Interesting article on pulling fossil fuel subsidies

[oeb11]

DPST marxists lust for complete power over all means of production - in this World!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I would think it depends on who you think owns the property or means of production to believe that not taxing something is a subsidy

Really.

So not taxing a industry properly is not a subsidy?

If society does not take into account it's long term destruction left for future generations to clean up.

Have you read Jarrod Diamonds book?


The federal government owns over one-quarter of the land in the state and
three-quarters of the land in the county, mostly under the title of national
forest. Nevertheless, the Bitterroot Valley presents a microcosm of the envi-
ronmental problems plaguing the rest of the United States: increasing
population, immigration, increasing scarcity and decreasing quality of wa-
ter, locally and seasonally poor air quality, toxic wastes, heightened risks
from wildfires, forest deterioration, losses of soil or of its nutrients, losses of
biodiversity, damage from introduced pest species, and effects of climate
change.
Montana provides an ideal case study with which to begin this book on
past and present environmental problems. In the case of the past soci-
eties that I shall discuss—Polynesian, Anasazi, Maya, Greenland Norse, and
others—we know the eventual outcomes of their inhabitants’ decisions
about managing their environment, but for the most part we don’t know
their names or personal stories, and we can only guess at the motives that
led them to act as they did. In contrast, in modern Montana we do know
names, life histories, and motives. Some of the people involved have been
my friends for over 50 years. From understanding Montanans’ motives, we
can better imagine motives operating in the past. This chapter will put a
personal face on a subject that could otherwise seem abstract.
In addition, Montana provides a salutory balance to the following chap-
ters’ discussions of small, poor, peripheral, past societies in fragile environ-
ments. I intentionally chose to discuss those societies because they were the
ones suffering the biggest consequences of their environmental damage,
and they thus powerfully illustrate the processes that form the subject of
this book. But they are not the only types of societies exposed to serious en-
vironmental problems, as illustrated by the contrast case of Montana. It is
part of the richest country in the modern world, and it is one of the most
pristine and least populated parts of that country, seemingly with fewer
problems of environment and population than the rest of the U.S. Cer-
tainly, Montana’s problems are far less acute than those of crowding, traffic,
smog, water quality and quantity, and toxic wastes that beset Americans in
Los Angeles, where I live, and in the other urban areas where most Ameri-
cans live. If, despite that, even Montana has environmental and population
problems, it becomes easier to understand how much more serious those
problems are elsewhere in the U.S. Montana will illustrate the five main
themes of this book: human impacts on the environment; climate change; a
society’s relations with neighboring friendly societies (in the case of Mon-
tana, those in other U.S. states); a society’s exposure to acts of othe

[rexdutchman]

"disguised as pulling people up " The progressives only want to h "hold down the masses" think 1984 in action .

[HedonistForever]

Wow! I'm stunned that anybody would, in this day and age, think that getting a "cheaper" product that is absolutely essential to our economy, from another country or countries, that just happen to be our economic and political enemies is a good idea.


I guess you aren't old enough to remember being held hostage to OPEC in the 70's.


Why is Biden pitching "made in America" if buying cheaper from other countries is a "good idea". Why are we now desperately trying to get pharmaceutical manufacturing back when China is willing ( for now ) to sell those things so much cheaper than we can produce them?


Any dependence on things necessary to a strong economy and a strong America, to another country that is not and never will be a ally, is a stupid, counter productive idea.

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Wow! I'm stunned that anybody would, in this day and age, think that getting a "cheaper" product that is absolutely essential to our economy, from another country or countries, that just happen to be our economic and political enemies is a good idea.


I guess you aren't old enough to remember being held hostage to OPEC in the 70's.


Why is Biden pitching "made in America" if buying cheaper from other countries is a "good idea". Why are we now desperately trying to get pharmaceutical manufacturing back when China is willing ( for now ) to sell those things so much cheaper than we can produce them?


Any dependence on things necessary to a strong economy and a strong America, to another country that is not and never will be a ally, is a stupid, counter productive idea.

Pretty much the par for Globalists. These are usually the same people that think all countries should have open borders and that they are a "citizen of the world". They don't realize they're being played for rubes.

[WTF]

It is called The Invisible Hand.

Been working in reality for ages.

But you two can continue to believe that most all people will not take price as the biggest factor in a purchase

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by WTF

It is called The Invisible Hand.

Been working in reality for ages.

