U.S. to release oil from reserves in coordination with other countries | Hacker News Reader

U.S. to release oil from reserves in coordination with other countries

cnbc.com

135 pointsgeox378 comments

I seem to recall a bunch of stories in ~2008 about how the "Strategic Reserve" wasn't enough to affect market prices etc. Has it got bigger? Has the market got smaller? was the media reporting bullshit for an agenda then, or are they now?

Here’s some info on consumption [1]. But this is basically politics at its peak b/c when Biden runs for reelection he’ll need it as a talking point. The “strategic reserve” is something Americans have latched on to as an idea. They won’t look at the numbers. His opponent won’t either. It’s just showbiz.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

What would the talking point be?

If the price goes down: "I opened the strategic oil reserve to lower the price for you!" If it doesn't: "I opened the strategic oil reserve to stop the price going higher for you!"

If it goes up: "Imagine how much higher the price would have been if I hadn't opened the strategic oil reserves!"

If he hadn't: "How come he didn't do anything to save prices when he could of at least tapped into the strategic oil reserves?"

I mean in 2 years from now after the tap is turned off and prices have adjusted accordingly.

"Pollution is icky, but you Republicans can still trust me to crank oil out of our ground."

He is trying to disconnect his BBB bill from inflation and gas prices to sell it to the public. BBB is the last thing that he would be able to do, so he is trying his best.

The talking point only works if has the effect of actually lowering prices DURING the election.

he is pulling this trigger way to early if he expects to use it as a 2022 talking point as any positive price effects this causes will likely be exhausted by then, and he systemic failures of macro economic policies will likely make things much worse by 2022 elections anyway.

This is bad all the way around

> The talking point only works if has the effect of actually lowering prices DURING the election.

Well it’ll maybe help the midterms but it will be something to reference during the upcoming election. This stuff plays out over years and no doubt Republicans will bring it up and Biden will say “I released the reserves” and if gas prices go down then he can claim a victory and action.

When the Presidential elections happen they reference things during the entire presidency not just like the last 6 months or so.

It's too late already.

I get what you were saying but the emotion and anger are going to be what people remember not what he did or said.

He's tried to serve two masters and he can't. Either you stick to your guns on making climate change the priority and you accept the fact that the public is going to be pissed at you when energy prices are much higher, or you simply focus on reducing energy prices at the expense of the climate.

There is no middle ground on this. He's trying to find one and is going to fail. Prices will not be reduced and opening up the reserve will piss off the environmentalists.

Let's be honest here: He doesn't really seem to be all there does he? At moments he is fully lucid and clearly in command but then at others he is asked about the same things he just spoke about a day before and says completely different things that sound like they were cooked up by his advisors. It reminds me of the way George w Bush behaved when he was being manipulated and advised by Karl Rove and company. The one difference is Biden's advanced age has made him come off even weirder. At times he has that behavior of a confused old man who lashes out in anger.

Most of my family lives in Virginia and all of them except for my father voted for Biden and then voted for Glenn Youngkin as governor. They are working class people and have developed an increasing contempt for the Democratic party they voted for 12 months ago. They voted for him because they wanted normalcy and he's instead embraced the radicals who advise him. I have both Latino and Filipino in laws, and he has lost all of them.

I've been a member of the Democratic party for over 20 years and this man has destroyed the entire brand. He's allowed Florida to be completely taken over by the GOP. He never should have run and the party never should have engineered the primary to cement his victory. He's too old and we all know it even if many of us won't admit it.

Hey definitely agree or sympathize with a lot of points here.

> I've been a member of the Democratic party for over 20 years and this man has destroyed the entire brand

Idk if I'd lay the blame solely at his feat, but in my view the incestiuous nature of the Democrats (running both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden) speaks volumes. There's no doubt in my mind Joe Biden loses the next election no matter who the Republicans run. If the Democrats were smart they'd run someone else.

I always assumed he was only running for 1 term. The pandemic unfortunately gave the Party elites full justification to hide the extent of Biden's decline from the public by giving a legitimate reason for him to not campaign. Campaigns are exhausting endeavors, and in the past have served as an informal filter to identify those who lack the physical and mental stamina to do the job.

