In fact even the fossil fuel asset owners are starting to do this. For instance the Saudi Arabia plan to do an IPO of Aramco is because they know they need to rapidly diversify their economy away from oil. The idea the oil industry is going to remain financially healthy while all this is going on is quite unrealistic.
This is the thing I don’t understand from climate... um... super activists.
We know of no more efficient, safe, and easily convertible storage of energy than petrol hydrocarbons. So even if everyone else stopped today, someone will keep using them, and that group will have an advantage over their peers.
Second, if we stop using oil in engines, guess what? It’ll go into lubes, and plastics, and other forms. We have a material we know no better alternative for. You know how composites like carbon fiber enable windmills and solar panels and electric vehicles, and all the new cool things? Carbon fiber is non-recyclable burnt plastic. It’s very oil heavy in production, they take plastic bars, spin, spool, and burn them to get the fiber. It’s extremely non-green, then you have the resins and epoxy that uses oil in its production, and all the greases, lubes, finishes, etc.
If you agreed to get everyone to stop, it basically can’t stop. Someone won’t and they’ll do well because of it in the short term. And obviously we’ll need oil for far more than cars, we use most of it in energy production and cars, but remove those and we’ll just usher in a different era of plastics and composites.
Now of course you can argue plastic in a landfill is better than vaporized in the atmosphere! But to pretend big oil will just “go away” is very foolish.
Gas should have a $2 tax to offset the carbon it puts in the air and a 2-10$ tax for the historically untaxed pollution. (per gallon).
The production of oil for plastics and other materials is paltry compared to fuel. Of course that will continue.
The point of this activism is to start the process of disincentivizing oil production, since governments are completely corrupted by oligarchy and economics for the rich and won't impose proper regulation.
Your straw mans are "all oil production will cease immediately" (impossible) and "oil is the BEST POWER SOURCE" (it's not due to impending climate crises)
The point of the article is that activism is actually having a potential effect on financing of oil extraction projects.
Which is utterly shocking, I didn't think that was possible.
There's a lot to unpack here. "Efficiency" of a hydrocarbon doesn't make sense, unless you talk about a specific application, such as an internal combustion engine, in which case you're comparing 100+ year old technology and chemistry to relatively newer forms that simply haven't had as much light of day becoming more "efficient". Depending on what exact "efficiency" is being measured ("energy density"? Nuclear wins) will open more questions than answers.
"Safety" is another interesting one. For example, regions of the world with high concentration of oil reserves, such as Venezuela and the middle East, have seen a lot of combat and instability post-WW 2. I don't think those regions are comparatively safe. While, on the other hand, fighting over wind and sunlight could happen, I wouldn't count on it.
"Easily convertable storage" I don't even know what this means. Once a fuel has been converted to electricity, or kinetic energy, the storage problem is all the same.
It's not that controversial.
The "haven't had as much light of day becoming more "efficient" is not relevant, as the parent means among forms existing today (he said "we know of". Even if there might be a future more efficient, we don't "know of" it yet).
And the measurement is usually EROI, and looks to be as the parent said:
https://ruayres.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/rua-eroi-fig-5.p...
>I don't think those regions are comparatively safe.
I'd say the parent doesn't talk about that safety, it's about in applications, transport, etc. Wars happened before oil too...
However I don't buy EROEI as being a good measure in a discussion about long term climate change and the wholistic picture of an energy source. EROEI is too short-term focused (on energy break even) instead of looking at the lifetime of an energy source. Oil plants and internal combustion cars need to account for the years of shipping logistical distribution and mining/drilling when looking at the lifetime of an oil plant or the lifetime of the car. Compared to the marginal energy cost of maintenance of a PV cell or wind turbine over the lifetime of those power generating structures. The EROEI at the end of the energy production lifetime may favor energy-intensive short term sunk costs with low long term marginal costs (wind and sun) instead of favoring low-entry-incumbents with high energy operating costs (oil and it's existing logistical infrastructure).
So I disagree it's "not controversial" and I also think looking at EROEI for the break even point is kind of like looking at bullet holes on planes without Abraham Wald around.
Consider arguably the worst scenario: a civilization that has to derive all its energy needs from ethanol (which IIRC, has a 2:1 ratio). At least half of it is going to have to be dedicated to farming grain for energy and processing it into ethanol for the rest of that civilization to function. And of that non-farming half, how much of that will end up being support industry for the ethanol creating half? The amount of high technology industry that could ultimately be supported by that civilization would be dramatically lower because a much higher proportion needs to be dedicated to lower necessities.
You're right, it's not (climate wise), as it hides the externalities.
But it's my understanding that the parent meant "efficient" in the way EROEI is.
Or, you know, that group gets thrown to prison or bombed, and problem solved, how about that?
