California And Big Oil Are Splitting After Century-Long Affair (reuters.com) 140
It is the end of an era for Big Oil in California, as the most populous U.S. state divorces itself from fossil fuels in its fight against climate change. From a report: California's oil output a century ago amounted to it being the fourth-largest crude producer in the U.S., and spawned hundreds of oil drillers, including some of the largest still in existence. Oil led to its car culture of iconic highways, drive-in theaters, banks and restaurants that endures today. On Friday, however, the marriage will officially end. The two largest U.S. oil producers, Exxon Mobil and Chevron will formally disclose a combined $5 billion writedown of California assets when they report fourth-quarter results.
"They are definitely getting a divorce," said Jamie Court, president of advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, which said the companies long ago stopped investing in California production, and now want to hive off their old wells there. "They've been separated for more than a decade, now they are just signing the papers," he said. Exxon Mobil last year exited onshore production in the state, ending a 25-year-long partnership with Shell when they sold their joint-venture properties. The state's regulatory environment has impeded efforts to restart offshore production, Exxon said this month, leading to an exit that includes financing a Texas company's purchase of its offshore properties. The No.1 U.S. oil producer's asset writedown will cost about $2.5 billion and officially end five decades of oil production off the coast of Southern California.
"They are definitely getting a divorce," said Jamie Court, president of advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, which said the companies long ago stopped investing in California production, and now want to hive off their old wells there. "They've been separated for more than a decade, now they are just signing the papers," he said. Exxon Mobil last year exited onshore production in the state, ending a 25-year-long partnership with Shell when they sold their joint-venture properties. The state's regulatory environment has impeded efforts to restart offshore production, Exxon said this month, leading to an exit that includes financing a Texas company's purchase of its offshore properties. The No.1 U.S. oil producer's asset writedown will cost about $2.5 billion and officially end five decades of oil production off the coast of Southern California.
The oil companies are divorcing the state (Score:5, Funny)
Summary says "the most populous U.S. state divorces itself from fossil fuels" but the article says it's the other way around.
After years of spousal abuse Exxon is divorcing California.
Re:The oil companies are divorcing the state (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since that is the specific intent of the California government, yeah, blame where blame is due.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a decrease in demand raise prices?
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't it?
"We're selling less gas, and our profits are down."
"It's because more people are buying electric cars."
"Well, those who still have gas cars (and they're still a big majority) still need gas, so let's raise prices."
Why it happens isn't as important as the fact that the state government of California was to eliminate ICE vehicles. They know Californians won't give them up voluntarily, so their method, for the moment, is to make it impossible to afford one. People who a) can't make a living wit
Re: (Score:2)
Do oil companies really need an excuse to raise gas prices? Seems like they would always price them according to what makes the maximum amount of profit.
Replacements (Score:3)
There are loads of other places to get oil. California isn't reducing anything other than the money they get from taxing oil extraction.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Those socialis payments belong in Alaska [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The majors are explicitly cutting liability ties with the state.
Kind of like how Verizon sold off all the landline assets to Frontier when they went wireless only.
So the assets are there, but they're pretty much guaranteed to be stranded due to prevailing public policy. So the people taking them over won't have deep pockets to sue later if California gets unhappy with the arrangement (for whatever reason.)
So I think divorce is probably a very apt analogy. Cut ties with the crazy person and let someone els
"iconic highways" (Score:2)
Yes. That's the descriptor I would use to describe California's highways. "Iconic".
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. That's the descriptor I would use to describe California's highways. "Iconic".
For all the complaining people seem to do about LA's legendary traffic, I was expecting it to be worse than Miami. It's not; Miami is way worse.
Re: (Score:2)
For all the complaining people seem to do about LA's legendary traffic, I was expecting it to be worse than Miami. It's not; Miami is way worse.
At some point, comparing fucked vs fucked becomes quite pointless. Both cities surpassed that by any sane definition long ago.
Traffic Report (Score:3)
Last time I was in LA driving to Pasadena from Cerritos, the traffic report on KCRW was simply "And now the traffic, all freeways, all directions... slow."
Sammy was right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Highway 101 for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at that map, the 101 runs mostly North/South. Except for LA where it runs East/West.
