Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth United States

Why the US Is Pumping More Oil Than Any Country in History (theatlantic.com) 207

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The politics of solving climate change may, paradoxically, require producing more fossil fuels for a while. Roge Karma, writing for The Atlantic: By boosting domestic oil supply, the Biden administration seems to be contributing to the very problem it claims to want to solve. The reality is more complicated. "Pushing for reductions in U.S. oil production is like squeezing a balloon -- the production will 'pop out' somewhere else," writes Samantha Gross, an energy-and-climate expert at the Brookings Institution. The world's energy needs are growing rapidly, which means oil companies are going to supply it regardless of what the White House does. If the U.S. were to cut back tomorrow, prices would rise. In the short term, this would lead to less consumption and lower emissions. But those high prices would only entice producers in other countries to step in, as many did in the months after Russia's invasion.

For that reason, reductions in U.S. oil production could actually result in higher overall emissions. The U.S. has one of the least emissions-intensive oil industries on the planet. Shifting production to countries with looser standards would likely be worse for the climate. But the deeper explanation for the Biden administration's actions has to do with the politics of climate change. Put simply, pursuing a decarbonization agenda requires Biden to maintain political support, and there is no surer way to lose political support than by presiding over high gas prices. Biden's approval rating has tracked gas prices for most of his presidency (although he hasn't yet benefited from recent improvements), and the drop in prices in the months leading up to the 2022 midterms may have contributed to Democrats' unexpectedly strong performance in those elections. Plus, when the price of energy goes up, the price of everything else tends to rise as well, sparking further inflation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why the US Is Pumping More Oil Than Any Country in History More

Why the US Is Pumping More Oil Than Any Country in History

Comments Filter:
  • Which is why the USA should reduce demand by controlled reduction in the USA's share of the ~$1 trillion in govt subsidies to oil companies. Why are we distorting the markets with tax payer's money but then throwing up our hands & saying, "There's nothing we can do!"?
    • Raising taxes is totally a way to get people to vote for you. LOL.
      • I talked about spending taxes, not raising them. The US govt is already collecting those taxes & giving them to fossil fuel companies. You're not making any sense.

        • The US govt is already collecting those taxes & giving them to fossil fuel companies. You're not making any sense.

          Most of what you call "subsidies" are indeed tax breaks, where government simply does not collect taxes they otherwise would. And if they did, they would still simply be passed on to the end consumer. Government is not actually handing tax money to fossil fuel companies, you are misinformed.

          • That's exactly what a tax subsidy is & exactly why it distorts the market, i.e. taxing some things more than others. It's generally a good idea for taxes to reflect the true cost of that product or activity to society, e.g. expensive health effects & environmental damage.

            But if the fossil fuel industry isn't being subsidised, nothing would be lost if they were just taxed normally, like everything else, right?

            Re: "And if they did, they would still simply be passed on to the end consumer." - Tha

    • Why are we distorting the markets

      Because part of what keeps the American hegemonic economy and military functioning the way we the citizens expect it relies in large part on access to vast amounts of affordable energy.

      Electricity for industry, gas for cars, heat for homes, even small disruptions to these supply lines can cause big downstream effects, as we saw in 2020 onward.

      Every politician is hugely incentivized to vote for these subsidies because we can all claim we don't like them but when gas goes up $0.50 in a few weeks oh we're all

    • Because subsidies and tax cuts are a way to win votes.

      Once the majority are driving EVs, we can crank up the gas taxes.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        There isn't enough Lithium on earth to make that happen. If you want to end AGW, you have to make a hydrocarbon fuel from nuclear fission.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )
          I don't know why you say that because the Earth has enough economically viable lithium reserves for 11 billion EVs [popularmechanics.com] to exist at the same time, recycling used cells to make new ones. And sodium-ion technology looks very promising.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sfcat ( 872532 )
            Nobody has ever recycled Lithium, we have no idea how that would work. Sodium-ion batteries will never be sold, they are just too volatile. Perhaps some sort of Li-Na mix is possible but you are still using Lithium that way. And that estimate of 11b EVs includes us somehow extracting every single atom of Lithium from the Earth down to 7 miles and then using them to built cars that can only travel 40 miles. So no, it isn't an accurate estimate of what we can do. We just enough Lithium in reality to buil

            • Nobody has ever recycled Lithium

              A twenty-second Google search brought up several companies that recycle lithium.

