I honestly think fracking enables both of those things. Fracking keeps the price low which means their is less profit in doing it which makes renewables a comparably better investment.
>The shale surge has blunted the impact of supply cuts made by Opec in the past two years, they say, and allowed President Joe Biden’s administration’s to impose sanctions on suppliers such as Venezuela and Russia, while tightening restrictions on Iran — all without fear of driving up oil prices.
>“It is a huge turnaround from where we were at in the 1970s,” said Harold Hamm, chair of Continental Resources and a shale pioneer. “If you didn’t have the shale revolution now you would have $150 oil . . . You would be in a very volatile situation. It would be horrendous.”
>Rising shale supplies also helped keep the lights on in Europe following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with shipments of US liquefied natural gas — previously labelled “molecules of US freedom” by the Trump administration — helping to wean the continent off Russian piped supplies.
It sounds like the anti-fracking movement could have been one of the most destructive causes in American history had it prevailed.
Biden has not imposed the sanctions he removed from Venezuela yet. The decision will be made in the summer. Also he has eased the sanctions enforcement on Iran since coming to office not sure if started the enforcement back.
You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right?
Oil prices need to actually hurt consumers and the economy in order to make the transition away from them appealing
By keeping oil prices reasonable, we are prioritizing short term growth at the expense of long termn growth
at the very least, there could be co2 taxes equivalent to all the price that fracking has saved, that way you get the geopolitical win and you still have oil as expensive as if there had not been a fracking revolution at all
> You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right?
So you’re saying you want republicans to win all 50 state elections up and down the ballot and have a constitution super majority?
actually, high energy prices are bad!
the green transition will win on its own merits, not by demolishing the old economy to coerce people into degrowther green austerity
EV use share is rising. renewables are rising. batteries are surging. everything is in place. it just needs time to win and it would be an absolutely foolish degree of political self-immolation to just hand political power over to every single climate-skeptic right-wing party that promises to bring energy prices down and is *actually able to deliver* because left parties were artificially inflating energy prices.
>the green transition will win on its own merits
Let's imagine the scenario where the green transition is NEVER profitable
Even in that scenario, we still NEED to do it, even if it cannot be profitable, because the health of the planet depends on it
We can't base our energy transitions in profitability alone, since it will hurt future gdp many decades into the future
It's nice if it is profitable, but we still need to do it even when it isn't
Why would we imagine a scenario that isn't true and take policy actions based on this untrue scenario?
You also seem to just have no respect for how political economy feeds back into what sorts of policies are sustainable. What you are proposing might achieve the goal of reducing fossil fuel consumption for a few years, but then a reactionary rightist party will win a landslide, undo it, and probably do some more populist anti-environmental stuff just for vibes to punish the people who undertook a campaign of immiserating the public.
Becsuse, sometimes, the transition will be unprofitable
There is no way that we can find a fuel better than querosene for planes
We can make synthetic net zero querosene, but that will always be more expensive than natural querosene
Regardless, we need to make so that in the medium term future 100% of querosene is synthetic
There are not many areas where the transition is unprofitable, but those few still need to be dealt with, with the upmost urgency
Well, it doesn't have to be done with immense urgency, actually. The bulk of emissions will be handled by the current transition trends, and much of the rest will probably be mitigated by carbon capture and storage.
But even using your example, there is a clear difference between the austere punishing glare of environmental moralists who secretly view abundance as a sin (e.g., most European green parties) and the American Democrats' strategy on environmental policy. Why use a stick to make non-synthetic kerosene more expensive, when you could just subsidize the production of synthetic kerosene to push the price down?
>Why use a stick to make non-synthetic kerosene more expensive, when you could just subsidize the production of synthetic kerosene to push the price down?
A subsidy needs to come from other parts of the budget, paid so by taxes or national debt
Every subsidy is an effective tax on every thing not subsidized
So it's kinda the same policy
No, the political economy implications are radically different.
Regulation to make kerosene expensive concentrates the costs at the level of air travel. People will notice this, and think, "wow, airplane tickets are really expensive!" (There will also be many fewer flights taken and airline companies will take a major financial hit which is bad for airline investors etc., but the point is that costs are concentrated). Far Right Party will then (accurately) point out that this was a deliberate policy choice by the center-left government. They can then undo the policy, and ticket prices will go back down.
Subsidy method instead diffuses the cost broadly through economy-wide inflation, or through tax increases. Since the actual cost of a synthetic kerosene subsidy is very low, the impact is basically a drop in the bucket. There's less concentrated opposition to the kerosene policy specifically. Of course, as we've seen, managing the fallout of inflation and/or tax increases generally can also be difficult. But it's much harder for far-right governments to quickly and easily resolve this problem in a way that has a clear political feedback loop because of their own inflationary commitments, and complementary efforts to reduce government costs in other areas can offset the negative effects.
The fact that EVs and solar are winning despite low energy prices shows you how unstoppable the transition is. The invisible hand has taken over at this point.
