3 ms·
Uh ok? That seems rather pointless as a comment on current affairs. This will change things for the foreseeable future, and is certainly going to move the need
by lazide 5mo ago
Uh ok? That seems rather pointless as a comment on current affairs.
This will change things for the foreseeable future, and is certainly going to move the needle over that time.
- cyberax 5mo agoNo. It's _extremely_ important to keep in mind the actual scale of these kinds of projects. When people are saying about "energy rush" and "vast reserves", it's important to keep mentioning that the total amount of these reserves is just enough for maybe _months_ of the total US consumption. But the damage to the ecosystems might take hundreds of years to recover, and that's not even mentioning the CO2 pollution. And this is not common knowledge. I visit Alaska periodically, and I've heard several times from the local people that there are oil reserves there for "hundreds of years". And we're not using them because the Federal government is not allowing them to drill for it.
- lazide 5mo agoYou’re the one that seems to not fully understand the scale of what is happening - economically. ‘Months of US supply’ == large portions of the world GDP. People want to get rich and/or not starve now (and for the next 20 years) too.
- cyberax 5mo ago> ‘Months of US supply’ == large portions of the world GDP. The world's yearly GDP is around $120T a year. 1 billion barrels at $50 per barrel is around 0.04% of that.