal with much worse inconveniences: wars, famine due to crop failure, etc. It sounds really entitled to be offended by being asked to not drive your car so much, shop more locally produced food (and even stuff in general) if possible in your budget, change some ways of business to not require so many flights for simple meetings, so on and so forth. There are lots of low hanging fruits, there's also massive societal changes required, we should be brave enough to be inconvenienced a little to avoid much more suffering in the lives of our kids, grandkids and so on.
- dylan604 2y ago
  >If the prices mean that we move off of oil... we'll it's painful medicine. I'm know I'm an odd duck, but I think the price of gasoline in the US is way too cheap. Even at the highest price per gallon in the US, that's about the same price per liter in Europe. I'm not considering bigOil profits in saying that. I'm saying that until the price of gasoline hurts, nobody will care about the ramifications from using it (if even then). People are less concerned about the environmental effects as they are their personal financial effects, but I'll take it either way if it reduces the use.
  - jajko 2y ago
    That's political suicide. As much as I wish for what you write to become true, look at how stupidly unimportant (or unsolvable) items made people like trump from 0 to hero. This is majority of US voters, and same applies in many other countries. This would hurt literally everybody and cost given political side couple of elections. Look at how every single politician across all spectrum is playing politics and PC and is on full PR mode 24/7 when on camera. That's not the kind of people who make good long term decisions just because... they are good. Not when they massively hurt back.
    - Marsymars 2y ago
      > That's political suicide. As much as I wish for what you write to become true, look at how stupidly unimportant (or unsolvable) items made people like trump from 0 to hero. Or look at how the carbon tax is killing the ruling party in Canada. It reduces GHG emissions, is structured in a progressive way that's a financial benefit to most people, is strongly supported by most economists, and is wildly unpopular at large.
      - bluefirebrand 2y ago
        > structured in a progressive way that's a financial benefit to most people I think most people are unable to draw a line from the carbon tax to how it financially benefits them It has had a very visible surface level impact of making gas more expensive at gas stations, which is very clearly not a financial benefit for individuals who drive gas cars People need a concrete reason to believe that this puts money in their pocket. Not some just some vague assurance of "This financially benefits you"
- rokkitmensch 2y ago
  This attitude of imposing pain that maps trivially to regressive taxation on lower- and middle-class voters is not a good look for the green left.
  - hopfenspergerj 2y ago
    You can obviously compensate by changing other taxes to be more progressive, this is such a silly argument.
    - rokkitmensch 2y ago
      A nuance is perhaps lost, I'm not saying don't do it, merely that simplistic messaging feeds into the binary crisis.
    - mardifoufs 2y ago
      Sure but that doesn't happen. Start by doing that, not by implementing the regressive part first.
- hedora 2y ago
  Instead of sending the money to oppressive regimes, we should send it to atmospheric carbon capture facilities. It costs about $1/gallon (maybe $2/gallon, with recent inflation) to suck the CO2 emitted by gasoline out of the air, and put it back in the ground. That's a heck of a lot less expensive than dealing with the consequences of climate change, and certainly less than the amount gas prices fluctuate due to price gouging, etc.
  - makapuf 2y ago
    Do you have any source for that 2$/gal CO2 removal ?
mjmsmith 2y ago
"The environmental constraints bit was in retrospect an obvious lie."
- dylan604 2y ago
  It was pretty obvious when said without needing retrospect
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
It's almost as if you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Keystone was about pumping oil straight from Canada to the Gulf Coast for the export market, crossing key aquifers to get there. It literally never mattered with respect to US gas prices and never will regardless of what occurs in the future. The US literally produces more oil today than any country has in the history of the world. One of the main reasons its doing so is because oil prices are high enough to sustain production. Making oil cheaper REDUCES production. Wells become unprofitable to pump and maintain. When Trump negotiated a deal to crash the oil market, thousands of people in the industry lost their jobs.
- abracadaniel 2y ago
  More than that, the Keystone pipeline would have increased oil prices in the US. Canada exports most of that shale oil to refineries in the US. The pipeline would have bypassed the US and forced us to compete with other buyers for the oil. The pipeline could only have had negative impacts on the US. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2019/market-snapshot-canadian-crude-oil-is-mainly-exported-two-regions-in-united-states.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...
karagenit 2y ago
According to the EIA domestic crude production is at an all time high: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61523 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61523
daveguy 2y ago
We are producing more oil in the US than we ever have.
knowaveragejoe 2y ago
Why are you so committed to being wrong?

