Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephjrobison | Hacker News Reader

I agree with you that we should be moving to renewables as fast as possible.

At the same time, there's a lot of upside to reducing the power of authoritarian oil states that gives dictatorships power to squash democracy and human rights.

"Study after study has found that, while discovering big oil deposits doesn't turn democratic countries with a lot of oil like Norway and Canada authoritarian, authoritarian countries are more likely to stay that way if they've got a ton of oil. Of all the bad things that oil does for countries, this is probably the worst and most robustly demonstrated."

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/10/5601062/oil-curse-explained

Say what you will about the U.S. (and Canada and Norway), but I'd rather a democracy be the biggest producer than an autocracy.

View on HN

> I'd rather a democracy be the biggest producer than an autocracy

But, it's not a game, and we don't NEED to consume as much oil. By rolling back car mileage standards, we will in fact use MORE, not less, so our reliance grows instead of shrinking. We should be moving to alternatives and funding research at a much higher level. Who cares if someone else is the largest producer of oil, if we no longer need it anyway. By not consuming it, they can't profit from it and they will become less powerful regimes.

When we raise output, OPEC immediately counters and lowers theirs to keep prices the same. It's basically a zero sum game. So we end up drilling more and wasting more, and they save theirs for later since they're not pumping as much. How does that help anything besides cause us to run out faster then they do? Are they having to resort to fracking? Nope. They have plenty still, and when theirs gets low they will start doing more fracking and still be ahead. They just aren't as low as we are so they're not having to scrape the bottom of the barrel like we are. If we don't shift off oil, we will run out before they do and prices will soar, which would really damage our economy. We're delaying the inevitable for short term gain and profit.

If most of oil usage is going to be replaced by other energy sources soon, then using most of oil reserves asap is a good strategy.

> using most of oil reserves asap is a good strategy

... only if one assigns no cost to all the CO2 produced.

Burning a barrel of oil creates about 340 kg CO2, about half of which ends up in the atmosphere (oceans absorb some, etc.) World oil reserves are over a trillion barrels.

Burning 46 billion barrels of oil adds 1 ppm to atmospheric CO2. So those trillion barrels will boost CO2 by over 20 ppm.

Of course, coal is much worse. World coal reserves are around a trillion tons. Burning 5 billion tons of coal raises CO2 by a part per million. Burning all that coal would raise atmospheric CO2 by nearly 180 ppm.

Burning fossil fuels is not the only source of carbon dioxide; there's also deforestation. But leaving as much fossil fuels in the ground as possible, would make achieving desirable CO2 goals that much easier.

Sure burning oil is bad and not only because CO2, but also because of other more toxic gases it produces.

The comment i was replying to, says that US producing more oil doesn't mean that more oil will be burnt in total, because others have to produce less in response, and saving oil for later would be better for those who save it.

Even though i wish the second part was true, so that oil prices could go up reducing its usage, i have to admit that unfortunately, selling as much oil as possible while there is a demand for it, is the rational strategy for people who own the oil.

Production and consumption are different levers.

Yes, it would reduce the geopolitical power of KSA and Russia to reduce oil consumption. Reducing the global demand for oil will, in isolation, lower the price and undermine these autocratic regimes.

However, reducing the global demand for oil while simultaneously increasing the supply for oil from the free world will not only lower the price even more, it will also make it easier for the free world to achieve resource independence from autocratic oil states.

Not to mention it sorta insulates us from the political shenanigans of that region. Especially true if you believe Iraq was "all about the oil."

The recent flexing by Congress of their War Powers Act authority [1][2] in regards to Yemen / Saudi Arabia - which was unprecedented in recent US history - may have only occurred due to the boom in US oil production. I'd expect that most of Congress would have been a lot more concerned with upsetting the relationship with Saudi Arabia otherwise.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675343616/often-quiet-on-wars...

[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/28/senate-advances-resolut...

In grand scheme of things, these don't matter when the sea level raises 2 meters and 2/3 of coastal population and civilization got wiped out post-2040.

In the grand scheme of things, if that's accurate they've got 20+ years to find 2 meters of elevation so they don't get drowned. This kind of breathless reaction is what makes people skeptical of the entire concept. Please explain to me how this means the end of civilization.

It will be a lot more clear to both of us when we're paying the taxes to "bail out" the real estate developers who are investing in Miami right now.

> This kind of breathless reaction is what makes people skeptical of the entire concept.

That's your opinion. There are people who believe we need to curb the carbon based energy consumption and try to reverse the negative impact of greenhouse gas. Others don't.

> Please explain to me how this means the end of civilization.

Try google? There are loads of resources if you do and pay attention to the topic on HN. We're just scratching the surface of unknowns in how much worse it could get on the path of an accelerated climate change. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/02/11/there...

Oh, I said "coastal civilization" and hoping it doesn't get to "entire civilization".

> there's a lot of upside to reducing the power of authoritarian oil states that gives dictatorships power to squash democracy and human rights.

Can you explain how you see that upside playing out? You're suggesting some sort of change in oil price, which alters Saudi Arabian politics, which leads to an improvement in human rights? What would that look like exactly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com