>Second, if we stop using oil in engines, guess what? It’ll go into lubes, and plastics, and other forms. We have a material we know no better alternative for.
Plastics compared to oil energy is a tiny percentage (which, still has its own problems).
But even if we had to do without both, and without modern conveniences, like plastics, and carbon fiber, and tons of others, and e.g. go back to a 1900 lifestyle, it still beats dying in a climate apocalypse (and returning to a 1900 B.C. lifestyle).
Are you really arguing we go to war with every country who doesn't stop using fossil fuels?
> beats dying in a climate apocalypse
I'm 100% for paying more to switch to 100% renewable energy, but none of the effects of climate change [0] will in any way result in an apocalyptic future.
The NASA effects are the Disney version. As many countries have already found (and many will discover) you can get an "apocalyptic future" with seemingly small changes.
Changes pile up beyond the immediate ecological impact -- e.g. droughts and climate disasters mean more immigration, tension between neighborhooding countries, wars for resources (if wars of oil where bad, wait for wars for water), increased lack of global collaboration and so on...
What countries have experienced an "apocalyptic future" due to climate change seeing as you are smarter than NASA?
> if wars of oil were bad, wait for wars for water
How! I am flabbergasted you think the trillion dollar market for oil will be usurped by water. Pretty much all cities are based around water sources (rivers usually).
Note that the latter part is an ad-hominem, and what it puts forward (that I'm "smarter than NASA") was nowhere in my message (not even implied). So I might not be "smarter than NASA", but you (or at least your comment) are ruder than needed.
As to the point I made. NASA presents the Disney version for a lot of reasons, not because of lack of smart people there. Two main ones:
One is that they are a government agency, and need to be political (e.g. balance the pressure from those that discard the climate impact altogether and "meet them in the middle").
Second, is that in such a public pronouncement they tend to be conservative and err on the side of caution.
As for the countries that have already experienced an "apocalyptic future":
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pac...
Here's another:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/07/24/pakistan...
And the migrant crisis that affects tens of millions (and a project 1 billion until 2050) is strongly affected by climate change already...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/10/disease-flood...
Who said you can't use oil when bombing to enforce no-oil use, if you need to?
Humans are surely no dumb computers taking all instructions literally, and can differentiate between one use (to enforce a rule) of oil, vs another (the industrial, transport, etc use you want to ban).
Who can say that you can't use oil that way? Whoever's going to bomb you for using oil. (Or did you assume that you were always going to be the enforcer, and never the enforced-upon?)
"We get to use oil for when we think we should, but we'll bomb you if you use it" sure smells like hypocrisy to me.
I didn't make any such assumptions: just that someone can enforce no-use-of-oil upon others.
And it doesn't have to be hypocritical either. To answer your other protest:
>"We get to use oil for when we think we should, but we'll bomb you if you use it" sure smells like hypocrisy to me.
Only in the same sense (and I already gave a similar example), locking people up against their will is bad and punishable, but not when the police does it.
If the enforcer only uses oil to enforce no regular oil use, then they're totally non hypocritical.
Besides the whole question is contrived, in the way the Liar's paradox is. "Yeah, what I just said about always lying is meta and excluded from my lying: I only lie when I say non-meta statements" is enough for this case...
I didn't suggest I personally do it, and I don't have the means anyway.
>Or who appointed your country to be the judge of other countries?
Notice how I didn't mention a particular country. Much less mine.
First, obviously, if there was a single country that wanted to do it, and if it had the might, nobody had to appoint them.
But it could be equally well that an extended alliance, or the UN itself, could form a force to do the policing.
The police didn't start out having authority either. Some nation state by its might (or the good will of another) gained sovereignty, formed a police force, and had some elites write the laws and give it authority. Then they allowed the populace to periodically vote, but with the police and the overall system already in place (and not allowed to be contested in its foundations unless another force -eg a rebellion- replaces it with might).
It seems you are arguing at points nobody made.
IF (and it's a big IF) financing for oil and gas projects was reduced, that might increase the price, or at least make the price more volatile as supply couldn't be increased quickly when demand increases. This would be offset by the fact that as a self financing industry outside finance is more about managing capital costs than supplying it. It's also worth noting that supply is at least partly controlled politically (by Opec and the Saudis etc), not by actual availability. You might stop all new developments and investment and still find the price falling if the Saudi's decide to turn on the tap.
And it will be very very difficult to actually reduce the supply of capital to oil and gas companies: many are state funded and new ventures are among those most likely to receive state funding. Add to that that money is fungible: you might think your buying Walmart bonds, but then you find out Walmart used the money to lend $1bn to Exonn and suddenly you funded oil and gas exploration without knowing it. You need basically EVERYONE to agree to stop, as long as one bank/hedge fund/Private Equity firm/Big Corporation will still take this business it will continue (and that firm will become very very rich and successful).