From wikipedia:
The east–west geographical alignment of the Ventura Freeway and the north–south designation which appears on the freeway signs can be confusing to visitors; the same freeway entrance can often be signed as "101 North" and "101 West"; this is most common in the San Fernando Valley where the local E/W signing does not match the Caltrans' proper statewide N/S designation.
In high school I worke
Re: (Score:3)
worst roads in the country
Tell me you haven't driven through South Carolina without telling me you haven't driven through South Carolina.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
California is third [constructioncoverage.com] for having the worst roads in the nation. New Jersey is second with Rhode Island first. Having been to NJ recently, I can see them being second, if not first. It's been a while since I've been to RI so have no comparison.
Neo-paganism wins! (Score:2)
Very colourful article (Score:3)
There's a lot of colourful writing in the article. Judging by the comments, it's achieved the goal it was no doubt meant to.
California's remaining onshore oil reserves are mostly low-hydrogen hydrocarbons "the consistency of peanut butter." You could describe it as squishy coal as much as thick oil. It's extracted by melting it with injected steam. That makes it energy intensive to extract, which means it's among the most carbon intensive production in the world and some of the more expensive.
The moratorium on offshore development (not extraction from existing sites) seems to have been instituted in 1969 after an oil spill, both by the state and the US federal government and renewed on many occasions since then. In the federal case, every year since 1982, and by executive order by a certain President HW Bush. So probably not climate change or gay drag queen liberal conspiracy related, unless you could dousing Santa Barbara's beaches with oil "climate change."
So Exxon and Chevron are selling off expensive, depleted assets in California to other oil companies.
Re: (Score:2)
And also not related to climate change, gay drag queen, liberal conspiracies is the same sort of ban in Florida, by everyone's favorite ex-president
"While the previous moratorium on drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico expired [in 2022], former president Trump issued an executive order to protect both coasts of Florida from drilling through June 2032"
It is fun how quick the internet denizens are to jump on any grain of news and twist and turn it to some political end. The short version as described in t
worse off (Score:2)
Here is the rub, Exxon Mobil and Chevron are big companies with deep pockets. These big companies know their liabilities and in recent decades have done a good job on the environmental front. Now, their assets will be sold to people with much smaller bank accounts, and control things from out of state. They will have environmental issues, and they will be slow to respond, and will run into financial trouble fixing the mess. This leaves us worse off, we still get oil production but in a lower quality way.
A P
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need more Texans poorly managing oil resources in California.
California seems to be quite capable of fucking themselves up, you're right, they don't need any help from Texas because they don't deserve it. They deserve the banquet of consequences they set the table for and it looks like they are about to take their first few bites so bon appétit.
LOL No (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
America could practically forgive Californias contribution to the pollution problem, if lying hypocrites could just shut the fuck up about going or being “green”. They should, but they won’t.
Seems fine. (Score:3)
First, nothing much seems to be changing. According to the article, this has no current impacts. It's just a recognition on financial paper of the reality on the ground.
Second, if California wants out of oil production, that's fine. Texas is probably happy to sell them fuel. If you think they should produce oil if they consume it, then perhaps we should be narrowing the list of foods you should eat if you're in, say, Nevada. And the rest of the US should mostly give up almonds. And pineapple... bananas... etc. etc..
It's economics. It'll either work out for them or it won't. I don't know what the fuss is about.
Re: (Score:2)
then perhaps we should be narrowing the list of foods you should eat if you're in, say, Nevada. And the rest of the US should mostly give up almonds. And pineapple... bananas... etc. etc..
Nevada will have minimal problems trucking food out of the Cali. central valley. Fill up at the NV-CA border, make a run in, pick up a load and make a run back to the filling station just over the NV border. Drop off diesel for the farms the same way.
But the trip from the farms to the West coast cities will be more problematic. Very few remaining filling stations along the way. The trucks probably won't make it. The few remaining fuel resources will be precious and guarded [fancaps.net].
This isn't the first time a lea [pinimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh. Wow. I can't imagine what they're going to do.
