| ▲ | cmiles8 19 hours ago |
| The US has long sought to erode OPEC’s ability to dictate global oil prices. The US has made massive progress in being broadly energy independent to isolate it from challenges elsewhere. The US has been a net energy exporter since 2019. Global oil pricing was always an annoying thorn in that strategy. This is an initial but big crack in shaking up global oil markets in a way that meaningfully shifts global power dynamics. |
|
| ▲ | kybb4 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They export because their own refineries along the Gulf coast esp were designed for middle east heavy crude cuz the US once upon a time believed it was about to run out of American light sweet crude. So the story is not black and white. |
|
| ▲ | melling 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. We’re rolling back CAFE standards too. |
| |
| ▲ | nradov 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | CAFE standards were always a stupid idea. If we want to reduce fuel usage then increase the tax on fuel instead of punishing manufacturers for selling vehicles that consumers want to buy. | | |
| ▲ | post-it 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is, respectfully, corporate propaganda. Consumers buy the vehicles that are available and advertised. It's in the best interest of manufacturers to convince/compel consumers to buy larger, more expensive vehicles with higher margins, and that's exactly what they're doing. | | |
| ▲ | amluto 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How many CAFE compliant “light trucks” do you see around? CAFE is a great example of a well-meaning regulation failing because the people who developed and approved it didn’t think through the obvious consequences. | | |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | anvuong 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. | |
| ▲ | ambicapter 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "It's your fault you didn't expressly disallow what I ended up doing to get around what you asked me not to do" | | |
| ▲ | readthenotes1 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you make a game someone's going to play it. Allowing light trucks to turn the SUVs and replace sedans is not an "unintended consequence"--it's either stupidity or graft (not xor). There are several laws that are "wtf -- is this the best we can do?" |
|
| |
| ▲ | traderj0e 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How can that be if they all offer extensive lines of small and efficient cars that a good number of people drive? Besides, collusion doesn't seem likely given the amount of foreign competition. The majority of Americans have made it clear that they want bigger autos, at least with the usual gas prices. Sorry if that's corp propaganda. Separately I've heard emissions laws blamed for large sedans losing to small SUVs and trucks due to double standards, but I doubt it would've made a difference, even though I personally prefer large sedans. | | |
| ▲ | scq 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ford no longer makes traditional passenger cars. They now only sell SUVs, trucks, and sports cars. You can see this if you go to https://shop.ford.com/showroom/ and select sedan or hatchback in the left filters. No results. |
| |
| ▲ | stickfigure 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If gasoline is more expensive, customers will demand more efficient vehicles. We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV. I'm old enough to remember when Japanese small cars practically took over the market in the 70s and 80s due to gas price shocks. It can happen again. | | |
| ▲ | Certhas 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If gasoline is expensive because of carbon taxes, people will vote for a party that tells them that climate change is not a problem, and that, if they win, gasoline will be cheap again. | | |
| ▲ | stickfigure 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can say the same about CAFE standards, or anything else government does? This is a silly argument. | | |
| ▲ | sneak 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | The reason so many people buy huge trucks in the USA is specifically because heavy machinery (above a threshold) is exempt from such standards. |
|
| |
| ▲ | debo_ 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tell that to the literal constant flow of old men I see driving pristine F150s in the metropolitan center of the Canadian city I live in. | | |
| ▲ | asa400 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | They probably won't buy Honda Civics, but they (or their children, more realistically) might buy the electric equivalent of an F150 if the market produces one that can fulfill what they perceive their needs to be. I just bought a (small, hybrid) truck because I need to do some truck stuff. I 100% would have bought an electric if the market produced one with comparable capability and competitive price, but we're not there yet, and I don't have Rivian money (yet! lol maybe someday). My point being: there is still a huge demand for trucks from both a capability and culture standpoint, and very little supply of a cost-comparable product that doesn't take gas or diesel. Rivian is around double what most people want to pay, and the F150 Lightning was marketed poorly and had bad towing/hauling range compared to gas/diesel equivalents. I'm not here to defend "truck culture" but I do believe that if you offer people a better product, they will figure it out and buy it. An electric truck with 400+ miles of towing range, an onboard 2kW+ inverter, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and fast charging for the same price as a comparable gas F150 will sell. Unfortunately the battery energy density and EV supply chain economies of scale aren't there yet in North America. