Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SillyNluv t1_iwntoqb wrote

Screw that. I thought we were working to get away for a reliance on oil?

13

myklob t1_iwonmrp wrote

We don't need to cut off the supply. We need to cut off demand. It is ridiculous all the people who drive cars that use gas say we should stop producing oil. The production by those evil oil and gas companies isn't the problem. You have met the enemy. The enemy is ourselves. The enemy is looking at us in the mirror. Buildings produce more global warming than transportation. Do you work or live in a building? Cows and agriculture produce more global warming than transportation. Europe, Africa, and South America all need energy. People may starve. It's not a joke. It's not a time for everyone to share their feelings and thoughts who have never thought about it and had to deal with how the world is instead of just how they wish the world were. People in Pakistan have no energy because they are getting priced out of the markets because of the Russia/Ukraine situation. And you demand that we cut off the supply, without thinking about the consequences, because voters that use oil and gas in their cars and homes are hypocrites, and demand that politicians live in a make-believe world, in which food just magically appears because spoiled western hypocrites think tractors can operate on dreams and fairy dust. Is it better that poor Asians, Africans, and South Americans get 100% of their energy from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the US? OPEC is run like a diamond monopoly, and they artificially raise the prices, kill gays, and objectify and dominate women. Why don't we tax THE USE OF OIL AND GAS, not the production? Shouldn't we demand to know that people who say we should not produce oil and gas put their lives where their mouths are and prove to us that they do not live in houses or use transportation? Or explain why South America should get oil and gas from Russia than us?

2

SillyNluv t1_iwpv6r7 wrote

I’m sure you’re making valid points. It’s hard to wade through the recrimination.

More specifically, I don’t think we need to build even more infrastructure for a fuel source that’s being phased out. I am not knowledgeable about the industry and am open to learning more.

From what little I’ve read on the matter, there isn’t a shortage and the price increases are due to greed because the cost of a barrel of oil hasn’t increased.

I welcome more correct information , if you’d like, but settle down so I can hear you.

6

myrd13 t1_iwpzezm wrote

There isn't a shortage of oil, that is a truth... I guess u/myklob's point is we are trying to have our cake and eat it. We can't push for a reduction in coal/oil-based expenditure while living lives that necessitate the need for continuous non-renewable energy production.

One key example is in whatever space you are in right now (assuming it's a building) is probably at least 70% based on non-renewable energy sources, whether it's concrete for the walls that need coal, phone/laptop/cables that are crude-oil based...

Personally, I see the problem but I can't really see us finding a solution

7

SillyNluv t1_iwpzyy7 wrote

Thank you for your measured response. I would say I agree with you.

3

myklob t1_iwrxnix wrote

Thank you for your kind, thoughtful, intelligent response. Let me try again without the recrimination. I'm an electrical engineer with my US green building council certification. I'm very interested in developing a green future. I support a carbon tax. I also believe that we need to tax industry to make them pay for their negative externalities. I'm not an economist but it's a term that I have heard here or there. Basically a negative externality is when you dump garbage in a river. It's free to you. But you make the community pay for your laziness. By external people are trying to say that The people who do the damage are not the same people who feel the damage. So I do believe that government needs to construct a framework where polluters pay for the damage they do. I have to say all of that because you're not going to like what I say next. But I need you to understand that I hope you don't dismiss me as a person who doesn't care about the environment. My concern is environmentalist often cause harm when they oppose improvement because the improvement isn't perfect. For me, the clearest example is opposition to liquid natural gas. Before I transition to my current job, I was in the LNG industry. Basically 10 of the largest boats produce more pollution than almost all of Europe's vehicles put together. These massive super tankers use bunker oil as their fuel. Bunker oil is the worst stuff on Earth. However, it's a cheap way of moving large boats. I was part of a project that was putting in LNG infrastructure so boats could be retrofitted to burn l&g instead of bunker fuel. Now LNG is not perfect. However everyone on the planet should agree that LNG is better than bunker fuel. However, environmentalist try to stop the project and they do stop LNG projects all over the planet because they are two idealistic and don't want gradual improvement. They want perfection. They go so far as to want perfection even when there is no green method of moving boats. They are working on batteries large enough or powerful enough to move super tankers but they just do not exist. Therefore, you have to choose between bunker fuel and LNG. Or you could be a hypocrite and just not want to send grain to Africa or South America. Because the only way of moving massive amounts of grain to Africa or South America is with very large boats. So my problem is when people don't think through the consequences of their idealistic goals. So back to Texas and their pipeline for getting oil out to the tankers. This is an improvement in efficiency. If we don't want to export oil and gas, we should just ban it, but we shouldn't require oil and gas companies to operate in a inefficiently. As an engineer, I hate inefficiency. Environmentalists tend to oppose oil and gas improvements in efficiency even when they would reduce the carbon output. Environmentalist often say anything in oil and gas company does is bad. However, I have a massive problem with that... If we don't want to export oil and gas, we should just regulate it so much that it will not be able to compete. We should just tax it so much and plant trees to offset the neck negative externalities until it goes out of business. However, we should not oppose construction projects that improve efficiency.