I used to do work in the Center for American Progress on a weekly basis. I know a lot of folks high up in the party (I did a lot of work for Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012), and let me be clear: NONE OF THEM think he's running again. And I'm talking about over a dozen people I know. If he runs again, it will be a shock to me. They were saying this before he even got elected. In the eyes of the Dem machine, he was always a one term option. They couldn't tell the public that, because like all party machines, they don't like or respect the voters.

Veering way off topic now, but Biden's only hope IMO is if the GOP runs Trump again. The Democrats may coalesce around hate for Trump, but otherwise will likely be crushed in 2024.

Also agree with your point about incestuous nature and quite frankly the self-owns Democrats do. Attacking other democrats who aren't woke enough, while the GOP is masterful at uniting the voter base around a couple key issues like abortion and guns (though the GOP has seen a bit of internal divide with Trump). Biden had an EV summit and only invited the top UAW staffed companies leaving out TSLA. Think what you want about TSLAs valuation and Elon, but how can anyone in the US have an EV summit and leave them out? Stuff like this is what sours middle of the road democrat voters. It's like the democrats want to lose elections.

>>though the GOP has seen a bit of internal divide with Trump

Not really, the "Never Trumpers" in the past were called RINO's by most of the base anyway, they did not see eye to eye on most issues with the conservative base of the republican party.

Infact I would say post trump the RINO / neocon wing if the Republican party LOST power, not gained any, as many of the would get an assist from libertarians that vote with republicans, however that wing of the part lost most of them as well.

GOP is probably more unified today than it has been in a long time from what I can see

The "Never Trumpers" in the GOP also include all of the remaining people on planet earth who still, to this day, think the Iraq war was a good idea. Not exactly convincing spokesmen.

Well... the Republicans are also doing self-owns rather a lot lately. It's almost like both sides are trying to lose. (Or maybe it's like both sides have drunk their own kool-aid.)

> Most of my family lives in Virginia and all of them except for my father voted for Biden and then voted for Glenn Youngkin as governor. They are working class people and have developed an increasing contempt for the Democratic party they voted for 12 months ago. They voted for him because they wanted normalcy and he's instead embraced the radicals who advise him. I have both Latino and Filipino in laws, and he has lost all of them.

I am genuinely curious here: What did he do wrong? Which radicals advice did he listen to?

Yes it is.

To put this in perspective as far as it's futility, in 2019 the United States was producing over 12 million barrels of oil a DAY.

Opening up strategic reserves to reduce fuel prices undermines whatever reasoning he had to halt all new oil and gas leases on Federal land. My neighbor, a welder in the natural gas industry, was laid off early this year due to the freeze on new leases. Biden just does whatever his team tells him to do that minute. I voted for him, but I've never in my life felt more regret for voting for someone.

He was supposed to be a moderate Democrat which is what I've always voted for. He's a radical but with less conviction. The team around him oscillate between ivory tower detachment and radical activism that is out of touch with the public.

As a result he's going to undergo a policy which will succeed only in making the US less prepared for a disaster requiring the reserve. Fuel prices won't really be dented much. CO2 emissions will still go into the atmosphere so nobody wins except for activists who think it's okay if oil comes from another place but not from here. And my neighbor across the street is still out of work when there are numerous wildcatters who could employ him if they could start drilling with the now high prices making them very profitable. They can't due to the lease freeze and he's still out of work. And the CO2 is still going into the atmosphere one way or another.

All of it is just theater to please radical activists like my father who never heard a MSNBC talking point he didn't parrot.

While I’m disappointed that we’re opening up the strategic reserve, and I wish your neighbors weren’t out of work, the rest of what you’re complaining about all sounds sensible to me. To continue to maintain the status quo is frankly suicidal. Oil and gas prices should be much higher than they are. The current cost to remove the CO2 from a gallon of gas using direct air capture is something like $6-9. It will be a painful realignment, but there’s no way people will reorganize in the ways that they must if gas remains at $2-3/gallon.

The Biden administration is also backing off on drilling bans on offshore/federal lands and begun to hastily approve pipelines. They have now realised the basic economic principle that lack of supply with increasing demand causes a price surge. All the anti-oil & gas stuff that they announced with great fanfare is being quietly reversed.

It will take several months but I guess Oil prices should be sorted by 2022 elections.

(Please note that the US is fully capable of being a net Oil exporter at any time - it usually takes stupid policies to cause such a situation)

> The Biden administration is also backing off on drilling bans on offshore/federal lands and begun to hastily approve pipelines.