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Teever 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV. But we are. I don't want to turn this into a political slap fight but it became apparent to me the extent in which people are swayed by advertising when I read an article that talked about how one party in the US was concerned that the other was going to win an important seat becase the other party had done a recent spending surge on ads in last few days before election day and they were concerned that they couldn't match it. That article right there forever changed my view of the average person on the street. In a highly polarized campaign and political environment with months to years of knowing who the candidates and policies are and they can still be swayed by millions in TV and radio ads? Like it sounds like these people could literally be on their way to vote for a candidate and then switch their mind at the last second because they hear an ad on the radio as they're pulling into the polling station. That's absurd -- but it's real. People are completely enthralled by advertisements to the point where they'll buy a stupid truck that they can't fit anywhere, that they need a ladder to climb into, that has terrible sight lines, simply because advertising tells them to. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nah, it's not real. Your claim isn't supported by the data. Political advertising can help a bit at the margins but in the 2016 Presidential election the losing campaign spent about twice as much on advertising as the winner. Very few voters were swayed by last second radio ads. (I would support a Constitutional amendment to restrict campaign contributions and effectively overturn the Citizens United v. FEC decision.) | | |
| ▲ | Teever 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Again, I don't want to get into a political slap fight here, I want to keep this on the subject of advertising. It sounds to me like you're confusing the magnitude of advertising spending with effectiveness of advertising techniques. Some people have found more effective ways to advertise to people, we know all this, it isn't uncharted conversation territory. We all know about micro-targetting based on personalized data, dominating certain niche mediums like AM radio to target people when they're driving and coordinated pushes with people in industry. The point is that advertising works. It works disconcertingly well. This is why people buy stupidly impractical automobiles that they don't need. | |
| ▲ | sneak 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which is it? If your first claim is true, why do we need to amend anything? They seem like mutually exclusive claims, to me. Am I missing something? |
| |
| ▲ | traderj0e 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you don't want to make this about politics, use a product advertising example instead of politics which is not even comparable. Advertised products will sell more, but only to a certain point. Like someone who wants an SUV and knows nothing else might buy the one from Chevy instead of Mitsubishi because of advertising. |
| |
| ▲ | testing22321 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > customers will demand more efficient vehicles The problem is those vehicles don’t exist, because the manufacturers only want to build the high margin gas guzzlers. Look at fuel economy of US made vehicles vs those in Europe. It’s beyond a joke. | | |
| ▲ | traderj0e 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whatever your standard is for an "efficient" vehicle, more efficient things than those 15-20mpg trucks or SUVs do exist in the US. Every automaker sells a serious car that gets at least 30mpg combined if gas-only, or like 50mpg if hybrid. | | |
| ▲ | testing22321 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The really wild part is you think that’s good. You’ve never driven a BYD because your government blocks them. You’ve also never driven a fuel efficient car because they hardly exist in the US |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ndisn 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can’t convince (almost all) consumers to spend money on something that they do not want. | | |
| ▲ | post-it 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course you can. And for the rest, you just discontinue the product they want so they have no choice. | |
| ▲ | tyre 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can, but it’s easier to convince them to want something that they don’t need or is actively harmful. | |
| ▲ | adrianN 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can make them want things. Ad money is what powers some of the most successful companies. | |
| ▲ | sneak 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Car insurance. Low flow showerheads. Fuel-inefficient vehicles. Electric dryers. Electric stoves. Appliances that don’t last. Lawn care. Taxes. Social Security. The list is gigantic. Your claim could not be more false. | | |
| ▲ | traderj0e 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | People want car insurance because it's a law, low-flow showerheads if water is expensive, and electric appliances if gas is expensive or outlawed. And some want fuel-inefficient vehicles because they like them and gasoline isn't very expensive, while plenty of other people opt for MPG. |