              Here's one: ABTC Lithium Battery Recycling [americanba...nology.com]

              Sodium-ion batteries will never be sold, they are just too volatile.

              Sodium is unlikely to be used in cellphones or EVs, but it will likely dominate in static applications like grid-scale storage. That will free up lithium for mobile applications.

              And that estimate of 11b EVs includes us somehow extracting every single atom of Lithium from the Earth down to 7 miles

              Bullcrap. It is economically viable and accessible lithium.

              Beyond that, there are 230 billion tonnes of lithium in the oceans. That's enough for a trillion EVs.

            • That 11 billion is only getting what is currently economically extractable. That's what mineral reserves are, mineral resources are the total expected amount. We've got enough lithium on Earth to power everything with batteries, what matter us what's economically available.

              Lithium reserves have been skyrocketing. Turns out when people suddenly wanted one of the most abundant minerals on the planet, they started to find ways of getting it more economically.

              Same thing happened with oil. Not long ago people w

        • Lol. The lithium shortage myth is not something I've heard in awhile on a site like slashdot, from someone that doesn't appear to be a troll.

          The myth came from the fact that proven reserves from like 25 years ago weren't enough to convert everything. That has changed.

          Proven reserves are the amount we think we can economically extract, the resources is how much we think is physically there. Lithium is one of the most abundant resources in the earth, but we used to not need that much.

          Not long ago people said

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      A trillion dollars in US oil subsidies? How do you figure that?

    • Which is why the USA should reduce demand by controlled reduction in the USA's share of the ~$1 trillion in govt subsidies to oil companies.

      That's not how supply and demand works. If you think raising prices reduces demand, I'd like to invite you to come to Disney World during the holiday season.

      If you want people to buy less oil, you need to offer alternatives to oil. Cheap BEVs are a good start.

  • For some people... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Thursday December 21, 2023 @04:08PM (#64096957)

    ..high gas prices threaten their entire existence
    They don't get paid much and can't afford to live close to work, so they drive, a lot
    They don't care about bigger issues. They simply care about survival
    If we are going to have a chance to solve the climate crisis, these problems must also be addressed

    • Absolutely. Thank you for saying this. Perhaps the rich silicon valley techies and politicians can afford to make personal sacrifices in the name of a greater good but ordinary people usually can't.

      • There's a sadly blurry line between "can't" and "won't" though.

        If a person's budget is already so tight that increases in gasoline prices turn them from surplus to deficit, that's a more fundamental issue than managing gasoline prices.

        If we take out discretionary spending like eating fast food instead of going grocery shopping and only focus on systemic issues: If we structure society so that people can't absorb $100 increase in costs, that's the problem I'd like community leaders and lawmakers to address,

    • ..high gas prices threaten their entire existence

      I know this is hyperbole but you hear this a lot, and high gas prices certainly do have a negative effect if you are on a lower income but I think the effect gets overblown because gas prices are in everyone's face so much. Is there any other product where almost all people are in view of multiple price comparisons every single day?

      Per capita, at least in 2019, Americans used 414 gallons of has per year. At $3 a gallon that's 1242 a year. At $4 that's 1656, a difference of $34.50 per month. At 5$ it's

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BranMan ( 29917 )

        Well, that 414 gallons per year is an average. Across the whole population. Say you have a one or two man contracting crew. They drive around their truck full of tools, machines, and materials from job site to job site all day long. THEY might use 6 times as much gas per year. So the $75 increase for the average American is now $450 in extra expense. That could put a big squeeze on a such a small operation.

        Consider a larger one - with 10 trucks and crews. Now you have $4500 in more expenses per mont

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )
          The price of energy is about 1/3 the price of just about anything you buy. If energy prices go up 50%, that's about 16% increase in the price of everything else. If you thought inflation was bad now, I hope we don't have to experience that so you learn what real inflation feels like. It isn't fun.

        • See now that's an entirely different argument.

          Now you are talking about not the average citizen but businesses and their relationship to energy markets? The conflation of these things is a bit suspect I would say.

