I don't think you are being serious. The fact that humans are still exploiting fossil fuels in an accelerated pace is the worst thing could have happen to the earth's climate change.
At the same time, there's a lot of upside to reducing the power of authoritarian oil states that gives dictatorships power to squash democracy and human rights.
"Study after study has found that, while discovering big oil deposits doesn't turn democratic countries with a lot of oil like Norway and Canada authoritarian, authoritarian countries are more likely to stay that way if they've got a ton of oil. Of all the bad things that oil does for countries, this is probably the worst and most robustly demonstrated."
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/10/5601062/oil-curse-explained
Say what you will about the U.S. (and Canada and Norway), but I'd rather a democracy be the biggest producer than an autocracy.
But, it's not a game, and we don't NEED to consume as much oil. By rolling back car mileage standards, we will in fact use MORE, not less, so our reliance grows instead of shrinking. We should be moving to alternatives and funding research at a much higher level. Who cares if someone else is the largest producer of oil, if we no longer need it anyway. By not consuming it, they can't profit from it and they will become less powerful regimes.
When we raise output, OPEC immediately counters and lowers theirs to keep prices the same. It's basically a zero sum game. So we end up drilling more and wasting more, and they save theirs for later since they're not pumping as much. How does that help anything besides cause us to run out faster then they do? Are they having to resort to fracking? Nope. They have plenty still, and when theirs gets low they will start doing more fracking and still be ahead. They just aren't as low as we are so they're not having to scrape the bottom of the barrel like we are. If we don't shift off oil, we will run out before they do and prices will soar, which would really damage our economy. We're delaying the inevitable for short term gain and profit.
Yes, it would reduce the geopolitical power of KSA and Russia to reduce oil consumption. Reducing the global demand for oil will, in isolation, lower the price and undermine these autocratic regimes.
However, reducing the global demand for oil while simultaneously increasing the supply for oil from the free world will not only lower the price even more, it will also make it easier for the free world to achieve resource independence from autocratic oil states.
... only if one assigns no cost to all the CO2 produced.
Burning a barrel of oil creates about 340 kg CO2, about half of which ends up in the atmosphere (oceans absorb some, etc.) World oil reserves are over a trillion barrels.
Burning 46 billion barrels of oil adds 1 ppm to atmospheric CO2. So those trillion barrels will boost CO2 by over 20 ppm.
Of course, coal is much worse. World coal reserves are around a trillion tons. Burning 5 billion tons of coal raises CO2 by a part per million. Burning all that coal would raise atmospheric CO2 by nearly 180 ppm.
Burning fossil fuels is not the only source of carbon dioxide; there's also deforestation. But leaving as much fossil fuels in the ground as possible, would make achieving desirable CO2 goals that much easier.
The comment i was replying to, says that US producing more oil doesn't mean that more oil will be burnt in total, because others have to produce less in response, and saving oil for later would be better for those who save it.
Even though i wish the second part was true, so that oil prices could go up reducing its usage, i have to admit that unfortunately, selling as much oil as possible while there is a demand for it, is the rational strategy for people who own the oil.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675343616/often-quiet-on-wars...
[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/28/senate-advances-resolut...
That's your opinion. There are people who believe we need to curb the carbon based energy consumption and try to reverse the negative impact of greenhouse gas. Others don't.
> Please explain to me how this means the end of civilization.
Try google? There are loads of resources if you do and pay attention to the topic on HN. We're just scratching the surface of unknowns in how much worse it could get on the path of an accelerated climate change. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/02/11/there...
Oh, I said "coastal civilization" and hoping it doesn't get to "entire civilization".
Can you explain how you see that upside playing out? You're suggesting some sort of change in oil price, which alters Saudi Arabian politics, which leads to an improvement in human rights? What would that look like exactly?
It's much easier to let the new technology speak for itself than to tell people, "Hey, we know what we're offering is no good, but it's what we've got to do."
Cheap oil will make green energy a smart business choice rather than a sacrifice. The optics on that are way better.
CO2 emissions are cumulative, and there's far more CO2 still sequestered in as-yet-unburned fossil fuels than even the rosiest estimates say our atmosphere could safely absorb. That implies that we're going to have to leave some sizable fraction of our planet's remaining oil in the ground, permanently.
From a long term betterment of the species standpoint, what we really want to be seeing is the global supply of oil starting to taper off and costs per barrel drifting slowly but steadily upward.
The space where oil is competitive is transportation. We are seeing massive gains in efficiency in that space.
Even with electrical generation it's a mixed bag. The recent US fracking boom has also dramatically lowered the prices for natural gas. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, so to the extent it's pushing us away from coal consumption it's serving to buy us some time. But it's still desequestering carbon, which means we're still going to need to stop well before we run out of available natural gas to burn.
My whole point is that I believe clean energy can stand on its own feet, and that when it does, fossil fuel use will plummet dramatically to almost nothing.
In the meantime, having a plentiful supply of fossil fuels is good for the economy and for national security. The whole point is to have a ton available but never need to use it.
The price floor problem for Russia and Saudi is societal and governmental financial, rather than raw production cost based.
Saudi Arabia now needs ~$95 oil to balance its budget for 2019. That has persistently been moving higher for them. So they're stuck in a death trap on price, where they're one of the few producers that can cut substantially to lift prices which the US producers constantly push down on. So they lose share to the US producers just to try to stay alive on price. Meanwhile it costs ever more money to placate the people of Saudi Arabia (and their population is growing rapidly, tripling since ~1982; a problem Russia of course doesn't have, with a stable population figure). Eventually that formula explodes, something will give in the coming decade.
Russia is in better shape on the price they need. They're a lot more comfortable near $60 than the Saudis. However they're still not able to realistically sustain oil prices lower than what the $40-$50 Permian producers can manage (seeing as the US producers don't have a national budget to support or a social bribe to pay for stability).
It's Reuters. They are a wire service. They report news, not write articles.
Not to be rude, but this is really off the mark. The only reason that we're not still in a cartel market regime of $100 barrels is fracking being invented/discovered and efficiently improved. It cut the price floor well in half.
Fracking is not the cheapest, but it's also not the most expensive (see Canada's oil sands). When you compare fracked WTI (basically the USA-sourced index) to offshore Brent (North Sea, off the coast of UK), the costs are apples to oranges because fracking can be readily tapped at a relative drop of the hat (if prices spike in a short term period), but offshore is a huge multi-million/billion endeavor where you have to depreciate costs over a really long time horizon (same with oil sands, but different tech).
Fatih Birol made the comment in an interview with Turkey’s state-owned Anadolu news agency.
Shortest article ever?
In all seriousness I don’t think this is the worst thing for any of the three countries. Most new US production is higher cost (fracking), so the drop in market share is at least met with a stronger price floor for all.