| |
| ▲ | iso1631 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's the entire point of the trillion dollar advertising industry |
| |
| ▲ | nradov 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bullshit. There are many competing auto manufacturers. No one is compelled to buy larger, more expensive vehicles. There are smaller, cheap vehicles available to those who want them. If I want a little penalty box like a Hyundai Elantra or Nissan Sentra the local dealers have base models in stock and ready to sell today. Larger vehicles are more comfortable, safe, and practical (for anyone who doesn't need to worry about parking issues). It doesn't take advertising to convince consumers about that, it's just reality. | | |
| ▲ | post-it 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A Hyundai Elantra of today is significantly bigger than it was ten years ago. It also used to be the second-tier model above the Accent, which was discontinued. Ditto with the Sentra and the Versa. This is my point exactly. | |
| ▲ | jagraff 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Large vehicles are safer for the occupants of the vehicle, however they do increase danger for pedestrians and drivers of other vehicles in a collision. There is a reasonable argument that reducing vehicle size would save lives overall | | |
| ▲ | sneak 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a myth. Larger vehicles are not safer for their occupants; they merely feel that way. | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > This is a myth. Larger vehicles are not safer for their occupants; they merely feel that way. I'm pretty sure it's not, because physics. A tank is safer than a bike for the poilot, when there is a collision. This data is a little muddled, but follows common sense. Large SUVs and Pickups: These vehicles have the lowest occupant fatality rates, averaging 14 deaths per million registered vehicles for SUVs compared to 48 per million for sedans. Large luxury SUVs often register statistically zero deaths in specific three-year studies. | |
| ▲ | nradov 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nope, not a myth. While the data is noisy and there are some confounding factors, the IIHS driver death rates show a clear correlation between larger size and fewer deaths. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-... |
|
| |
| ▲ | Tangurena2 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Domestic manufacturers used to build & sell compact pickup trucks. Nowadays, the only pickups on the market are huge fatmobiles. The profit margin in trucks is much higher than the profit margin on passenger cars. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can buy a Ford Maverick compact pickup truck from your local dealer today. The profit margins on larger trucks are higher precisely because that's what consumers want. No one is forcing them to buy those vehicles. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Compare the Maverick to a Japanese kei trucks, they so impressed the current president that he signed an executive order allowing them, if they're manufactured in the US. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | linkregister 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pedestrian deaths, including children, have risen in lockstep with light truck adoption in the United States, while they have fallen in countries without this phenomenon. | | | |
| ▲ | adrianN 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The VW Up electric sold really well but was discontinued. | |
| ▲ | 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | amiga386 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Vehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards are a great idea. The stupidity was allowing a "light truck" exception at all. It made the manufacturers turn to manufacturing and promoting what should be work vehicles to rich idiots who need nothing larger than a regular car (but can easily be upsold on something they don't need) America is already fucked, given how awful its urban sprawl is. Trucks used for commuting and not haulage just makes it double fucked. | | |
| ▲ | kingstnap 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | The exception being blamed on "stupidity" makes it sound like an oversight. It was not an oversight. It was corruption. |
| |
| ▲ | Certhas 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We shouldn't prohibit dumping toxic waste in the river, we should just tax it! I am familiar with the EU situation. The carbon tax you would have needed to achieve the effect of fleet emission standards would have been political suicide. And that is not just psychological. People who buy used cars and drive their cars until they fall apart are well correlated with people who can't afford high carbon tax. Buyers of new cars are the people who can. Carbon Tax would mean massive redistribution of the money raised. Yet another political mine field. | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if consumers want to buy Chinese electric cars? Are we going to remove that bit of protectionism? | | |
| ▲ | linkregister 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Great catch! There's a trend toward advantaging entrenched interests to the detriment of the overall economy and interests of the population. | |
| ▲ | 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | a_random_name 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, but "increasing taxes" always rouses the rabble. | |
| ▲ | adrr 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Increasing prices doesn't effect demand right? $10+ per pack cigarettes in California hasn't had any affect on smoking rates. | | |
