> That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations.

I don’t understand why you wrote this in response to the comment you replied to.

No matter which way you slice it, the UK and Europe using the oil from wells physically closer to them has to be less energy intensive that shipping oil / gas from far away.

What bearing does externalising anything have on that fact.

▲

Tostino 4 days ago | parent [-]

Demand isn't static.

Economics 101: if Europe taps new wells, global supply increases. Higher supply drives down prices. Lower prices induce more consumption.

We wouldn't just be cleanly swapping imported fuel for domestic fuel 1:1; we'd be making it cheaper to burn more fossil fuels globally. The marginal emissions saved on shipping are completely wiped out by the net increase in total carbon burned.

The only reason expanding that supply looks like a "win" on a balance sheet today is exactly because the long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.

▲

nandomrumber 4 days ago | parent [-]

> long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.

That’s not science.

That’s wishful thinking.

We can’t actually know the long term climate-costs of burning fossil fuels.

It’s unfalsifiable.

We don’t have a second identical Earth we can use as a control.

Expending the fossil fuel supply today (months) reduces the impact of global oil / gas shocks to people suffering high prices today.

Waiting for your team to invent new battery and storage technology, and littering the countryside with wind turbines and replacing the entire existing vehicle fleet does nothing to help people now.

▲

Tostino 4 days ago | parent [-]

Your initial claim was that Europe should start opening more wells for domestic production.

If they started right now, that would help with this current oil/ gas shock in the market? They wouldn't come online until far after this is over.

You know you're being disingenuous. This is not a discussion you're having in good faith so I'm going to just going to end it here.

	▲	slashdev 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It would be useful against future supply shocks, don't you think?
	▲	nandomrumber 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Months to years vs your plan of doing nothing for decades, with technology that doesn’t exist.