          Also that $450 increase affects every company in their field, unless you competitor bought gasoline futures they are dealing with the same issue. Your prices might have gone up but so have everyone else so you are not at a particular disadvantage. In fact it could be an opportunity to work at a

      • ..high gas prices threaten their entire existence

        I know this is hyperbole but you hear this a lot, and high gas prices certainly do have a negative effect if you are on a lower income but I think the effect gets overblown because gas prices are in everyone's face so much. Is there any other product where almost all people are in view of multiple price comparisons every single day?

        Per capita, at least in 2019, Americans used 414 gallons of has per year. At $3 a gallon that's 1242 a year. At $4 that's 1656, a difference of $34.50 per month. At 5$ it's $70 a month.

        Now, losing that money every month sucks, but if a $35-75 per month uptick "threatens your existence" then the gas isn't really the problem, it's a symptom, it's an indicator. That individual and we as a society should maybe look at the root issue of what would causes of someone's existence to hinge on $70 a month.

        "per capita" is a ridiculous way to look at this. Lots of those "capita" are little kids or elderly.
        Try "per household" or "per vehicle", not "per capita"

        In addition, higher fuel costs drive up prices in everything else

        • No offense, but i know you don't actually have a counterargument because that is the most pedantic thing to push back against.

          Fiddle with the percentages all you want but fact is gasoline itself is not really the "make or break" for people, it's a symptom of other factors. Rent, medical costs, electricity, car payments. A 25% change in these is a far bigger impact than gasoline, gasoline just gets all the attention, from both people and the media. It's rarely the make or break factor.

          Last I could find was

          • No offense, but i know you don't actually have a counterargument because that is the most pedantic thing to push back against.

            Fiddle with the percentages all you want but fact is gasoline itself is not really the "make or break" for people, it's a symptom of other factors. Rent, medical costs, electricity, car payments. A 25% change in these is a far bigger impact than gasoline, gasoline just gets all the attention, from both people and the media. It's rarely the make or break factor.

            Last I could find was gasoline was something around 4% income, so a 25% increase in that is not even 1% total. That was kinda my point. It's a symptom of an issue, not the issue itself.

            If a friend came up to me and said gasoline prices were ruining his life, I wouldnt go blaming the gas prices, I would say "hey man, wtf are doing where that is the case"

            The price of fuel affects the cost of every good and service you buy, Every single one.

      • Now, losing that money every month sucks, but if a $35-75 per month uptick "threatens your existence" then the gas isn't really the problem, it's a symptom, it's an indicator. That individual and we as a society should maybe look at the root issue of what would causes of someone's existence to hinge on $70 a month.

        The majority still live paycheck to paycheck. I've been there and am glad to no longer be, but I can still appreciate how much it sucks.

        https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/1... [cnbc.com]

        • That entirely backs up what I am saying.

          The people living paycheck to paycheck are still going to be whether gasoline is $2 or $4 a gallon.

          If we really care about that then what we should be addressing is housing and healthcare and also better government assistance programs to get people out of poverty.

          • The people living paycheck to paycheck are still going to be whether gasoline is $2 or $4 a gallon.

            Sure, just means more Kraft Dinner and Ramen instead.

            If we really care about that then what we should be addressing is housing and healthcare and also better government assistance programs to get people out of poverty.

            More government assistance for 60% of the population? Good luck with that.

            • Well now we are getting into the realm of defining the term "poverty" and how you group 60% of them into it.

              At least, according to the official US poverty line the number is 12.4%, now I can certainly see the number and the way its measures being incomplete but we gotta agree on some type of standard.

              Even in that CNBC article is from a CNBC survey they ran and the claim is "70% of Americans are feeling financially stressed" which also does not paint a complete picture nor does the term "paycheck to paycheck

              • I can make $200K a year and if i spend all of my income every month I am living "paycheck to paycheck", my housekeepers and Doordash meals eat up a lot of my budget ya know! I let the CNBC people know that on the phone!

                One would hope at 200K if you missed a paycheck you would not have to also miss a mortgage/rent payment or fire the housekeeper. Not saying those people don't exist, but I'd bet they are a small cohort. You probably won't see many of them at the food bank with the rest of the working poor.

      • Per capita, at least in 2019, Americans used 414 gallons of has per year.

        Your numbers seem a little low. The average American drives 14,263 miles per year. At an average of 25.4 MPG, that's approximately 562 gallons per year.