| |
| ▲ | the_sleaze_ 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Always gonna happen. Oil margins are gigantic and they'll use every dime of runway they can. Electric is better in every single way and batteries tech is only making that more true every day. The dinosaurs won't go quietly into the night. |
|
|
| ▲ | ch4s3 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the initial crack was ousting Maduro in Venezuela. Since OPEC exempts Venezuela from production caps, it gives the US government a lever on non US production. |
| |
| ▲ | Tangurena2 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Venezuela produces heavy "sour" crude (this means high in sulfur). Many of the US refineries capable of handling sour crude have closed, partly because the sulfur content makes the refineries stink (and emit lots of pollution) and partly because they need more expensive piping to handle the corrosive materials (not just the crude, but HF acid that's used in the refining process). The last refinery to be built in the US opened in the 1970s. Since then, refineries have closed. None of the owners of refineries will sell them because of SuperFund legislation. It is the same reason that when a gas station is sold, the fuel tanks are dug up and replaced. This way, there's no way to claim that the previous owner left hazardous material to be cleaned up. SuperFund laws say that every previous owner is liable for the cost of cleanup. It doesn't matter how long ago the property was sold. | |
| ▲ | downrightmike 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 2017 when Venezuela accepted RMB for oil and then USDT crypto. USDT is being used to skirt the US's control of the oil and bypassing the dollar. The ships passing through the straight now are also paying Iran in RMB and crypto. The petrodollar is the objective. This isn't over any time soon | | |
|
|
| ▲ | fulafel 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is horrible from POV of mitigating the climate catastrophe and the global death toll. We (as in humanity) are really late in ramping down fossils production and use. |
| |
| ▲ | nostrademons 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Eh if the U.S. gets into a forever war with Iran the same way we did with Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam (or like how Russia got into one with Afghanistan and Ukraine), the climate crisis is solved. Five years of the Straight of Hormuz being closed and everybody will be using EVs. Legislation isn't going to work. Economics isn't going to work. War - which cuts off the flow of petroleum because nobody is willing to risk their life for oil - will work very quickly. Nothing quite like a shortage to spur innovation. | | |
| ▲ | downrightmike 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | 80% of the world's oil is not going through the straight at all. 5 years is still optimistic. Esp if we are starting wars to pump up the futures market | | |
| ▲ | nostrademons 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Doesn't take a huge decrease in production to result in a huge increase in price, due to inelasticity in demand. Renewables and EVs are a capital-intensive industry, and the thing about capital-intensive industries is that they're prone to bubbles. If you get a year or so of EVs being cheaper than gas cars, you will see a huge growth in sales as lots of consumers make the rational choice all at once. The spike in sales will spur a bubble in capital investment as investors all rush to capitalize on it. The capital investment spurs R&D, which results in technological improvements which make the cost advantage permanent. At the end of the 5 years (or perhaps even before) the price of oil will crash back down, probably lower than it is now, as increased EV adoption destroys demand more than supply was choked off. But at that point we'll all own EVs, they will cost less than gas cars, there will be chargers everywhere, there will be solar panels everywhere, and we'll have better batteries and V2H charging. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jmyeet 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The US isn't insulated from global oil supply shocks because crude oil and refined petroleum products are traded on global markets and natural gas is somewhat traded on global markets (there are limits to LNG exports). So yes the US could limit or ban exports. Many countries (including China) have done this in a kind of energy nationalism, but that hangs out allies to dry in a way that would make the US deeply uncomfortable. It would threaten European energy security. It would come at the cost of Latin American exports. So there's a cost to pay. And more to the point, no US government regardless of party is going to hurt corporate profits by limiting exports. Biden could've done it in 2021-2022 and didn't. And Trump certainly won't. As one example, a big release from the SPR was on an oil-for-oil basis. Rather than cash ii on high prices, it's just a massive gift to oil companies who have to repay the oil (and then some) at some unspecified future point when oil will be cheaper. That's billions the US could've added to government coffers. I do agree there is a power shift going on but not because of US energy independence. No, it's because the US cannot militarily protect GCC countries and cannot force open the Strait of Hormuz or guarantee global shipping, which has essentially been a US guarantee since 1945. I do think this administration does want to crack OPEC but that's likely to be of massive benefit to China without China having to do anything. |