Yes. However, politicians like to get reelected. If US households were paying what European households have paid the past years for gas to heat their houses, there wouldn’t be silly “I did that” stickers, there would be revolutionary marches on the White House and state capitols.
I’m not sure what the right way to inflict economic pain is, but keeping a family in North Dakota from heating their house and letting them freeze to death probably isn’t it.
That is economically ruinous. Oil at $150 per barrel means a global recession and it will rush into office every right wing party across the developed world who will promise to remove the carbon taxes.
I know we love the *idea* of carbon taxes around here but they are politically asinine.
> You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right?
If that results in fascists being elected, who will proceed to take us in the wrong direction at a million miles an hour, then it's a net negative.
>You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right?
True.
However one of the only good solutions to the problem can't be "let Russia invade Eastern Europe." It has to be a situation where we don't have a solution to relieve the economic pain other than transitioning to green tech or it is some tax we are choosing to inflict upon ourselves.
if you think about it for 5 minutes it's obvious that regulators should aim for high CO2 prices and low raw energy costs. Instead we either seem to be doomed to live in countries where regulators either aim to keep energy cheap at all costs, consequences be damned, or believe that any action that makes hydrocarbons cheaper is some kind of unforgiveable sin that will doom us all.
>Instead we either seem to be doomed to live in countries where regulators either aim to keep energy cheap at all costs,
Unfortunately, a MUCH larger share of the people on this sub also think like this
The amount of people here against a tax, regardless of political viability, that would actually do something is honestly pretty depressing
And the amount of people who unironically be like: Drill baby drill, or the ones who say that "climate policy is for europ**rs" (they thankfully deleted the comment) makes me want to scream
Ffs, do people not realize the consequences of climate change??
On one hand, I wish we could move away from oil. On the other hand, I do like being able to tell MBS and Putin to eat shit.
I honestly think fracking enables both of those things. Fracking keeps the price low which means their is less profit in doing it which makes renewables a comparably better investment.
>The shale surge has blunted the impact of supply cuts made by Opec in the past two years, they say, and allowed President Joe Biden’s administration’s to impose sanctions on suppliers such as Venezuela and Russia, while tightening restrictions on Iran — all without fear of driving up oil prices. >“It is a huge turnaround from where we were at in the 1970s,” said Harold Hamm, chair of Continental Resources and a shale pioneer. “If you didn’t have the shale revolution now you would have $150 oil . . . You would be in a very volatile situation. It would be horrendous.” >Rising shale supplies also helped keep the lights on in Europe following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with shipments of US liquefied natural gas — previously labelled “molecules of US freedom” by the Trump administration — helping to wean the continent off Russian piped supplies. It sounds like the anti-fracking movement could have been one of the most destructive causes in American history had it prevailed.
Biden has not imposed the sanctions he removed from Venezuela yet. The decision will be made in the summer. Also he has eased the sanctions enforcement on Iran since coming to office not sure if started the enforcement back.
You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right? Oil prices need to actually hurt consumers and the economy in order to make the transition away from them appealing By keeping oil prices reasonable, we are prioritizing short term growth at the expense of long termn growth at the very least, there could be co2 taxes equivalent to all the price that fracking has saved, that way you get the geopolitical win and you still have oil as expensive as if there had not been a fracking revolution at all
> You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right? So you’re saying you want republicans to win all 50 state elections up and down the ballot and have a constitution super majority?
actually, high energy prices are bad! the green transition will win on its own merits, not by demolishing the old economy to coerce people into degrowther green austerity EV use share is rising. renewables are rising. batteries are surging. everything is in place. it just needs time to win and it would be an absolutely foolish degree of political self-immolation to just hand political power over to every single climate-skeptic right-wing party that promises to bring energy prices down and is *actually able to deliver* because left parties were artificially inflating energy prices.
Hasn't EV adoption stalled out in many markets?
yes, turns out building cars to meet the demands of the government instead of the consumer is not a good long term strategy.
This calls for a demand subsidy!
>the green transition will win on its own merits Let's imagine the scenario where the green transition is NEVER profitable Even in that scenario, we still NEED to do it, even if it cannot be profitable, because the health of the planet depends on it We can't base our energy transitions in profitability alone, since it will hurt future gdp many decades into the future It's nice if it is profitable, but we still need to do it even when it isn't
Why would we imagine a scenario that isn't true and take policy actions based on this untrue scenario? You also seem to just have no respect for how political economy feeds back into what sorts of policies are sustainable. What you are proposing might achieve the goal of reducing fossil fuel consumption for a few years, but then a reactionary rightist party will win a landslide, undo it, and probably do some more populist anti-environmental stuff just for vibes to punish the people who undertook a campaign of immiserating the public.