Do you happen to have sources for this? I am asking as a supporter of these policies, but I've never heard of this happening recently. I wanna know what to follow for future reference :)

This has been in the news lately. Despite multiple attempts by various Democrats to block the Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota, the current administration is going forward with the same. Quite a different stance from when they shutdown the Keystone XL Phase-4 pipeline at the beginning of the year. Biden has also eased out on offshore drilling. (auction for 80 million acres of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico).

* https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-administration...

* The Line 3 pipeline will be able to carry 760,000 barrels a day of Canadian oil from North Dakota to Wisconsin

Except none of that is going to affect near or medium term gas prices. The current spike is driven by high global demand and OPEC production cuts during the pandemic.

That's why gas prices are rising globally.

They've also approved an auction for 80 million acres to Oil & Gas companies.[1] I can't find anything about how the auction went, but this seems to be quietly buried in the news cycle. It was the largest auction of this kind in history.

[1]https://www.newsweek.com/biden-admin-set-auction-off-over-80...

This is not just the US but also China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. It's serious enough that OPEC+ is threatening "response".

Hmmmm. Why are we needing to get oil from the reserves? Is this due to politics or demand or both? Could this lead to global conflict?

We already have global conflict. Multiple.

True. I can't help but wonder when/if WWIII will begin or if it already has...

It almost feels inevitable to be honest. Am I wrong?

You aren't necessarily wrong, but IMHO maybe too pessimistic. I don't see a global conflict starting anytime soon due to MAD. Baring another Trump-like person with zero regard for international norms, relations and basically anything, most world leaders at the highest level aren't complete idiots and understand the risks involved.

There are and will still be many localised conflicts, even some which might impact lots of people ( e.g. if the US does end up attacking Iran, it will be a bloodbath with consequences through Europe, Asia and Africa at the very least). Ukraine-Russia, and everyone around ( Belarus, Baltics, Poland) will probably turn out to be an even nastier affair. Israel's apartheid will probably also result in another war.

But a global war is highly unlikely, at least until climate change and other ongoing environmental disasters wipe out too much resources and people ( e.g. poor communities relying on fishing for sustenance being decimated by dropping fish populations and/or deforestation draining major rivers and lakes).

I would counter that a Trump like person would lead to less chance of war. Countries tend to toe the line better if there is a measuarble chance at retaliation. A Biden like person who's demonstrated incompetance (Afghanistan pullout) and placation (weak stance on China relations) would lead to contries rolling the dice on whether we would retaliate or not. We'll see what happens with China and Taiwan or Russia and Ukraine.

I would also counter that the response to alleged climate change could also spark conflicts which could lead to more encompassing war for example some greenie gets elected to power in Russia and decimates their ability to export energy (similar to current U.S. situation). That would leave many angry people in the cold in the E.U. and lead to unrest and potentially war. That's kind of out there but still within the realm.

1) The afghanistan pullout is the country keeping a promise that Trump failed to keep that was made long before either Trump or Biden, and it would have been a quagmire to whoever had the guts to actually follow through on it

2) People keep repeating this weak-on-China meme but Biden seems a lot more hawkish on them than people seem to be giving him credit for

I don’t disagree with keeping the promise at all. Where he completely demonstrated his competence was in the implementation. I am an IT guy and I would have done a much better job.

We’ll see on China. Proof is in action not talk.

You’d have done a better job? How so? You have expertise in strategic retreats after 20 years of war?

I don't think it takes a military strategic expert to say get civilians out first, then the military and equipment. If you can't take the equipment, destroy it.

As far as I can remember - one thing that our military personnel are taught, especially in the field, is how to render equipment inoperable. Which in fact is one of the things we've done with left over equipment there. Source: family of veterans.

The Taliban paraded driving US military vehicles through the streets, so I don't think we did that. I am sure it is normal procedure to disable equipment in this situation, but nothing about that exit was normal.

Those vehicles were left behind by the Afghani armed forces and were no longer US assets.

Of course, our failure to predict the afghani military's collapse is a huge error but that just proves that even world's best and most well-funded intelligence agency is not foolproof.

You can’t tell me with a straight face though that there wasn’t a report on someone’s desk that predicted exactly that - the Afghani military collapse. It was likely buried because it didn’t support whatever narrative was required at the time. So.. well funded? Absolutely and with a cherry on the top. Best? Nope. Way too infused with agendas and politics. No offense to the great people who work there.

