To gouge or not to gouge

[jakee 1,254]

7 minutes ago, metalslug said:

You might agree that 'not making up their minds' is an accepted lefty standard. 

Yes, recognising the reality that two related points are not mutually exclusive is an accepted lefty standard. Unfortunately you work by the accepted righty standard of ‘rhetoric trumps accuracy’. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

47 minutes ago, metalslug said:

The oil companies have seen where government sentiment on fossil fuels is headed; They cannot reasonably be expected to invest big capital in capacity improvement when the future expectation is reduced consumption through legislation. The government has set that market mood. Not worry though as, according to you, "it's not a supply problem".

Yes, there is a world wide shift away from fossil fuels of all kinds and toward renewables. Major investment firms are meeting the market demand from investors to avoid the sector. All this makes investment in refineries and oil production a more risky proposition than it has been in the past. And this will act to reduce the supply and therefore temporarily increase the price and the profit of the product. In turn this will act in the same way carbon taxes do. It will encourage investment in alternatives like EVs and a host of new sources of energy supply. This is how the long slow process of reducing the carbon load in the atmosphere will begin. Probably too late to avoid significant sea level rise, but we don't really know. Get used to it. It is the way of the future. Even a Trump or a Trump like figure railing away and spouting off like an angry SC commenter will not be able to change this. The smart money is moving toward the future and away from the past.  

[wmw999 2,117]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

The oil companies have seen where government sentiment on fossil fuels is headed; They cannot reasonably be expected to invest big capital in capacity improvement when the future expectation is reduced consumption through legislation. The government has set that market mood. Not worry though as, according to you, "it's not a supply problem".

When horses and buggies were still in use by some people, supply of feed and good new horses probably was reduced as time went on, and more and more people went on to automobiles. The same is happening with cars. It costs more to run an internal combustion engine normally; right now with high gas prices (and it's not all because the government is stepping on gasoline), it's even more economical to go electric if you can. There's also beginning to be a used car market in electric vehicles.

45 or so years ago, it was getting harder and harder to find leaded gas. Partly government incentives, and partly supply and consumers' desire not to contribute to a documented problem.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

3 hours ago, metalslug said:

The oil companies have seen where government sentiment on fossil fuels is headed; They cannot reasonably be expected to invest big capital in capacity improvement when the future expectation is reduced consumption through legislation. The government has set that market mood.

Weird comment since we have already established a lot of it is getting exported. There is absolutely no indication the US government has any interest in limiting the export of petroleum products. So, that argument also makes absolutely no sense.

[billvon 2,384]

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

The oil companies have seen where government sentiment on fossil fuels is headed; They cannot reasonably be expected to invest big capital in capacity improvement

Ah!  So the problem is oil companies not wanting to invest their own money.  Agreed.

Quote

when the future expectation is reduced consumption through legislation. 

The future expectation is reduced consumption through:
1) Running out of cheap oil
2) Competition from Tesla and the like

Not through legislation.  Through competition (a conservative holy grail) and depletion of resources (something conservatives would like to pretend does not exist.)

Quote

You might agree that 'not making up their minds' is an accepted lefty standard.

Well, since you can't make up your mind whether it's Biden's fault or the oil company's fault - we are in good company.

[olofscience 420]

7 hours ago, metalslug said:

They cannot reasonably be expected to invest big capital in capacity improvement when the future expectation is reduced consumption through legislation. The government has set that market mood. Not worry though as, according to you, "it's not a supply problem"

If you think only the government is to blame for the "market mood" then you're oversimplifying.

There's increasing public desire to reduce consumption, and there's increasing competition from alternatives as billvon said.

7 hours ago, metalslug said:

I had said all that was relevant there, although I should perhaps feel flattered that you're more interested in my projects than the OP of that thread.

You left a lot of your statements unsupported, but I guess making it about your ego helps you maintain your self-illusions, whatever floats your boat I guess 

[metalslug 31]

On 7/15/2022 at 1:45 AM, SkyDekker said:

Weird comment since we have already established a lot of it is getting exported. There is absolutely no indication the US government has any interest in limiting the export of petroleum products. So, that argument also makes absolutely no sense.