But you two can continue to believe that most all people will not take price as the biggest factor in a purchase

I would argue that it's the fluctuating, nebulous concept of "value", which is annoyingly hard to pin down.

Yeah, price feeds into that, but if price were the only factor that mattered, people wouldn't be lining up around the block for $1200 iPhones.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I guess you aren't old enough to remember being held hostage to OPEC in the 70's.

That's what I was thinking. Or he's so old his memory's failing. Remember the Arab Oil Embargo, gasoline lines, fears that the Straits of Hormuz would be closed, the war in Kuwait, the hundreds of billions of dollars the USA has spent in the Middle East? And how about our net oil imports constituting the largest component of our trade deficit.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by bf0082

You are getting close to coming to the conclusion that high oil prices makes for a better economy, that info might fly by over your head though, so watch for low flying objects.

Higher oil prices absolutely make for a better economy where I live. And for a country that's a net oil exporter, like Saudi Arabia or Russia, and maybe like the USA, they're good overall for that country's economy. So are they bad for New York? Well, maybe so. But the price New Yorkers pay for gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, and a lot of products made from oil is lower because of production in the USA, for reasons I'll explain below.

Originally Posted by bf0082

you make up information as you go ?

Fracking wasn't profitable, the pipeline isn't profitable.
In 2010 the break even was $75 a barrel oil. over time they reduced the cost to $57

The market dictates if they draw oil from the sand fields, not some political group. When OPEC brings Iran back in, oil will drop under $50 a barrel and make the pipeline useless... lets not let facts ruin a good democrat bashing.

There isn't a single person who follows oil markets for a living who would agree with your analysis. You've got it ass backwards. OPEC is a cartel, and the Russians, although not part of OPEC, participate in its production quotas, to try to keep prices high. The USA shale producers kept a lid on oil prices. Take them out of the equation and OPEC will rule the roost and prices will head upwards.

Fracking in many areas was profitable and produced a reasonable return on investment at $65 a barrel. And as Lusty Lad wrote elsewhere, there are places, like certain parts of the Delaware and Midland Basins, where fracking is economic at prices below $50.

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Wow! I'm stunned that anybody would, in this day and age, think that getting a "cheaper" product that is absolutely essential to our economy, from another country or countries, that just happen to be our economic and political enemies is a good idea.


I guess you aren't old enough to remember being held hostage to OPEC in the 70's.


Why is Biden pitching "made in America" if buying cheaper from other countries is a "good idea". Why are we now desperately trying to get pharmaceutical manufacturing back when China is willing ( for now ) to sell those things so much cheaper than we can produce them?


Any dependence on things necessary to a strong economy and a strong America, to another country that is not and never will be a ally, is a stupid, counter productive idea.

In regards to oil, you seriously need to learn the term , net exporter.... USA EXPORTS MORE OIL THAN IT BUYS.......... A bigger concern for Moscow and its major producer Rosneft is the potential loss of market share to the US. The world’s largest economy has now leapfrogged Russia to become the biggest producer of crude.

Everything you write in regards of oil, are false, wrong, incorrect, lies, not true, alternative facts, opposite of truths

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

If society does not take into account it's long term destruction left for future generations to clean up.

Have you read Jarrod Diamonds book?

Do you live in northern Alberta? Do you live in Montana? Then why do you care? If people want to take advantage of the resources where they live, it should be up to them. They shouldn't be precluded by someone in Houston or Western New York who doesn't like how they think it makes the land look. I've lived in places where oil wells were practically in my backyard. I think pumping units and drilling rigs break the monotony of a long drive through featureless plains covered in mesquite or sagebrush in West Texas or Wyoming. The majority of people where I live feel the same way.

As to the argument that this creates global warming, it's a drop in the bucket. You get rid of all the oil and gas production in the USA and we'll probably just import the oil and burn more coal to replace the gas. And even if you do substitute renewables for a lot of the USA's lost production, the difference it will make in worldwide carbon emissions will be very small.

Unlike the Progressive Democrat politicians, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the like, politicians in places like Canada and Norway aren't looking to shut down their oil production overnight. They're not that stupid.

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Higher oil prices absolutely make for a better economy where I live. And for a country that's a net oil exporter, like Saudi Arabia or Russia, and maybe like the USA, they're good overall for that country's economy. So are they bad for New York? Well, maybe so. But the price New Yorkers pay for gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, and a lot of products made from oil is lower because of production in the USA, for reasons I'll explain below.