They knew it would collapse, just not so quickly.

>Of course, our failure to predict the afghani military's collapse...

It was obvious to people who had any inkling of Afghanistan.

First, the US created an Afghani army that was dependent on US weapons and logistics, but stopped helping to maintain it even before the withdrawal was done. What does one expect to happen to an airforce when one stops maintance?

Second, every intelligence estimate predicted the Taliban would eventually win post-withdrawal (since they still got a state to support them), and the Afghanis knew about those estimates. Why should a sane Afghani keep fighting, when they could switch sides and live? To make Biden look better?

Ultimately, there was a political decision to leave Afghanistan, and the intel was adjusted to the decision rather than the other way around.

>Second, every intelligence estimate predicted the Taliban would eventually win post-withdrawal (since they still got a state to support them)

Which state would that be?

Pakistan, duh. Pakistan-Taliban links were widely known for decades.

My point being that the bar was so low on the implementation that anyone with a shred of intellect could have done a better job. But for the sake of discussion I would have for starters left the military on site until the civilian component was safely out of the country. Don’t need a diploma in strategic retreats to see that.

Every non ideological person would have done a better job. There wouldn't have been a hasty evacuation or the bombing in Kabul, if the army kept Bagram until the withdrawal was done, or if the US had accepted the Taliban's offer to retain Kabul until the withdrawal was done - and that's just the smallest of the tactical failures...

Those are both poison pills. The army didn't want to be responsible for the security of the entire Kabul area and Bagram to Kabul is not a next door situation.

> I am an IT guy and I would have done a much better job.

I'm sure you're a very nice and competent person, but that's a quote for the ages.

Or - Dammit Jim I’m an IT guy not Military Strategist! Lol

WWIII already began. Using carefully-cut video clips, intentionally misleading articles, and social media platforms increasingly encouraging unrest to pad their bottom line, decreasing their users' attention span, and spying into their users' devices, the factions only need to fight for public opinion in this day in age.

You can convince someone to surrender to you out of spite for their own country, long before you have to point a gun at them nowadays.

This gave me chills. Sometimes California feels more pro-China than pro-US. “But man, China is so impressive. They’re so good at governance.” - verbatim quote from a professor I met at UC Berkeley.

I've long felt that WWIII will not be fought (initially, anyway) with tanks and bombs and such, but with computers.

What could be more effective for your enemy than taking out all your power stations and plunging your country into total darkness and chaos? Everything would run out in short order and people would turn on each other.

Saves having to mess the place up with bombs and you have plausible deniability within the international community.

We don't _need_ to. It is to lower prices that are fairly high and OPEC doesn't want to increase supply. So governments are doing what they can to increase supply and retaliate against OPEC.

Depleting reserve capacity does not increase the long term supply curve. When the reserves are depleted, you are back where you started because the supply shocks are real. Production possibilities are down globally due to the destruction wrought by measures where the sole concern is CYA by governments when it comes to COVID19.

An increase in supply would mean more oil available at every price. That can only happen by getting it out of the ground, transporting it to refineries, distributing the resulting product to gas stations etc.

Higher prices in the face of increasing inflation may just maintain the incentives for producers in non-OPEC countries. Releasing reserves, to the extent that it can have an effect, will tend to counteract that incentive.

If this is due to sinister plans of OPEC governments, one must realize that it is certainly within their capacity to wait for the temporary increase in quantity available to dissipate.

Current total U.S. reserves[1] are 605 million barrels. Of which 253 million barrels are sweet.

> In 2020, the United States consumed an average of about 18.19 million barrels of petroleum per day, or a total of about 6.66 billion barrels of petroleum. This was the lowest level of annual consumption since 1995.[2]

According to this[3],

>> Sweet crude oil contains small amounts of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide and it is commonly used for processing into gasoline, kerosene, and high-quality diesel. Before sour crude oil can be refined into gasoline, impurities need to be removed, therefore increasing the cost of processing.

Therefore, it doesn't sound like releasing the sour variety would do much to reduce gas prices.

Putting these facts together, if the U.S. depleted all its sweet reserves in this folly, it would cover about two weeks of consumption.

[1]: https://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

[2]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6

[3]: https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/glossary/sweet-vs-sou...

