I think the jobs argument for ruining the environment is something that should be seriously engaged but it's still intuitively clear to me that we won't run out of useful things to make or do that easily. Transitioning away from oil is a big project.

did you miss the last three decades where oil companies have been funding FUD initiatives to prevent any climate action from happening?

Your argument puts a lot of emphasis on short term gains at the expense of long term public/environmental health.

We don't have to get oil domestically. Other countries are more than happy to decimate their local environments to sell oil to the US at below market rates.

I'm sure this makes me an asshole, but given the choice between making regions of Saudi Arabia or the USA unlivable, I'd take Arabia any day.

I don’t get any of this comment. Oil is the king of being sold at market rates, and if we aren’t producing any market rates skyrocket. Also doesn’t matter where oil is burned, it still becomes CO2 and other greenhouse gasses if we don’t leave it in the ground.

Please stick to the community guidelines and respond directly to the argument. Calling a response "sanctimonious drivel" does not make your reply more compelling.

The fact that OP is being sanctimonious is highly relevant to the point I’m making. It’s one thing to hold the opinion that we need to eliminate oil use because of the serious environmental repercussions. But if you’re living in america enjoying American employment options and living standards, you don’t get to engage in “holier than thou” “us versus them” rhetoric. Our entire economy and all of our jobs are predicated on cheap energy. Oil companies make a lot of money because they deliver an essential, high demand product. But given that oil and gas is less profitable than your average industry (as you’d expect a commodity to be) there is no basis for acting as if the benefits of cheap oil flow to oil company shareholders. It flows overwhelmingly to consumers.

I'm not saying OP made a stellar point, but "drivel" is an unnecessarily aggressive descriptor here. Try to assume good faith and draw out an argument that elevates the overall discussion. You're raising a worthwhile concern. Raise it in a way that invites, rather than shuts down discussion.

You're right, "drivel" was unwarranted. I have deleted that.

I drunkenly invited someone to Denver at my expense for a duel the other day (not literally, but figuratively). All this partisan, populist rhetoric is driving some of us a bit nuts, but you are usually a voice of reason. It's ok to slip up from time to time.

> "But if you’re living in america enjoying American employment options and living standards, you don’t get to engage in “holier than thou” “us versus them” rhetoric. "

This is a strange place for the love-it-or-leave-it fallacy to rear its simplistic head. Grandparent is pissed at fracking companies and the perceived greed of their shareholders. A widely-held viewpoint expressed plainly. The mere existence of your disagreement doesn't make his opinion any less valid.