There isn't a single person who follows oil markets for a living who would agree with your analysis. You've got it ass backwards. OPEC is a cartel, and the Russians, although not part of OPEC, participate in its production quotas, to try to keep prices high. The USA shale producers kept a lid on oil prices. Take them out of the equation and OPEC will rule the roost and prices will head upwards.
Fracking in many areas was profitable and produced a reasonable return on investment at $65 a barrel. And as Lusty Lad wrote elsewhere, there are places, like certain parts of the Delaware and Midland Basins, where fracking is economic at prices below $50.

we picking and choosing areas where no pipeline exists and using information to be pro pipeline... its very clear that under $50 a barrel, the pipe line won't be used, since extracting sandy oil isnt profitable... but keep trying to put other pieces from other puzzles, to give a clear picture of what you are trying to say....

NY pays high gas, its good for the economy, i've never said different, people crying over $4 gallon gas isnt me, I know better.

Did you miss the whole battle between russia and saudi arabia, that pushed oil to 20 a barrel... ???
On 8 March 2020, Saudi Arabia initiated a price war on oil with Russia, facilitating a 65% quarterly fall in the price of oil.[1] In the first few weeks of March, US oil prices[ambiguous] fell by 34%, crude oil fell by 26%, and Brent oil fell by 24%.[2][3] The price war was triggered by a break-up in dialogue between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Russia over proposed oil-production cuts in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] Russia walked out of the agreement, leading to the fall of the OPEC+ alliance. Oil prices had already fallen 30% since the start of the year due to a drop in demand.[4] The price war is one of the major causes and effects of the ensuing global stock-market crash.[5]

What year are you living in ?
A bigger concern for Moscow and its major producer Rosneft is the potential loss of market share to the US. The world’s largest economy has now leapfrogged Russia to become the biggest producer of crude.


You are saying our money isnt a good investment into middle east oil, but china's money is ok... thats odd, not free market thinking at all.. oh, you think if USA doesn't buy middle east oil they will stop selling it...oh ok, gotcha.

something happened after 1970's oil issues, the USA created Oil reserves and will never have that issue again, ever... bringing up the past like it hasn't been fixed is fake news.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I would think it depends on who you think owns the property or means of production to believe that not taxing something is a subsidy

Exactly. If you live under a feudal lord, and he owns everything, and out of the goodness of his heart he decides to let you keep a little more of what you make, then it's a subsidy. This is Barrack Obama's philosophy in action: You didn't build that business, the government did.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by bf0082

we picking and choosing areas where no pipeline exists and using information to be pro pipeline... its very clear that under $50 a barrel, the pipe line won't be used, since extracting sandy oil isnt profitable... but keep trying to put other pieces from other puzzles, to give a clear picture of what you are trying to say....

NY pays high gas, its good for the economy, i've never said different, people crying over $4 gallon gas isnt me, I know better.

Did you miss the whole battle between russia and saudi arabia, that pushed oil to 20 a barrel... ???

You are saying our money isnt a good investment into middle east oil, but china's money is ok... thats odd, not free market thinking at all.. oh, you think if USA doesn't but middle east oil they will stop selling it...oh ok, gotcha.

You're assuming the price of oil is going under $50 because Iran or Iraqi oil is going to come back on the market and OPEC will fall apart and there will be some kind of price war, I guess. Anyway that could happen, although my guess is it won't.

A lot of Candadian oil production is from conventional wells, not oil sands. Oil sands cash costs are $28 to $31 per barrel, not $50 per barrel, or at least that's the figure for Suncor.

Russia and Saudi Arabia tried to drive prices down so they could force the shale producers out of business then jack prices sky high again.

I don't really understand what you're getting at with the Middle East and China.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

DPST marxists lust for complete power over all means of production - in this World!

As you know, we agree about most things Oeb, even though I've made fun of the DPST acronym a few times. Well, I'm starting to come around. These Progressive Democrat politicians like Sanders and Warren think they know more than markets. They could just let people in Texas and Wyoming and Oklahoma and elsewhere decide how to run their lives, their communities and their states, but, like Karl Marx, they feel compelled to use their superior knowledge to run things. Now if they truly did have superior knowledge, if they were like, say Lee Kuan Yew, the politician who brought great prosperity to Singapore, I wouldn't have a beef. But they don't and they're not. They're a bunch of ignorant mother fuckers who don't know what they're doing.