But then, I can't imagine how food got from the midwest to the east before all the Interstates. I think I read something about some weird form of cheap transportation... I think they were called railroads.
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, they have more than 10% of the US population. They probably should be the #1 consumer of everything.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here, let me get some numbers for you....
According to https://www.eia.gov/state/seds... [eia.gov] California consumed 14.6% of the jet fuel in the US and they only have 11.7% of the US Population.
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
California could easily tax all that jet fuel at the same rates they tax gasoline and diesel at the pump, all they have to do is integrate the tax in the airport fees, but this would kill their tourism industry, so better virtue-signal about how allowing crude oil extraction to produce said jet fuel is "wrong" instead.
Note: A 737-300 burns 35% more than that and an A320neo is 15% better, but you get the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beats me, I am not the one doing it.
>And why do you think "California" - a vast state of 40M people - collectively "virtue signals" anything?
Because they vote for politicians who pledge to stop crude oil production but won't pledge to stop the CO2-heavy activities (such as jet travel) that guzzle the products that crude oil produces (such as jet fuel). In other words, they want their state to appear virtuous on a certain issue (to the most naive people
Re: (Score:2)
Did California fuck your wife or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Fairly good chance one of the last two governors did
Re: (Score:2)
Been here all my life. I don't know what you're talking about with "entitlement". You mean people in other states don't use Medicare or Social Security or welfare?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Airplane flights go up with business and tourism activities, not just with population. And California has both. I suspect a much higher correlation to business/tourism than to the resident population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so let's add New York state's population to Texas and get 50 million people vs. California's 39 million. Who uses more aviation fuel? Answer, California.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
California are among the filthiest carbon emssion dirty polluters is the point, and greentard virtue signalling like expelling fossil fuel plants (who will make the product they still guzzle) only hurts the economy and doesn't 'save the planet'
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you counting all of the fuel used by planes bound for China, Japan, and Australia as California fuel use?
I would.
If California doesn't want fossil fuels in their state then they can fill up the aircraft that leave from there with biomass fuels, synthesized hydrocarbons, or perhaps some other option I'm not aware of. Destroying local production without removing local demand is now exporting money from the state, they burn the fuel there but get no income from producing it. Given that they are driving out many forms of mining, agriculture, and manufacturing on top of energy production with their "green" polici
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, I guess you did your own research.
Oh, just listened to Faux Noise and your buddies?
Search: California emissions.
Hit #3, read the URL and weep
https://blogs.edf.org/climate4... [edf.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also plenty of countries willing to sell California oil. You act like America exists alone on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:2)
"Why would they do that when they have ports and oil tankers exist?"
I live in Humboldt. We get our fuel brought in by a little tanker, and it is stored in the usual big tanks, right on the bay. We pay some of the highest fuel prices in California. That's why.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is that why California has the 5th largest economy in the world, compared to other countries?
Is that why California has the 15th highest Human Development Index in the nation, handily beating out nearly every single red state including Texas and Florida?
Is that why California doesn't solve homelessness by shipping them to other states?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
People of West African ethnicity have much higher rates of preeclampsia for reasons that are poorly understood.
This leads to higher rates of infant and maternal mortality.
That is true for all income groups, and government policies don't make much difference.
Mississippi has high maternal mortality because it has the highest proportion of African Americans of any state.
We should be doing much more to research the causes, prevention, and treatment of preeclampsia, but that needs to happen at the national level
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So does your golden calf, TFG.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but "get rid of the people" and the San Joaquin valley turns back into a desert. California has a few good places for life, that aren't constructed by people. Not many. The guts of California is the water system. By redistributing water lots of places are made habitable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you did.
Re: (Score:2)
Masters of California have a deliberate, conscious plan to destroy all business
Nope. I live in California, and there is nothing conscious or deliberate about it. The people running the state honestly have no idea how businesses work or what incentivizes people to start companies and hire employees.
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived here for 40 years, and your take is certainly plausible. They may well be too stupid to be good at being corrupt. Which is to say, they even fail at failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so let's add New York state's population to Texas and get 50 million people vs. California's 39 million. Who uses more aviation fuel? Answer, California.