        Now, anecdotally, here in Florida I see lots of drivers in gargantuan SUVs and pickup trucks that probably do get a bit worse gas milage than the average, so those people are likely going to complain more when prices go up at the pump. We also tend to have longer than average commutes here, so even with a relatively efficient vehicle, fuel costs can take

        • That is true, I did find a few different numbers but Was trying to make my point, that gasoline prices are more of a proxy for general economic issues and less of the actual issue since thats already a rise of a certain percent out of an already small portion of the total spending pie for people. In terms of actual dollars the cost of gas is not and should be the dealbreaker in a persons budget.

      • I suppose it depends on where you live. For those who live in cities like Houston, it's necessary for most people to fill up once a week. The difference between $50 for a tank of gas, and $75, is a big deal for people who work in low-income jobs.

    • We're bringing BART to San Jose, CA for $12 billion, which will give us a whole 10,000 round trips a day, a decade from now. For the same $12 billion, we could buy 300,000 Teslas and just *give* them to people who can't afford EVs.

      We're spending another $25+ billion to build high speed rail from Merced to Bakersfield (in other words, from nowhere to nowhere). That's another 600,000 Teslas.

      If we didn't waste the money on construction projects which won't finish until 2030+ and few people will use even then

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by immel ( 699491 )
      Exactly. Diversifying our transportation fuels will make it so that no single strategic commodity has such an outsized impact on the price of everything and bring financial stress on everyone.
      Check out Turning Oil Into Salt by Gal Luft and Anne Korin. It was published almost 15 years ago, but they called a lot of things right. If you have a transportation grid that can run on just about any energy source (they give the examples of flex fuels, plug in hybrids, and EVs powered by a diversified grid), no sing

  • Put simply, pursuing a decarbonization agenda requires Biden to maintain political support, and there is no surer way to lose political support than by presiding over high gas prices

    Ah. So when we do it, we have good reasons.

    When you do it, of course, it's because you are evil troglodytes.

    • Ah. So when we do it, we have good reasons.

      When you do it, of course, it's because you are evil troglodytes.

      Yep, that sounds about right.

      This opinion piece is all about maintaining Democrats in control of the federal government. Why must Democrats remain in government? Well, apparently because if Republicans have control then they'd rip the IRA to pieces and... drill for more oil. But it is the Democrats that are also drilling for more oil, so how it is bad to vote for Republicans? Oh, right, because they might get the Keystone XL pipeline built. Okay, if we assume that is bad then how are the Democrats goin

  • To understand this one needs to go at least 5 layers deep in terms of critical thinking. Unfortunately, most people can barely manage 1 layer of thought complexity.

  • I loved slashdot when it was tech nerds discussing technology.

    Where should I go now for my "old Slashdot" style news?

  • If more US domestic energy production is good for the climate then a lot more would be even better

    Let's double or triple the production and really make a difference

    USA! USA! USA!

  • Get this dirty, pollutung oil out of our country.

    -- Donald Trump, 2024
  • Why do USA oil-wells spout power and freedom ? VROOOOM grinds the nasty DODGE HELLKAT as it brushes  bye/tryksters, paedomobills, EV electroboiz & gropster buses into the nearest ditch.
    MSMash is one of those  pouting sensitive soles hates to be treaded  by 18" Michelsons no matter how often she lays in the middle of the road.   

  • Very much interested in seeing OPEC and by extension Russia's margins squeezed than any other consideration at present with regards to hydrocarbon production.

    I want to see prices so low KSA starts shitting bricks and floods the market in an attempt to to drive their competition out of business.

  • Decades ago, before global warming became obvious, it was clear that there would be a day of peak oil. At that point, whoever had the most reserves in the ground would win the planet because oil was vital, and whoever had the last drops for their war machine would win. So it was best to let others extract their reserves while holding on to your own.

    Now that it's clear that burning even a fraction of the reserves we know about will alter life as we know it, it's a race to see who can extract their reserv

  • Will the Biden administration allow for more nuclear power plants to get built to lower energy prices and CO2 emissions? No? Then expect higher prices, higher CO2 emissions, or both.

    The Democrats have been openly opposed to nuclear power, or pretending nuclear power didn't exist, from when Carter was in the White House until Andrew Yang forced the Democrat party to say something about it. Once Andrew Yang forced the issue then the Democrat party national platform document was changed to include a plank s

  • Blah blah blah, political double speak, blah blah blah

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close