3

SillyNluv t1_iwrzrtq wrote

Thank you for writing this out. And I understand what you’re saying, I think.

I am not deep into the environmentalist movement but I do support their goals. Seeing this made me think that big, powerful companies are ignoring the will of citizens to continue their glutinous business endeavors.

By pointing out that building these facilities will make their operations more efficient and less likely to cause problems v their old way of handling it, I can see the value of the project.

1

myklob t1_iwwubrs wrote

Thanks again! I don't know anything about this project in particular, and perhaps like the people I am frustrated at, perhaps I am oversimplifying and assuming it is good because it is efficient... Who knows!

2

VikingBorealis t1_iwp9c7t wrote

See the thing is. USA is a rich nation, you will be off oil "fast and easy", but many other third world nations will still need to buy oil.

The irony is that while this should be the truth. Half the US na ion is acting like Neanderthals and refusing to move into the future and letting third world countries outpace the US in dropping reliance on fossil fuels.

1

SillyNluv t1_iwpvp3m wrote

We do have a Neanderthal problem right now. But I think our bigger problem is not the people, who must make smaller changes, rather the corporations causing the bigger problems.

The people alone cannot make the necessary changes until we get our large corporations brought to heel.

1

VikingBorealis t1_iwq12od wrote

The people are and always has been the ones to force major change.

Name one (positive)change that hasn't been vmcause by a united people. All revolutions are by people workers rights and such, people, voting rights and we'll all rights, people, United.

2

SillyNluv t1_iwq1lrd wrote

I’m with you in that the people force the necessary changes. I’m saying that my recycling of plastic isn’t doing much in the big scheme.

1

VikingBorealis t1_iwqjyzv wrote

I'd say that in Europe where a high percentage of plastic is recycled, it would have a large impact if we stopped.

1

SillyNluv t1_iwrtst7 wrote

Ah. I’m in the US and it’s very unclear whether the recyclables we separate are actually being recycled.

1

Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_iwo3hmr wrote

I’m left-leaning but energy prices are sky high right now, and people are hurting because of it. We NEED to keep producing oil until we have a sufficient supply of renewable energy. Unless you are ok with everyone paying $300 for a sandwich, and $50 for a bag of chips?

0

SillyNluv t1_iwo6o9c wrote

Energy prices are sky high now due to greed. And if we NEED to keep producing oil to off-set that, we probably shouldn’t sell it to other countries.

14

tickleMyBigPoop t1_iwp3ysq wrote

> Energy prices are sky high now due to greed

It was the year 2022 when corporations discovered greed

1

Kingofthetreaux t1_iwo8nnv wrote

...if you believe what you just we’re fucked. You can’t say 30 year inflation high without saying highest profits in 70 years in the same breath.

7

Dylan-Baddour OP t1_iwoa2w1 wrote

Prices at home are high, in large part, because the US is exporting oil now. (US export ban was only liften in Dec 2015.)

3

tickleMyBigPoop t1_iwp40yw wrote

Lol that has nothing to do it with. Especially seeing as US shale isn’t profitable at low price points

1