Pet_Ant 2y ago

If the prices mean that we move off of oil... we'll it's painful medicine. The planet's capacity to absorb CO2 is limited and too many people are too happy to be deficit spending on that account because it's not as visible. When that bill comes due, it won't be as easy to pay it off with green rectangles.

highwayman47 2y ago
Even if this were true, China, Russia and India aren’t going to reduce their emissions. So they will thrive with the cheap energy and overtake the west.
- ComputerGuru 2y ago
  This is old and incorrect. China is leading the way in terms of electrification and EV-adoption, ahead of even the darling child Norway.
  - albertopv 2y ago
    China is building more new coal power plants than rest of the world combined.
    - 0xdde 2y ago
      And more renewables.
    - fnordpiglet 2y ago
      That’s a bit of a red herring. Their rate of growth in coal has fallen dramatically over the last 15 years and other sources are growing rapidly. As a share of the total coal is declining as is oil and renewables is increasing. Assuming this trend continues over the next 20 years coal will become a distinct minority share. But their overall demand for energy is so immense that they’re still adding more coal power plants - and every other source of energy as well. The metric you quoted is pretty devoid of broader context and tells a story that’s pretty skewed when the reality is fairly nuanced. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=2010..latest&country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
      - albertopv 2y ago
        Reality is G7 is getting rid of coal and have carbon taxes, China and India are still building new coal. China is already first world polluter and will be much more with new coal. There are no nuances in this.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    China does not produce enough oil to run its current fleet of cars and trucks. They get most of their oil from the Persian Gulf and they correctly worry that that supply line will be pinched (or cut off entirely) if the US gets angry at them (similar to how the US is angry with Russia now) or if some actor like Iran stops the flow of oil out of the Gulf. Most of the oil and oil products China gets from Russia leave Russia on ships from Russia's European ports -- another long supply line. So for sensible national-security reasons that do not apply to the US (namely, making sure it can continue to transport things like food to all its citizens if its national-security competitor gets angry at it or if the Persian Gulf becomes unstable) China is interested in electrifying its vehicle fleet since China has plenty of coal with which to generate electricity. Because coal is the fossil fuel that produces the most carbon dioxide per unit of heat produced, it might be the an electric car in China will more greenhouse gas than a gas-powered car in the US.
google234123 2y ago
As long as you (and the Democratic Party) are honest about it during elections. I’d love for you to say this publically, see how the American people want to suffer and go back to a lower standard of living so that you can feel better about yourself.
- lambdaxyzw 2y ago
  I'm ambivalent towards American politics, but that's an argument to be made that voting people (and media) don't think in timescales longer than 5 years, and it will be the humanity downfall if we don't focus on the Earth's long term problems. There are no easy solutions, and I don't pretend to have an answer, but "close your eyes and wait for our doom (or a miracle)" is not one.
- mjmsmith 2y ago
  If I can't squander my children's future for my own selfish desires, what's the point of America?
- klyrs 2y ago
  Aye? And are Republicans gonna be honest with farmers about the long-term consequences of not swallowing this bitter pill? Are your politicians prepared to talk about the real welfare queens in this country, the truck-driving rural population whose lifestyle is propped up by oil & gas subsidies?
- piva00 2y ago
  > so that you can feel better about yourself. I don't grasp this sentiment. It's clear it's not about feeling better about oneself but being preoccupied about a materially predicted catastrophe that can tear the fabric of many societies if left without action. Even if it means lowering some standards of living for a while, and spending money to move us out from the high consumption of fossil fuels, it's worth it long term both in economical and social aspects. You don't want a world where social strife due to mass starvation, mass migration, destroying societies that want to protect themselves from the potential millions that will seek refugee elsewhere where they can have food, is possible because it would be a little bit inconvenient to some of the richest folks on Earth. Those will also cause massive economical impacts, broken supply chains, less supply of some raw materials, more protectionism from nations wanting to hoard resources, wars between nations when water sources move borders or disappear altogether. Yeah, there might be some inconveniences that are required, but previous generations had to deal with much worse inconveniences: wars, famine due to crop failure, etc. It sounds really entitled to be offended by being asked to not drive your car so much, shop more locally produced food (and even stuff in general) if possible in your budget, change some ways of business to not require so many flights for simple meetings, so on and so forth. There are lots of low hanging fruits, there's also massive societal changes required, we should be brave enough to be inconvenienced a little to avoid much more suffering in the lives of our kids, grandkids and so on.