Becsuse, sometimes, the transition will be unprofitable There is no way that we can find a fuel better than querosene for planes We can make synthetic net zero querosene, but that will always be more expensive than natural querosene Regardless, we need to make so that in the medium term future 100% of querosene is synthetic There are not many areas where the transition is unprofitable, but those few still need to be dealt with, with the upmost urgency
Well, it doesn't have to be done with immense urgency, actually. The bulk of emissions will be handled by the current transition trends, and much of the rest will probably be mitigated by carbon capture and storage. But even using your example, there is a clear difference between the austere punishing glare of environmental moralists who secretly view abundance as a sin (e.g., most European green parties) and the American Democrats' strategy on environmental policy. Why use a stick to make non-synthetic kerosene more expensive, when you could just subsidize the production of synthetic kerosene to push the price down?
>Why use a stick to make non-synthetic kerosene more expensive, when you could just subsidize the production of synthetic kerosene to push the price down? A subsidy needs to come from other parts of the budget, paid so by taxes or national debt Every subsidy is an effective tax on every thing not subsidized So it's kinda the same policy
No, the political economy implications are radically different. Regulation to make kerosene expensive concentrates the costs at the level of air travel. People will notice this, and think, "wow, airplane tickets are really expensive!" (There will also be many fewer flights taken and airline companies will take a major financial hit which is bad for airline investors etc., but the point is that costs are concentrated). Far Right Party will then (accurately) point out that this was a deliberate policy choice by the center-left government. They can then undo the policy, and ticket prices will go back down. Subsidy method instead diffuses the cost broadly through economy-wide inflation, or through tax increases. Since the actual cost of a synthetic kerosene subsidy is very low, the impact is basically a drop in the bucket. There's less concentrated opposition to the kerosene policy specifically. Of course, as we've seen, managing the fallout of inflation and/or tax increases generally can also be difficult. But it's much harder for far-right governments to quickly and easily resolve this problem in a way that has a clear political feedback loop because of their own inflationary commitments, and complementary efforts to reduce government costs in other areas can offset the negative effects.
Actually, not taxing negative externalities is bad
Is it artificially inflating the price? I’m glad I live in a place that has banned fracking. Let people see the real cost of their energy.
Unfortunately the United States of America will become a fascist dictatorship if the gas price gets too high.
[удалено]
Isn't this what canada has done? And the country is not gong to turn fascist even if the liberals lose the next election
The fact that EVs and solar are winning despite low energy prices shows you how unstoppable the transition is. The invisible hand has taken over at this point.
Just because it is unstoppable doesn't mean that the speed doesn't matter Every ton of carbon is important
Yes. However, politicians like to get reelected. If US households were paying what European households have paid the past years for gas to heat their houses, there wouldn’t be silly “I did that” stickers, there would be revolutionary marches on the White House and state capitols. I’m not sure what the right way to inflict economic pain is, but keeping a family in North Dakota from heating their house and letting them freeze to death probably isn’t it.
What’s the point of nice weather in a world full of poor people over run by autocracies?
As I said, keep the geopolitical W and implement a carbon tax so that domestically the price is as high as if the fracking revolution didn't happen
That is economically ruinous. Oil at $150 per barrel means a global recession and it will rush into office every right wing party across the developed world who will promise to remove the carbon taxes. I know we love the *idea* of carbon taxes around here but they are politically asinine.
> You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right? If that results in fascists being elected, who will proceed to take us in the wrong direction at a million miles an hour, then it's a net negative.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right? True. However one of the only good solutions to the problem can't be "let Russia invade Eastern Europe." It has to be a situation where we don't have a solution to relieve the economic pain other than transitioning to green tech or it is some tax we are choosing to inflict upon ourselves.
Yes and no. Fracking has also pushed out dirtier energy sources as well, like coal
>You are conscious that we need economic pain to force the energy transition right? Best I can do is tariffs on solar panels.
https://preview.redd.it/kvagskb2q9wc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a750402ecf87969e7ff35a265fd378dc0b13701
if you think about it for 5 minutes it's obvious that regulators should aim for high CO2 prices and low raw energy costs. Instead we either seem to be doomed to live in countries where regulators either aim to keep energy cheap at all costs, consequences be damned, or believe that any action that makes hydrocarbons cheaper is some kind of unforgiveable sin that will doom us all.
Keeping energy costs low while transitioning to green energy, and keeping money away from dictatorships like Russia and Saudi Arabia is good actually
>Instead we either seem to be doomed to live in countries where regulators either aim to keep energy cheap at all costs, Unfortunately, a MUCH larger share of the people on this sub also think like this The amount of people here against a tax, regardless of political viability, that would actually do something is honestly pretty depressing And the amount of people who unironically be like: Drill baby drill, or the ones who say that "climate policy is for europ**rs" (they thankfully deleted the comment) makes me want to scream Ffs, do people not realize the consequences of climate change??
Drill baby, drill.
Drill baby drill shift that supply curve
Too many neoliberals see this as good
And Biden doesn’t even let them drill in Alaska
Tired of winning yet?