| ▲ | anovikov 4 days ago |
| But why does US need any of that? It's a massive exporter of fossil fuels and will be much richer as a result (but yes just as every other way of getting richer, it will also increase inequality). |
|
| ▲ | _alternator_ 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The argument that high oil prices are good for America is one of the most ridiculous ideas being pushed right now. Yes, on a trade deficit front, it slightly reduces the net amount of money leaving. But we are also the world’s largest consumer of oil, and it literally powers every part of our economy. Saying that America is better off with high gas prices is like saying Americans will eat more beef if the price of beef doubles because we make lots of beef. Cattle ranchers will be better off; everyone else eats more potatoes. |
| |
| ▲ | anovikov 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Think of it this way: less trade deficit means more imports that come through without causing extra damage. It means more cheap products of all kinds for everyone. And yes this is exactly how petrostates work. I wonder why is it surprising. Sure their population also pays higher prices for gas at the pump when the oil goes up, but they massively win in every other way. It's simply a long, embedded stereotype of "high oil price = bad" because of traumatic experience of 1973 and 1979. It's different today. The higher the oil price, the better it is for America. Also again, US gas prices are by far the cheapest among every halfway developed countries. Everyone else will suffer more. So relatively again, US wins even here. | | |
| ▲ | dalyons 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It causes massive inflation of goods and food prices, as farming and supply chains are heavily dependent on fuel prices. How is runaway inflation “massively winning in every other way” for regular americans? | |
| ▲ | usefulcat 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The price of oil isn't just about the "cost of gas at the pump". It's about how much it costs to transport anything. There aren't many products that don't need to be transported or that don't depend at least partially on something that does. So yeah, when the price of oil goes up, oil companies make more money, and prices go up for pretty much everyone. | |
| ▲ | _alternator_ 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The difference between the US and a petrostate is that the US is rich because we use gas, not because we make gas. Put differently, petrostate economies rely upon on oil revenues; we rely on the actual product at every stage in our economy. There is a segment of our economy that does benefit from oil revenues, but the vast majority of our economic output involves oil consumption. | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > US gas prices are by far the cheapest among every halfway developed countries Most of the retail pump price difference is self-inflicted, though. If those other countries wanted to suffer less in that regard, they know how. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | defrost 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Oils ain't Oils" - old motor oil company slogan from the 1980s. What the US exports isn't "car ready" - most primary oil sources are heavily biased one way or the other (heavy, sweet, light, etc) and the useful end product is blended. It's not straightforward for the US to get high on it's own supply and even what it delivers to others is less useful to thse others when other non-US sources aren't readily available to blend in. Also ... using sequestered carbon has been increasing the insulation factor of our common atmosphere, left unchecked (ie. stopping the use of fossil fuels) is a major problem for the coming century. |
|
| ▲ | standeven 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Burning fossil fuels also raises the global temperature, reduces air quality, and people still have to pay more at the pump. |
| |
| ▲ | anovikov 4 days ago | parent [-] | | But US mostly wins from global warming relatively, right? I mean, it's going to suffer less than others (except EU), for geographical reasons, thus winning. I don't think global warming is a concern for US at all (some places sure, Florida will be royally fucked, but not most places). | | |
| ▲ | graemep 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The big winners from global warming will be Russia, China and Canada - places that will become more habitable. Its not just Florida. There are multiple problems. Many can be mitigated, but I very much doubt they will be as its easy to put off. | |
| ▲ | _alternator_ 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This seems like soft trolling. Global warming is canonically the opposite of a zero sum game. Everyone is losing. | | |
| ▲ | anovikov 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Everyone is suffering sure, but what matters is relative degree of it. Side that suffers less, wins against others and that's the only thing that matters. And no, in China global warming means worsening desertification, in Russia it means melting permafrost that covers 60% of the country, same in Canada. Europe and the US are uniquely positioned to suffer the least from it and many industries will win outright. For example, there will be year-round tourist season within continental EU: all summer on the Baltics and the North Sea and all winter in the Mediterranean; winemaking in Spain and southern France will suffer badly and in some places may become commercially non-viable, but will expand to great lot more territory in northern Germany, low countries, Poland, UK, thus enabling a lot richer wines due to great variety of soils. | | |
| ▲ | _alternator_ 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Everyone is suffering sure, but what matters is relative degree of it. Is that what matters? |
| |
| ▲ | Jensson 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This seems like soft trolling. Global warming is canonically the opposite of a zero sum game. Everyone is losing. No not everyone loses, people in colder climates win a lot from global warming, especially Russia and Canada. There is so much land there that is currently not viable due to being too cold that will open up from global warming. |
| |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don't forget all the states in the middle that are experiencing the worst drought in a millenium, with snowpack and river flows at record lows, all while each state is adding more people (and thus more water demand), and interstate river compacts expire, and years-long negotiations on a renewal have been fruitless. | |
| ▲ | defrost 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the short to medium term, sure . . . again, left unchecked gets bad for every human when tipping points are passed. Eg: When surface ice gets very low the trapped heat will go more torward heating water than melting ice. That's very double plus bad (ask a high school physics teacher about the energy used to melt, say, a kilogram of ice .. then ask them by how many degrees C does that same energy raise the temp. of water). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | noelsusman 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Being a net exporter of a global commodity is only relevant in an extremely acute crisis (e.g. WWIII). Plus one of the reasons why we export so much oil is because it's cheaper to import oil to a refinery in New Jersey from Saudi Arabia than to get it there from Texas due to some very stupid US laws. |
| |
| ▲ | devilbunny 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Assuming you mean the Jones Act? | |
| ▲ | pif 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hello, could you please elaborate about those laws? | | |
| ▲ | noelsusman 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The Jones Act requires that all goods transported by water between US ports be carried on ships that were built in the US, fly the US flag, and crewed by US citizens. That effectively makes it impossible to ship oil between US states at scale without a direct pipeline. Though to be clear I believe we would still be a net exporter without the Jones Act, it's just one of those weird things about the US oil industry. |
|
|