|
| ▲ | tootie 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Global pricing affects all fossil fuels and always will. Energy independence will remain a fantasy until we are fully on renewables. Which is entirely within reach and requires fighting zero wars. |
| |
| ▲ | WorldPeas 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | ...and up to that point, first world countries should not be complaining about developing nations using coal. It's a lot more shock resistant than diesel and natural gas, which is especially important for those that are so much more sensitive to inflation. From what I've seen coal, solar (hydro too, but that's land-dependent) and micromobility are save harbors. Not much they can do about the fertilizer shortfalls though. | |
| ▲ | sneak 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US/China trade war is intensely relevant to the large scale deployment of renewables in the US. | |
| ▲ | glitchc 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's the other way around: Renewables will remain a fantasy until we achieve energy independence. | | |
| ▲ | blackcatsec 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | When it comes to fossil fuels, there's no such thing as 'energy independence' because fossil fuels are traded on a global market. In addition, not all oil is the same. So you have to trade it because what you can extract may not be what is useful to you, but useful to someone else. In short, the US cannot functionally be independent on fossil fuels even if we extracted every drop of oil within our borders--because we literally cannot use all of it, and most of it would be wasted just sitting around. | | |
| ▲ | cman1444 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | In extreme scenarios it is certainly possible for the US to ban exports of certain fossil fuels, effectively making an internal US market that is isolated from the rest of the world and basically energy independent. Yes, we would need to build more refining capacity to use it all effectively, but in a cataclysmic event (i.e. a world war or something) the US would be much much better off than most other countries. |
| |
| ▲ | tootie 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That makes no sense at all. We just had a post about several countries with energy independence who had done it with zero extractable resources. For them, the magic key was having tons of hydro and a small population. They just stopped importing. Countries like the US will need a lot more power and a lot more diversity of generation but it can be done if there was enough will to do it. |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US, or Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or Russia could very well be energy independent on fossil fuels alone, even though that won't be wise. Europe, or China, or India could not though. | | |
| ▲ | don_esteban 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | China is making great strides in renewables and investing in nuclear (and in electrification of transport). It can be energy independent in not too distant future. India has geography for solar, and the human/industrial capability for nuclear. Southern Europe can go solar as well. Northern Europe has it tougher (except Norway, with its abundant hydro). Nuclear could work. Or long range DC cables from South Europe or North Africa (if ever Europe helps them to put their act together - not easy or fast, but definitely in their best interest). | | |
| ▲ | ccozan 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is already happening [1]. I think even an UK connection is in works. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain-Morocco_interconnection | |
| ▲ | cjblomqvist 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Northern Europe, at least Scandinavia, is already at 90%+ non carbon electricity generation. (88-100%) Central and Eastern Europe have it tougher. | | |
| ▲ | don_esteban 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Central/Eastern Europe is rather into nuclear (Austria on renewables) and not too heavy on fossil, exceptions being Poland/Czechs/Germany with too much coal. The Balkans are quite fossil-heavy, but solar should be quite feasible there. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tootie 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How? Being a net exporter implies we make more than we use. Great. How do we force companies to not export until domestic demand is met? And how do we ensure that doesn't raise prices more than just running the system as-is? | | |
| ▲ | nine_k 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If foreign supply is cut, we (assuming the US) can still do fine, even though is a sub-optimal way. The US crude is heavy, the Middle Eastern crude is light, so oil processing would need to adapt, the efficiency would go down, and prices would go up. But we'd still be up and running independenty. If foreign oil supply were cut from China or India, they'd be in a much bigger trouble. | | |
| ▲ | tootie 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | If foreign supply is cut, the price goes up for everybody everywhere. Even net exporters. That's the whole point of this thread. Every drop of oil, gas or coal extracted (and not under sanction) will be sold to the highest bidder anywhere in the world. |
| |
| ▲ | adrianN 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Self sufficiency generally comes at a cost. The whole promise of globalization is that it makes things cheaper. |
|
|
|
