4 ms·
Yes, you are totally correct, and yet the Malthusians can be wrong when applying this argument because we humans respond to price signals.
by cryptonector 2y ago
Yes, you are totally correct, and yet the Malthusians can be wrong when applying this argument because we humans respond to price signals.
- orwin 2y agoPrice signal are only relevant is you have a price elasticity of demand, which oil and gas obviously don't have, as they are the building bricks of modern trade and production. Also if logic isn't enough, you just have to look at oil price/consumption to see how inelastic oil prices are.
- cryptonector 2y ago> price elasticity of demand, which oil and gas obviously don't have Not remotely clear. First, we have enormous amounts of coal and uranium, so we can make electricity for thousands of years, and EVs mean that if we have to give up on oil, we can. Second, the U.S. has something like 1,200 years' worth of proven shale natural gas reserves(!), so again, we can make all the electricity we need. And many countries have vehicle fleets that run on natural gas, so again we could give up on oil if we had to. Manufacturing natgas-powered vehicles is way less resource intensive, and way more sustainable than manufacturing EVs. And if we have that much in the way of shale natgas reserves then running out of oil won't be as big a problem as you paint it. The development of natgas-powered vehicles and EVs happened in spite or because of the demand inelasticity of oil.