1 point

The oil will be drilled now or later anyway.

The question is how much is burned when and why. I can’t really see anyone anywhere being interested in consuming more oil. If consumption stays the same, he’ll basically just be dumping the price.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Reducing oil prices reduces the financial incentives for using bicycles, taking public transit, living in a city and using renewable energy sources. Drilling itself also has environmental impacts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
6 points

Assuming there is more oil to drill for…

permalink
report
reply
2 points

There’s more oil. Peak oil is about easy to get oil, not actually running out. We’ll spend whatever it takes to keep this machine turning.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

There’s plenty under the 28M acre Alaskan wildlife refuge that Biden secured this term. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump granted drilling rights in his first year.

https://www.ogj.com/general-interest/government/article/55241389/biden-moves-to-limit-oil-drilling-in-anwr-hours-after-trumps-election

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

One thing that I’m hopefully about is that solar is so cheap now so that will continue to roll out like crazy unless someone places huge tariffs on imported goods… oh shit. I just found out about the massive tariffs that fascist is wanting to put in place.

permalink
report
reply
-1 points

Solar and wind are only relatively cheap if you don’t need to buffer. Unfortunately, you do. And electricity production is only a fraction of primary energy use. Concrete, steel, glass, fertilizer, chemistry, diesel and bunker fuel for shipping and mining. Can’t make new renewable infrastructure without fossil extraction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

About half of the fuel used in shipping is to move fossil fuel from one place to another.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

With current battery and hydro storage prices, their cheaper than natural gas with with the cost of the buffer, and absurdly cheap for any industrial application that doesn’t.

Also there are bulk industrial processes to make steel, concrete, fertilizer, and glass with little to no carbon emissions, they just require more electricity and so aren’t cost effective if your electricity comes from fossil fuels, hence why most such plants only started construction once the cost for electricity in general dropped below the cost for fossil electricity.

Moreover while mining and shipping are only starting decarbonization, the required fossil fuel extraction is already far, far smaller than what’s continually required to run the generation they are replacing, and that’s only going to continue to drop as more and more primary energy is electrified with renewables.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

He can’t make the unextractable extractable. Nor can he make consumption stop. In terms of the Keeling curve, the impact is exactly zero.

permalink
report
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.8K

    Posts

  • 31K

    Comments

Community moderators