According to this[1]:

> President Biden announced Tuesday that his administration was releasing 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help combat rising gas prices — hours before millions of Americans are expected to hit the road for Thanksgiving.

[1]: https://nypost.com/2021/11/23/biden-approves-release-of-50m-...

I don't know enough about the SPR to have opinions about it in particular, but the economic reasoning in this phrase is a little funky:

> Putting these facts together, if the U.S. depleted all its sweet reserves in this folly, it would cover about two weeks of consumption.

The US doesn't need to deplete or even come close to depleting any reserve or resource to depress prices. The strategic timing of this announcement suggests that depressing prices is the real goal anyways: lots of Americans are going to be driving around for the December holidays, and 10-20% lower gas prices can make a difference.

According to AAA:

Regular unleaded average price in NY state: $3.566/gal yesterday, $2.218/gal a year ago for a 61% annual increase[1].

If this temporary blip could cause prices to go down by 10% (during a time where demand for other uses for oil are also going up), then prices would be up only 45% from a year ago.

Assuming Biden is releasing the sweet variety that can be readily used to make gasoline, this first step is going to deplete about 20% of the SPR.

How many of those shots does he have?

People who think they can command and control the economy, regardless of the ideological banner they choose for themselves, have caused more misery, poverty, death, and destruction than anyone else. True to form, he is continuing with that.

For NY, this page[2] has figures going back a decade. These are nominal prices. Still, whether inflation adjusted or not, last year was an anomaly. Last October, prices were down 20% from the previous year in line with the depressed economy.

So, if you compare October 2021 with October 2019, nominal gas prices are 30% higher and real prices are 20% higher. On the other hand, in October 2012, gas prices were 43% higher in real terms, so there is that.

Except, in this case, consumers are facing a widespread sustained increase in all prices. 50 cents more for a latte may not mean much to a single person, but 100% increase in the price of fresh produce and almost 80% increase in the prices of meat & poultry have significant effects for a lot of families. And these are the predictable effects we are seeing. It is only going to get worse from here. In terms of historical reference, we are in the mid-60s. We have a long ways to go before we reach the mid-90s.

[1]: https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=NY

[2]: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/researchers-and-policymakers/ener...

> Depleting reserve capacity does not increase the long term supply curve.

The intent is not to “increase the long term supply curve”, it is to increase short-run supply and mitigate short-term pricing pressure on fuel, and therefore transportation, and therefore all goods and services that are either transported or require the transportation of other people or goods in their supply chain, which is, approximately, everything.

It is an immediate-term effort to prevent additional inflationary pressure from fuel prices. There’s other venues for intermediate and, if necessary, long-term measures to control general inflation.

On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport. On the other hand he’s asking/telling OPEC to pump out more… Canada is willing but we’re closing pipelines. And then, we get into the business of telling Europe whether they should put up with higher natgas prices because we have an opinion about nordstream II.

On the one hand he’s closing pipelines which are safer than rail for oil transport.

By "he" I presume you're referring to the Biden administration. What "pipelines" have they closed? Biden pulled the permit for the Keystone XL, but that's not so much closing a pipeline as prohibiting a new one from being build (maybe you were including that under the umbrella of "closing"?). The other Keystone pipelines are still operating.

There is also news about possibility closing the Line 5 pipeline, but that hasn't happened and he recently indicated that he had no intention of closing it.

Is there another (or multiple other) pipelines that have been shutdown by the administration? A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines.

"what pipelines did he close?" then you say "A google search only comes up with the Keystone XL and Line 5 pipelines". There's 2 rite there. Oil prices go up, choke supply by closing down 2 pipelines, and then complain/blame trump that prices are going up. Please explain your thought process joebiden.info

The Keystone XL pipeline has never been operational; you can't close something that never opened. Enbridge Line 5 hasn't closed, and the closure order (which Enbridge has refused to follow) came from the Michigan Governor, not the Biden administration.

Keystone XL was (as the previous comment says) not a closure, but preventing new building.

Line 5 is not something Biden closed. How are you counting a pipeline that Biden didn’t close and Biden has no plans to shutdown, as a closure? I don’t understand how you get to 2 closures.

Keystone's construction was shut down. It was going to be operational and now it's not due to an executive order that biden signed day 1 in office. That's shutting down a pipeline.