Say what? Do you expect that lefty US administrations will be pushing to reduce US emissions by exporting the same volume of fossil fuel products to be combusted in another part of the world?  ...as though that will reduce a perceived global problem?  Your argument makes a lot less sense than mine.

On 7/15/2022 at 3:05 AM, billvon said:

Not through legislation. 

No future bans on petroleum vehicles?  Good to know.

On 7/15/2022 at 5:29 AM, olofscience said:

There's increasing public desire to reduce consumption...

.....who have in part been sold a lie that it won't cost them anything extra and who might balk when they realize the actual financial impact and express that disfavour at the polls.

[olofscience 420]

25 minutes ago, metalslug said:

who have in part been sold a lie that it won't cost them anything extra

Public desire to reduce consumption actually stems more from increasing awareness and acknowledgement of the climate crisis.

No one's making the argument that it won't cost anything extra, you're making arguments up.

26 minutes ago, metalslug said:

and express that disfavour at the polls.

Yup, like how the Australian conservatives did so well with climate change denial right?

[jakee 1,254]

26 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Say what? Do you expect that lefty US administrations will be pushing to reduce US emissions by exporting the same volume of fossil fuel products to be combusted in another part of the world?  ...as though that will reduce a perceived global problem?  Your argument makes a lot less sense than mine.

Have lefty administrations reduced the amount of oil that can be exported?

What makes sense to you is irrelevant. What is in reality happening is perhaps slightly more important.

[metalslug 31]

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

Have lefty administrations reduced the amount of oil that can be exported?

No, but inevitably they will ...in pursuit of reducing global emissions as it would amount to brazen hypocrisy if they didn't. Between this and an expected reduction in domestic consumption (much of it through legislation), the oil companies will not invest new capital until the future of their business looks brighter. So while fuel demand will remain high for a while, capacity will not, and the resulting pricing will have the consumers considering that at the polls.

26 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Yup, like how the Australian conservatives did so well with climate change denial right?

That party essentially betrayed their base by trying to 'out-left' the left and pandering to COP26, the very opposite position of what won them the election barely three years before. The Aussie left has now sold the electorate the lie that reducing Australia's 1.3%  of global emissions will (a) not cost them anything extra and (b) will reduce flooding and bushfires.  It remains to be seen how long they remain duped by that.  Conservatives don't deny their 1.3% at all, they just deny the cost-benefit of eliminating it as China alone emits more emissions in just 16 days than Australia does in a whole year and will be increasing that output within just a few years. 

[wmw999 2,117]

Do you think the long-term goals of cleaner air are worth some sacrifice? Do you think that the increasing number and severity of fires in parts of the world are something to address other than one-at-a-time? It's kind of like asking if it's better to try to prevent crime, or simply catch the criminals and imprison them. Or to prevent disease (even if through uncomfortable means by exercise and eating less junk food), rather than taking metformin every day.

Yeah, there are pills to fix these things for short-term comfort, but they're stopgap solutions. Prevention is nearly always better. And there will always be incidences that escape prevention -- there are diabetics who have lived healthy lives, days with bad pollution in California, and criminals. Just fewer of them -- compare, for example, the number of bad pollution days in LA with New Delhi, or the incidence of adult-onset diabetes in Mississippi with that of the 7th-Day Adventist communities.

Wendy P.

[metalslug 31]

3 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Do you think the long-term goals of cleaner air are worth some sacrifice? Do you think that the increasing number and severity of fires in parts of the world are something to address other than one-at-a-time? It's kind of like asking if it's better to try to prevent crime, or simply catch the criminals and imprison them. Or to prevent disease (even if through uncomfortable means by exercise and eating less junk food), rather than taking metformin every day.