What does that mean? How would you account for aviation fuel usage? Do you charge the departure state or arrival state, and would you charge the entire trip to one state? What if there is an international flight? I'm guessing California has a lot of international flights to Asia and that it's the international flights that make the difference. This seems like a not very useful metric, sort of like seeing whether Los Angeles or Chicago has higher per capita usage of cruise ship fuel.
That's not how you do it (Score:2)
If you want to compare California to other states you do it by comparing per capita consumption. As of 2022 California used less of all fuels combined, per capita, than all but three other states. Shutting down oil production may be bad policy but they're definitely not hypocrites.
California's consumption of gasoline is lower than average, but their consumption of aviation fuel is higher than other states. Perhaps that's because they have no authority to regulate the aviation industry. Or maybe it's becau
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, CA is the state pushing for only EVs in like 2030
I live in Florida where the state doesn't care whether you buy an EV or a coal rollin' pickup truck (seriously, there's no vehicle emissions testing here, and no incentives beyond the federal tax credit for buying an EV) and yet we're still #2 right behind California when it comes to the popularity of EVs. #3 is Texas, a state which is also known for its oil production. Source. [energy.gov]
California might be jumping the gun a little bit by mandating EVs, but they're surprisingly popular even in red states where you'd assume they otherwise wouldn't be. One contributing reason might be that you can read news about gas predicted to hit $4 by summer in Florida [clickorlando.com] and just shrug, because your car doesn't need gas. That's a big part of why we bought an EV.
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely! I've been daily-driving an EV for 5+ years now, and it's absolutely more reliable and less hassle on a daily basis than my gasoline powered vehicles are. I mean, especially in recent times? If you're avoiding an EV because of the high up-front cost? You're probably looking at used vehicles, which have higher average mileage on them than ever, thanks to the COVID-induced vehicle production slow-downs and shortages, plus high interest rates putting a damper on new vehicle purchases. So good luck.You might buy the car for only $6000-8000 or so, but I bet you spend thousands keeping it running safely and reliably, in short order. And that's before your expenses for oil changes and gas.
But none of this really matters if you have a use-case where an EV doesn't work well for you, like living in an apartment with no good place to plug it in to charge overnight, or the need to do long road trips on a regular basis. (You *can* do that in an EV like a Tesla that has a good charging network, but you'll absolutely spend a couple extra total hours on a day long trip, due to charging time. Time is money for some people, making that a poor deal.) And EVs still generally suck for things like towing large trailers or moving large amounts of cargo. They shine for smaller vehicles, all in all.
Re: (Score:2)
And well, in the New Orleans area...old city, many if not most houses don't have off street parking and from the websites to find chargers, precious few public chargers around the area....
And I'm not buying a 'specialty' vehicle with respect to how far I can drive...I want mine to
Re: (Score:2)
You might buy the car for only $6000-8000 or so, but I bet you spend thousands keeping it running safely and reliably, in short order. And that's before your expenses for oil changes and gas.
The way you describe vehicle maintenance costs sounds like you shouldn’t own a car based on how they get abused. Thousands of dollars? You do understand why used cars still actually have value, right?
Perhaps before you brag any more about how awesomey awesome EVs are, care to share how much a battery replacement estimate is? Dont be too surprised if you find the price of another car being quoted to you. Already happening to Hyundai EV owners, driving a $60K EV and got a bill for $61K for the bat
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you're trying to say here, honestly?
My entire point is simply that if you're buying new and spending the kind of money an EV costs, they're going to be a better value to drive over the typical period of time a new vehicle owner keeps their car. And the EV I drive currently? It's a Chevy Bolt EV Premier edition. Cost me about $24,000 -- so not some extravagant price.
The cheap vehicle I bought my daughter so she can get to work and back? Found a used 2013 Kia Soul in really clean, good condition
Re: (Score:2)
I know...not sure where they get these incredibly HIGH maintenance numbers on ICE vehicles.
Granted, since WFH, my car stays pretty low in mileage, I generally pay for 1 oil change a year and that's about it.
But even when I drove more....it wasn't much more than that.
I might have spent $200 or so a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One contributing reason might be that you can read news about gas predicted to hit $4 by summer in Florida [clickorlando.com] and just shrug, because your car doesn't need gas. That's a big part of why we bought an EV.