Line 5 is very much still possible to be shut down due to the democratic party's goal of creating a false energy shortage. Whitmer keeps complaining about it and I'm sure that harris and pelosi will tell biden to cancel it and he'll just go "okay".

joebiden.info

The Trump administration shut down (denied permits and licensing) 3 times for a natural gas import/export Terminal that was going to be built in Coos Bay Oregon, to connect to the 4' pipeline the feeds Oregon and California.

I guess they hate energy too...

Line 5 would impact prices a few cents in Michigan- believe it or not most of the oil goes from Canada, across MI and back into Canada. I'm fine with shutting it down. Canada can run their own "landlocked" pipeline to Sarnia.

You really have no ability to differentiate between those things?

Preventing new pipelines from being built == long term effects

Nord Stream == long term effects

Asking OPEC to supply more gas for our current needs == short term effects

Building pipelines is a commitment to consume more fossil fuels in the future. Whereas, increasing production to lower prices in a time of global shortages of every kind, is not that.

Stop trying to equate two completely different things. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Pipelines lower costs. To the extent that that's bad, it's because it makes fuel less expensive, so people buy less efficient vehicles that use more fuel. It's the same reason why a carbon tax is a means to reduce CO2.

The fact that the pipelines are in the future makes them less effective at reducing CO2. You want people to buy hybrids and electric cars right now, not wait until years from now. Lowering the present day price of gas is the worst thing to do.

If people are struggling then cut some of the pork and send more stimulus checks instead. Heck, do a carbon tax and refund all the money -- the average person comes out ahead because some of the tax gets paid by corporations and all the money goes to individuals.

> And then, we get into the business of telling Europe whether they should put up with higher natgas prices because we have an opinion about nordstream II.

There are more than enough voices within Europe doing that already. The US simply adds to the mix, not in opposition to “Europe.”

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210119IP...

> Following years of deteriorating relations, MEPs stress the importance of critically reviewing cooperation with Russia in various foreign policy platforms and on projects such as Nord Stream 2. They call on the EU to immediately stop the completion of the controversial pipeline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream

> The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was also opposed by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, former U.S. President Donald Trump, the European Council President Donald Tusk and British foreign minister Boris Johnson.[179][180] Tusk has said that Nord Stream 2 is not in the EU's interests.

I can understand the Polish opposition. Trump probably wanted to look tough in the face of ‘Russia’ accusations which so far have not been proven. Boris was just jockeying -a more energy source diversified Europe is less dependence on the UK. But US complaining about Nordstream makes as much sense as Russia complaining about the US building the XL pipeline or drilling in the ANWR. It’s meddling for kicks.

US oil supply dropped precipitously thanks to Covid and the Biden administration's drilling bans on federal lands, offshore drilling restrictions, cancelling oil pipelines and other blockades.

Many folks went bankrupt and US turned from a net Oil exporter to an Oil importer. The Biden administration recently started to reverse their policies in the last few months as oil prices surged. (There was also a court case loss on the federal drilling auction ban)

OPEC merrily took advantage of the state of affairs since high oil prices are good for them. Unfortunately, it will take some time for domestic supply to climb again. To tide over the state of affairs, it makes sense to open the strategic reserve. The Trump administration added 77 million barrels to the strategic reserve when the US was having an oil glut anyways, so its not as if the US doesn't have a safe buffer.

In Colorado the incumbent Democrat legislature effectively banned most new oil drilling projects even after a plebiscite on that question failed to pass.

When I look at the SPR weekly levels at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W... it doesn't show an increase of 77M barrels. During President Trump's term it fell from 695,118,000 (Jan 22 2016) barrels to 638,085,000 barrels (Jan 15th 2021)

In March of 2020 it went from 634,967,000 to a peak of 656,147,000 in July of 2020, to then fall back.

Unless I did my math incorrectly, where can we find the information about the 77M?

The drop in Jan 2017 was due to Hurricane Harvey which disrupted foreign crude deliveries. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/us-taps-strategic-oil...

You are right that it wasn't 77M barrels in 2020 - my bad. I didn't realise that Democrats had blocked funding for that proposed initiative of SPR increase. The Trump administration worked around this by reducing this to ~30 million barrels and awarding storage contracts. This appears to match your figures.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-25/trump-s-t...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/funding-t...