If we're using metaphors, here's mine; Do you think it's worthwhile for countries with smaller emissions to spends many billions on a bigger bilge pump while other countries are punching much larger holes in the hull and saving their own billions in the process? There's a potential military war looming in the Pacific within a few years and countries like Australia seem more interested in throwing billions at 1.3% emissions concerns than preparing themselves for events of a much more grave and immediate nature.

[jakee 1,254]

45 minutes ago, metalslug said:

No, but inevitably they will ...in pursuit of reducing global emissions as it would amount to brazen hypocrisy if they didn't. Between this and an expected reduction in domestic consumption (much of it through legislation), the oil companies will not invest new capital until the future of their business looks brighter.

How can it possibly look any brighter than it does now? Oil companies are making record profits without having to do any more work. In what way is your right wing future scenario where they invest loads more money and sell loads more oil for less profit a brighter outlook for them?

[metalslug 31]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

How can it possibly look any brighter than it does now? Oil companies are making record profits without having to do any more work. In what way is your right wing future scenario where they invest loads more money and sell loads more oil for less profit a brighter outlook for them?

The answer is literally in the very post you're replying to. 'future' and 'now' are not the same thing.

[olofscience 420]

11 minutes ago, metalslug said:

If we're using metaphors, here's mine; Do you think it's worthwhile for countries with smaller emissions to spends many billions on a bigger bilge pump while other countries are punching much larger holes in the hull and saving their own billions in the process?

For me, YES, yes, and yes.

Every little helps.

What I find really stupid is you want to join in the punching holes in the hull and thinking it's not going to bite you later on. This argument sounds even stupider when you consider per-capita emissions, but I'll leave that for now.

14 minutes ago, metalslug said:

There's a potential military war looming in the Pacific within a few years

Well hopefully you're not involved in the contingency planning, since your long term strategic outlook appears to be almost nonexistent.

[metalslug 31]

5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

What I find really stupid is you want to join in the punching holes in the hull and thinking it's not going to bite you later on. This argument sounds even stupider when you consider per-capita emissions, but I'll leave that for now.

Everyone will only start to care about the problem when everyone is up to their necks in water, metaphorically speaking. In the shorter term it makes more sense to prepare for changes locally than to expect to prevent changes globally. 

[billvon 2,384]

41 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Everyone will only start to care about the problem when everyone is up to their necks in water, metaphorically speaking.

Literally not true.  The air is between 50% and 90% cleaner than it was 40 years ago in LA, for example.  We fixed the ozone hole.  We are doubling EV sales year after year.  Solar is doubling every 2-3 years.  This is happening because some of us care about the problem and are working to address it.

[olofscience 420]

51 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Everyone will only start to care about the problem when everyone is up to their necks in water, metaphorically speaking.

By then it will be too late - you'll actually lose a lot more money later if you don't mitigate the problem ("bilge pumps" as you say) today. Compounding interest and all that.

If Europe had invested more in nuclear and renewables instead of becoming dependent on Russian gas, it would have cost them a lot less than the billions they'll almost certainly lose now.

Finally, who says you can't walk and chew gum at the same time? You can prepare for the short term while trying to reduce your impact for the long term. It's not like there's only one person who can do things, right?

 

In the very short term, hundreds if not thousands of people might die in the UK on Monday - the very first red heat alert in history. We'll have to adapt somehow, but "go all-in to what caused this problem in the first place" just sounds...stupid.

Edited July 16, 2022 by olofscience

[metalslug 31]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Literally not true.  The air is between 50% and 90% cleaner than it was 40 years ago in LA, for example.  We fixed the ozone hole.  We are doubling EV sales year after year.  Solar is doubling every 2-3 years.  This is happening because some of us care about the problem and are working to address it.

Edited correction; I had incorrectly included the words 'start to' in my previous post above.  In fairness to bill's reply; some people have indeed started to care already.

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

If Europe had invested more in nuclear....

I'm with you there, I've already stated on this forum that I support modern nuclear. 

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Finally, who says you can't walk and chew gum at the same time? You can prepare for the short term while trying to reduce your impact for the long term. It's not like there's only one person who can do things, right?