The premium price you pay upfront for an EV makes a Toyota Corolla purchase still look smart today. And stop pretending we all simply shrug our shoulders when gas prices go up, as if you and every other citizen didn’t feel that cost increase in every product trucked via gas to a store shelf. The price of gasoline is quite literally a tool of massive price abuse in America. EVs are damn near irrelevant by comparison to that problem, and haven’t done jack shit to address it.
Re: (Score:2)
The premium price you pay upfront for an EV makes a Toyota Corolla purchase still look smart today.
A Corolla starts at around $22k, assuming you can even find a dealer actually selling one at that price. After the federal tax credit, it's about the same price as the base model Chevy Bolt EUV. Gas has been hovering around $3.20-$3.50/gal around here and for a 70 mile daily commute it does add up - even in a Corolla.
And stop pretending we all simply shrug our shoulders when gas prices go up, as if you and every other citizen didn’t feel that cost increase in every product trucked via gas to a store shelf.
Those pass-through costs happen no matter what you've got sitting in your driveway. If anything, they're an argument for getting an EV since you can put the money you're saving on fuel towar
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to believe it is THAT much money any time soon in FL.
In the New Orleans area...avg seems to be $2.59/gallon in this area with no word about gas prices rising.
FL close to us, not sure why it would be significantly more expensive there.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think gas is expensive in Florida, wait until you see the prices of groceries. For all the whining that comes out of the state about not wanting to be the second California, we're well on our way in many metrics except for the political party which has majority control. Well, that and earthquakes - we don't get those here.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the main reasons for the cost of gas is taxes, taxes that pay for roads. You're going to get a special tier for electric charging for the grid maintenance required to support all these EV's charging, and they need to pay for the roads so you're going to get taxed the same. It's a bait and switch from the perspective of financial savings for the average person.
It will end up costing you just as much for the same distance as a gas vehicle eventually, as they're not going to let that revenue switch. You
Re: Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:2)
You do I hope know that California has no recurring emissions testing in all the places where people are most likely to own a coal rolling truck, right?
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:4, Informative)
This is oil companies leaving the state, they are not being kicked out. California just has regulations that they don't like. Meaning any and all regulations, oil companies do not like being told to ask permission first or basic kindergarten rules like that. And as even the summary pointed out, this news is at least a decade old, the oil companies just now finalized sell of of their assets. Someone else is buying the assets and most likely existing oil wells will continue to produce oil.
What the companies hated most were restrictions on offshore production - California doesn't want oil spills on its beaches any more than Texas does.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, CA is the state pushing for only EVs in like 2030 or so....
False. They're pushing for all *new* cars and light trucks sold in 2035 or later to be EVs. That would probably mean that the vast majority of cars on the road would be EVs by more like 2050, and approximately all non-collectible cars would be EVs by 2065.
yet, I believe just last summer, governor oil slick hair was telling folks to stop plugging their cars into the grid, that it couldn't handle it.
False. They said to limit charging to nighttime hours, when there's excess power available. Most EV drivers do that anyway, because it is considerably cheaper.
Also, except for a few localized issues in certain places (issues on a small enough scale tha
Re: (Score:2)
> CA is the state pushing for only EVs in like 2030
I know being breathtakingly dishonest is your entire thing but it's 100% of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2035. Existing ICE vehicles on the road can remain.
> I believe just last summer, governor oil slick hair was telling folks to stop plugging their cars into the grid
Another thing that never happened. The actual advisory (note: not mandate or directive) was to conserve electrical usage in the late afternoon to early evening - between 4PM and
Re: Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:2)
People do visit Texas, but they only do it by choice about two months out of the year. The weather is unbearable in the other ten. California on the other hand...
Re:Virtue signalling hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
They've also made a strange habit of basically encouraging refineries to shut down, discouraging the construction of new refineries, and then blaming said (remaining) refineries shutting down (for needed maintenance) for higher fuel prices and calling it industry greed.