The US supply dropped precipitously because the price was too low for fracing to be consistently profitable. Letting the price rise would help US-based producers invest in more production.

The shortsightedness of people is amazing: since the '70s, when oil prices go down, people reliably buy wasteful and large cars. Then they go up, and people reliably do the opposite.

In the last ten years, everyone and their brother bought vanity pickup trucks and SUVs. Now, suddenly, everyone is shocked, shocked that oil prices have gone back up. Will anyone ever learn?

The Silverado and the F-150 are the only 2 cars in the top 15 best-selling cars in the US which are particularly fuel inefficient.

The best selling cars for quite some time have been decently fuel efficient in the US.

Even when gas prices are expensive - the US has never been selling a lot of cars like the Fiat 500.

18 of the top 25 selling cars in the U.S. are SUVs or pick-ups. Which are inherently less efficient than a sedan.

Not really. The top selling SUVs (RAV4, CRV, and Rogue) all get 35 mpg on the highway. That's better than the non-hybrid Honda Accord, for example.

I've always found the "highway" thing to not be very useful. Yes, if you're on cruise control on the open highway at constant speed, you will get good mileage in an SUV.

But in practice that sort of situation only applies during road trips. Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic, which is a lot less efficient.

Its not that bad. I've had daily commutes that were 70% highway at 40-60, and that's much closer to the EPA "highway" cycle than it should be.

The highway cycle is actually not all high speed driving.

> Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic, which is a lot less efficient.

Is that statistical, or anecdotal? It's counter to my personal driving patterns. Even in moderate congestion my Hyundai gets mileage closer to its "highway" MPG than "city" (when using cruise/distance control).

> Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic

When I had cars I used them mostly to get out on weekends or for longer trips on vocations. May be I’m an outlier but during the pandemic time work from home is common and this allows to avoid driving in traffic.

Hybrids mainly helps frequent stop city driving rather than constant highway driving, SUVs aren't good for Cd value that's important for highway driving. Because of that, pure ICE sedans should get relatively good value for highway mileage, but not good for city.

Yes really. That is not a very good benchmark.

My Toyota Yaris gets over 50mpg on motorways, so about 50% better.

Though having 25% larger gallons in the UK helps too. (Not that there isn't truth in European cars having been more efficient for thirty years).

Very good point! I always forget this!

The point is that if they were smaller cars they'd get even better MPG.

And be a less useful vehicles for doing the kinds of things that most people ask of them, carrying stuff that doesn't fit in a standard sized trunk like furniture and appliances.

All those sedans would be way more fuel efficient if they were motorcycles too, but I don't think you'd agree that they're comparable.

Do most people ask that their vehicle carry furniture and appliances on a regular basis?

Honestly any time I have a larger item either being hauled to my place or away from it, it's someone else's vehicle, e.g. delivery of a new appliance or pricing it to move quickly on craigslist so someone comes and takes it away.

So your solution to not needing to move things is for other people with suitable vehicles to come and move things? How is that gonna work when everyone has a sedan?

It's true for everyone I know who has children and owns a house in the burbs. The cost of taking delivery from everything from TVs, lawn mowers, dirt, mulch, Costco trips, adds up and SUVs aren't really more expensive than sedans.

Like I get you, I live a very privileged urban apartment dweller life and can afford to just pay for people to move things for me the few times I need it but renting tools and labor is expensive for a family.

> How is that gonna work when everyone has a sedan?

People who specialise in it? Like moving vans or toe trucks?

> but renting tools and labor is expensive for a family.

Compared to the extra cost of the vehicle and gas? I mean how often do you buy new furniture? People ask how I manage without a car: simple I bus or take a cab. "cabs are expensive" per trip sure... but per year? Nothing compared to the cost of car ownership. If big cars aren't false economy yet, then they will be once we start paying for our carbon. Most of us could get around 90% of the time in a coupe.

It's not different. That's the whole point.

    2020 Honda Accord: $28k total cost of ownership [1] 30/37 mpg 282 g/m emissions rating [3]

    2020 Honda CR-V: $28k total cost of ownership [2] 28/34 mpg 294 g/m emissions rating [3]

[1] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2020/cost-to-own/?style...

[2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/cr-v/2020/cost-to-own/?style=4...

[3] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42071&...

According to [3] the yearly fuel cost difference is $50. For reference on the emissions numbers a 2010 H3 Hummer is 555g/m.