It's not about people, it's about money. Both prevention and preparation will require huge budgets. What we disagree on is the timeline that determines the relative priorities of each.

Edited July 16, 2022 by metalslug

[olofscience 420]

25 minutes ago, metalslug said:

It's not about people, it's about money. Both prevention and preparation will require huge budgets. What we disagree on is the timeline that determines the relative priorities of each.

Well also what I disagree with is, you seem to be saying that unless we can solve the problem 100% perfectly on the first try, there's no point even trying.

There's value in whatever we can do, even if it doesn't solve things 100% immediately, because of compound interest.

Edited July 16, 2022 by olofscience

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, metalslug said:

The answer is literally in the very post you're replying to. 'future' and 'now' are not the same thing.

No, that was the question. Read it again, see if you can follow this time.

[billvon 2,384]

9 hours ago, metalslug said:

It's not about people, it's about money. Both prevention and preparation will require huge budgets. What we disagree on is the timeline that determines the relative priorities of each.

But you just said that it's about people, and that everyone will only start to care about the problem when everyone is up to their necks in water. 

But let's say it's really all about money.  We are the richest country in the world.  If we just took the money that we spend on entertainment every year, and don't change a single other thing, that gives us $360 billion a year - a trillion dollars every three years.  That's enough for a lot of solar farms, nuclear power plants, battery energy storage systems, pumped hydro, brine mining, charging networks etc.

Don't want to give up entertainment?  Then just take direct action.  Refuse to buy gasoline.  We will immediately cut emissions by at least 35%.  Or never go anywhere without two people in the car.  That reduces it by 16%  - and costs nothing other than convenience.  AND it ends traffic problems, parking issues and inner city pollution issues.

Or just take the train.  (And of course build more trains,)

It is the height of stupidity to wait until the cost of preparation rises to the point where we can only afford to do that - and then do nothing BUT that.  To go back to the boat analogy, it's absurd to wait until the only option is lifeboats in the middle of the North Atlantic, and only then consider doing something because then your life is in danger.  Because by then a lot of other people will already have died, even if First Class isn't underwater yet.

 

[mistercwood 287]

13 hours ago, metalslug said:

That party essentially betrayed their base by trying to 'out-left' the left and pandering to COP26, the very opposite position of what won them the election barely three years before.

Laughably inaccurate take on what happened here. The vast majority of the LNP losses were to "teal" independents - conservative candidates who had basically all the same policy positions, with the exception that they wanted to take urgent action on climate change.

The LNP didn't lose because they tried to go left, they lost because they stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the populace. Their reaction to this was that they think they weren't true enough to their "conservative" voters, which has no basis in fact or logic whatsoever.

[olofscience 420]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

But let's say it's really all about money.

What's confusing is how he says it's about money - then turns around and says he supports nuclear power.

Which is good, I agree with that, but nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy there is so it's not something I expect someone to support when "it's all about money".

[billeisele 122]

22 hours ago, billvon said:

Literally not true.  The air is between 50% and 90% cleaner than it was 40 years ago in LA, for example.  We fixed the ozone hole.  We are doubling EV sales year after year.  Solar is doubling every 2-3 years.  This is happening because some of us care about the problem and are working to address it.

When the waste stream issues are included renewables become a major problem. Batteries, solar panels and wind turbine blades are a problem. The toxic materials in solar panels are serious. Unfortunately the cost to recycle is 10-30 times higher than the value obtained from the recycled materials, that makes recycling unlikely. Once in a landfill those chemicals will leach into drinking water. There are plenty of articles on the topic.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/?sh=434e1aba5fe5

"But the volume of solar panel waste will destroy the economics of solar even with the subsidies, they say. "By 2035,” write the three economists, “discarded panels would outweigh new units sold by 2.56 times. In turn, this would catapult the LCOE (levelized cost of energy, a measure of the overall cost of an energy-producing asset over its lifetime) to four times the current projection.”"