The disconnect is real.
https://ktla.com/news/local-ne... [ktla.com]
"âoeCalifornia has made it very difficult to be a refinery here. In fact, the number of refineries here has fallen by more than half since 1991,â he says. âoeItâ(TM)s a spectacular level of policy failures from pushing renewable fuels, which cut the amount of output at refineries, to [emissions regulations] that require special blends in special areas at special times of the year.â
Caught in the middle, of course, are drivers who have no option but to dig deeper into their pocketbooks just to stay on the road."
BTW, for gasoline, California for the most part, consumes gasoline that it refines for itself, because the lower-emission summer blends needed are not produced elsewhere. This pretty much guarantees that our gasoline is more expensive because there isn't an alternative.
https://www.kcra.com/article/c... [kcra.com]
""Thereâ(TM)s a lot thatâ(TM)s going wrong. First, the rising price of oil, but the lack of refining capacity, a special blend thatâ(TM)s only required in California, high taxes, a cap-and-trade program all of that. When prices are running normally, California is still about a dollar a gallon above everyone else," said Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy."
Re: (Score:2)
California has made it very difficult to be a refinery here. In fact, the number of refineries here has fallen by more than half since 1991,â he says.
This has little to do with California and everything to do with global market dynamics. Refineries have fallen by more than half even in states and countries which are actively anti-environment fossil loving non-hippies. The loss of refineries is largely globally due to the changing dynamics of the oil industry. Mega refineries in low cost countries make small local refineries uncompetitive. Changes in national taxation in the USA preclude the benefits of hydroskimmers (hyper basic distillation which is wha
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita California doesn't even crack the top 15 in per capita gasoline consumption (citation: https://commodity.com/blog/sta... [commodity.com])
CA's gasoline consumption is down almost 25% since it's peak in 2008. Decline is structural, accelerated by pandemic. (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-09-06/california-loves-evs-but-will-be-stuck-in-hybrid-for-years)
Jet fuel is interesting. It does seem correlated with cities that host the most international travel and in Georgia's case, the major Delta hu
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita, Alaska is the highest consumer of aviation fuel, and really of any kind of energy. But there are legitimate reasons for this.
If there are legitimate reasons for this (and there are), then there’s no reason to use “per capita” analysis that becomes corruptly irrelevant.
In other words, this sounds like some shit California would say about Alaska in order to make us forget how guilty California is.
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita, Alaska is the highest consumer of aviation fuel, and really of any kind of energy. But there are legitimate reasons for this.
If there are legitimate reasons for this (and there are), then there’s no reason to use “per capita” analysis that becomes corruptly irrelevant.
In other words, this sounds like some shit California would say about Alaska in order to make us forget how guilty California is.
I'm not sure why you say per capita isn't a valid metric, but either way, after a short search the OP's point doesn't seem supported.
On energy consumed per capita California is is near the bottom of the list - https://www.eia.gov/state/rank... [eia.gov]
At the state level Texas, with a lower population seems to consume around twice the petroleum of California - https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita is a bullshit method to dispel a massive amount of harm being done by a massive amount of people, so that corruption there can get away with it by using deluded comparisons. The bottom line is Alaskas pollution could disappear tomorrow and it would do nothing to dispel the problems caused by a massive amount of humans and corruption elsewhere.
The hell is the point in dividing pollution equally among every man, woman, and child other than covering up for the worst offenders.
Re: (Score:2)
> The hell is the point in dividing pollution equally among every man, woman, and child other than covering up for the worst offenders.
Being able to compare groups like Texas and California and maybe get a better idea of what helps and what doesn't and what's behind the differences ?
> The bottom line is Alaskas pollution could disappear tomorrow and it would do nothing to dispel the problems caused by a massive amount of humans and corruption elsewhere.
Yes, what is the point of directly comparing disp
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita, Alaska is the largest in a lot of things. But only because the capita is so small. Only about 3/4 million people live in this state, which has a huge land mass.
Re:Flaggelants !!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Flaggelants !!! (Score:4, Funny)
Behold, the modern republican party.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
The top global oil producers after the US are Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, and China. Which of those would you say has environmental and labor protections comparable to California?
It feels like they've stepped in the "We should do something, and this is something." trap.
Re: (Score:2)