3 ms·

Short, medium and long-term this will spur the world to move off of fossil fuels. I'm not a fan of war, especially this stupid one, but that one benefit may be,

Short, medium and long-term this will spur the world to move off of fossil fuels. I'm not a fan of war, especially this stupid one, but that one benefit may be, unintentionally, worth it.

hackable_sand 5mo ago
It's nice to be optimistic, but we already have incentives to upgrade to renewable energy.
- seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
  If you look at it from a world rather than USA perspective, expensive oil is encouraging other countries to buy new energy tech and EVs from China. It was probably going to happen anyways, but Trump sped it up.
- onlypassingthru 5mo ago
  Short of fuel rationing and gas lines, over $150/week to fill your SUV is probably the biggest incentive possible.
Eddy_Viscosity2 5mo ago
In the short term, Trump is actually paying people to stop existing solar and wind projects and is not exactly open to new ones starting up. So.. oil it is then.
- hvb2 5mo ago
  Solar and wind are used for electricity. There's fossil fuels used for that as well but that's mostly natural gas and a bit of coal.
briansm 5mo ago
Ah, 'demand destruction', which in sounds positive in theory but in practice will likely mean poverty, famine and 'population reduction'.
- lovich 5mo ago
  The majority of demand for fossil fuels is for energy. Switching to alternative sources for energy is not “demand destruction” unless you zoom in your analysis so much that you’re missing the forest for the trees.
  - pibaker 5mo ago
    You cannot just switch an entire country's energy source on a finger snap nor do we have a viable alternative for making nitrogen based fertilizer. East Asia, which is heavily dependent on Middle East gas, is already bracing for energy shortages. What is likely to happen next is a fertilizer shortage in some poorer countries which will then lead to food shortages and social unrest.
    - ch_sm 5mo ago
      > You cannot just switch an entire country's energy source on a finger snap no one is suggesting that > nor do we have a viable alternative for making nitrogen based fertilizer nor is anyone suggesting that
      - caminante 5mo ago
        Disagree. I assume your understanding of "demand destruction" is mixing concepts. GP said switching to alternative sources isn't demand destruction when it IS technically and relatively. The parent's point: until you get those renewables online (decade long process now with permitting), prices will go up. You'll have people using less energy (in general) and less O&G -- both are quintessential demand destruction. For nitrogen fertilizer (ammonia), there's already demand destruction with people cutting back due to price shocks. That's less food and ag.
        lovich 5mo ago
        Using less of any resource because it’s been blocked doesn’t mean the demand is destroyed. The demand can remain perfectly the same or even go up. My point was that the OP was myopically focusing on fossil fuel do demand when the real demand that would lead to switching to renewables is the demand for energy.

Short, medium and long-term this will spur the world to move off of fossil fuels. I'm not a fan of war, especially this stupid one, but that one benefit may be, unintentionally, worth it.

hackable_sand 5mo ago

It's nice to be optimistic, but we already have incentives to upgrade to renewable energy.

seanmcdirmid 5mo ago
If you look at it from a world rather than USA perspective, expensive oil is encouraging other countries to buy new energy tech and EVs from China. It was probably going to happen anyways, but Trump sped it up.
onlypassingthru 5mo ago
Short of fuel rationing and gas lines, over $150/week to fill your SUV is probably the biggest incentive possible.

Eddy_Viscosity2 5mo ago

In the short term, Trump is actually paying people to stop existing solar and wind projects and is not exactly open to new ones starting up. So.. oil it is then.

hvb2 5mo ago
Solar and wind are used for electricity. There's fossil fuels used for that as well but that's mostly natural gas and a bit of coal.

briansm 5mo ago

Ah, 'demand destruction', which in sounds positive in theory but in practice will likely mean poverty, famine and 'population reduction'.

lovich 5mo ago
The majority of demand for fossil fuels is for energy. Switching to alternative sources for energy is not “demand destruction” unless you zoom in your analysis so much that you’re missing the forest for the trees.
- pibaker 5mo ago
  You cannot just switch an entire country's energy source on a finger snap nor do we have a viable alternative for making nitrogen based fertilizer. East Asia, which is heavily dependent on Middle East gas, is already bracing for energy shortages. What is likely to happen next is a fertilizer shortage in some poorer countries which will then lead to food shortages and social unrest.
  - ch_sm 5mo ago
    > You cannot just switch an entire country's energy source on a finger snap no one is suggesting that > nor do we have a viable alternative for making nitrogen based fertilizer nor is anyone suggesting that
    - caminante 5mo ago
      Disagree. I assume your understanding of "demand destruction" is mixing concepts. GP said switching to alternative sources isn't demand destruction when it IS technically and relatively. The parent's point: until you get those renewables online (decade long process now with permitting), prices will go up. You'll have people using less energy (in general) and less O&G -- both are quintessential demand destruction. For nitrogen fertilizer (ammonia), there's already demand destruction with people cutting back due to price shocks. That's less food and ag.
      - lovich 5mo ago
        Using less of any resource because it’s been blocked doesn’t mean the demand is destroyed. The demand can remain perfectly the same or even go up. My point was that the OP was myopically focusing on fossil fuel do demand when the real demand that would lead to switching to renewables is the demand for energy.