dylan604 2y ago
>If the prices mean that we move off of oil... we'll it's painful medicine. I'm know I'm an odd duck, but I think the price of gasoline in the US is way too cheap. Even at the highest price per gallon in the US, that's about the same price per liter in Europe. I'm not considering bigOil profits in saying that. I'm saying that until the price of gasoline hurts, nobody will care about the ramifications from using it (if even then). People are less concerned about the environmental effects as they are their personal financial effects, but I'll take it either way if it reduces the use.
- jajko 2y ago
  That's political suicide. As much as I wish for what you write to become true, look at how stupidly unimportant (or unsolvable) items made people like trump from 0 to hero. This is majority of US voters, and same applies in many other countries. This would hurt literally everybody and cost given political side couple of elections. Look at how every single politician across all spectrum is playing politics and PC and is on full PR mode 24/7 when on camera. That's not the kind of people who make good long term decisions just because... they are good. Not when they massively hurt back.
  - Marsymars 2y ago
    > That's political suicide. As much as I wish for what you write to become true, look at how stupidly unimportant (or unsolvable) items made people like trump from 0 to hero. Or look at how the carbon tax is killing the ruling party in Canada. It reduces GHG emissions, is structured in a progressive way that's a financial benefit to most people, is strongly supported by most economists, and is wildly unpopular at large.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      > structured in a progressive way that's a financial benefit to most people I think most people are unable to draw a line from the carbon tax to how it financially benefits them It has had a very visible surface level impact of making gas more expensive at gas stations, which is very clearly not a financial benefit for individuals who drive gas cars People need a concrete reason to believe that this puts money in their pocket. Not some just some vague assurance of "This financially benefits you"
rokkitmensch 2y ago
This attitude of imposing pain that maps trivially to regressive taxation on lower- and middle-class voters is not a good look for the green left.
- hopfenspergerj 2y ago
  You can obviously compensate by changing other taxes to be more progressive, this is such a silly argument.
  - rokkitmensch 2y ago
    A nuance is perhaps lost, I'm not saying don't do it, merely that simplistic messaging feeds into the binary crisis.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    Sure but that doesn't happen. Start by doing that, not by implementing the regressive part first.
hedora 2y ago
Instead of sending the money to oppressive regimes, we should send it to atmospheric carbon capture facilities. It costs about $1/gallon (maybe $2/gallon, with recent inflation) to suck the CO2 emitted by gasoline out of the air, and put it back in the ground. That's a heck of a lot less expensive than dealing with the consequences of climate change, and certainly less than the amount gas prices fluctuate due to price gouging, etc.
- makapuf 2y ago
  Do you have any source for that 2$/gal CO2 removal ?

mjmsmith 2y ago

"The environmental constraints bit was in retrospect an obvious lie."

dylan604 2y ago
It was pretty obvious when said without needing retrospect

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

It's almost as if you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Keystone was about pumping oil straight from Canada to the Gulf Coast for the export market, crossing key aquifers to get there. It literally never mattered with respect to US gas prices and never will regardless of what occurs in the future. The US literally produces more oil today than any country has in the history of the world. One of the main reasons its doing so is because oil prices are high enough to sustain production. Making oil cheaper REDUCES production. Wells become unprofitable to pump and maintain. When Trump negotiated a deal to crash the oil market, thousands of people in the industry lost their jobs.

abracadaniel 2y ago
More than that, the Keystone pipeline would have increased oil prices in the US. Canada exports most of that shale oil to refineries in the US. The pipeline would have bypassed the US and forced us to compete with other buyers for the oil. The pipeline could only have had negative impacts on the US. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2019/market-snapshot-canadian-crude-oil-is-mainly-exported-two-regions-in-united-states.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...

karagenit 2y ago

According to the EIA domestic crude production is at an all time high: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61523 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61523

daveguy 2y ago

We are producing more oil in the US than we ever have.

knowaveragejoe 2y ago

Why are you so committed to being wrong?