Someone from Craigslist comes and takes it away? On what, their back?

Society survived without SUVs. We have everything delivered in an instant.

We don't need all this crap, and we don't need SUVs to carry it around.

Yeah, we had minivans, station wagons, and small pickup trucks. Then we had what are now called "full-size" SUVs. Midsize SUVs today are just slightly bigger cars.

The point is that crossover/SUVs get good enough MPG. Fuel economy is not the only, or even the primary, consideration when buying a car.

If the price of gas keeps rising at the same pace for the next seven years, it will be.

35mpg == 15 km/L

Wow, that's not good... A large Sedan from early 2000s driven well can easily beat that..

I regularly hear about small cars doing 70 mpg == 30km/L

My Toyota Yaris is not fuel efficient at 130 km/h on the highway, but it still manages 40mpg = 17 km/L

Of course, it's not SUV.. I basically decided against buy a big car until EVs are ready -- they are now, but that doesn't mean I should throw out my existing car :)

Civic gets 36 combined, Corolla is 33 combined, Rav4/CRV are both 30 combined. A Prius is 54 combined. Not sure where you are hearing about 70 mpg.

My Toyota Yaris is rated at 27 km/L = 63mpg

But maybe that's only downhill -- I'm certainly not reaching it :)

But other mini cars like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

Or so I hear...

The Toyota Yaris gets 40mpg highway / 35 mpg combined: https://www.cars.com/articles/2020-toyota-yaris-mpg-can-frug...

I think you've made an incorrect conversion to metric units.

First off, if you're not in the US, make sure that you are converting from a US gallon, and not imperial gallon.

35 MPG (US gallons) = 6.72 Liters per 100 km

Mileage is really a mess... Some place in the EU uses L / 100km, others km/L, I was using Google so I think the unit was correct.

Any case, my car does roughly 17 megameters / meter^3 -- that's proper SI units :)

In Europe the common metric is l/100km. 35 mpg translates to a little above 6.7 l/100km, which is good - average for a car in Europe (average is 7.8l/100km = 30mpg). I guess today there is a smaller difference in fuel efficiency. This is for gasoline, not diesel engines.

US cars are a bit bigger than european or asian models, so they are probably a bit heavier. Still, I think fuel efficiency is pretty optimized in all modern cars regardless of where you live.

Most SUVs are intentionally just taller hatchbacks. They're maybe a couple mpg less fuel efficient than a similar sedan, but in return you get a more comfortable feeling car.

And far more utility than a traditional sedan, I own one of each and my midsized SUV that covers a lot of small truck use cases. I can strap things to the roof racks, I can open the back and lay down the seats and carry small and extended cargo. It has all wheel drive and handles bad weather conditions better than a front wheel drive car. It's higher up and provides better visibility than my sedan. It can handle hauling small trailers. Sedans _typically_ don't come equipped to handle dirty things like outdoor sports and pets while my SUV has rubber floor mats/trays everywhere. For road trips and camping trips I can pack almost twice as much stuff in the SUV and those things are more easy accessed than a car trunk.

SUVs existing _prevent_ me from buying a small to midsized truck so to me the view is "look at the efficiency gained compared to the Ranger or Tacoma" instead of "look at how inefficient the Outback or Escape is compared to a Civic".

That's when you realize that there are station wagons with better mpg more utility and your head explodes.

I'm not ignorant of them but there simply aren't that many wagon options on the market new or used and peak MPG isn't the only metric for purchasing a vehicle.

Your post seemed pretty ignorant of other choices besides SUVs and trucks. Mercedes has 6 station wagons/shooting brakes, VW has 4, BMW has 4, Toyota has 5, Hyundai has 4, Kia has 3, Honda got 5 every big car manufacture has at least 3 station wagons in their portfolio. I know there are more SUVs because of the SUV hype in the last years but stating that there are no options on the market is just not true.

I literally did not make the claim that no wagon options exist anywhere in what I wrote. What are you even arguing here? Why even make that strawman?

I compared SUVs to sedans and trucks because those are more available by volume by a long shot when purchasing, and most wagons actually fail to meet most of the utility criteria I listed, and those that do are designed far more like a low-clearance SUVs than as a "wagonized" version of a base sedan model.

Enjoy your day and whatever agenda it is that you're pushing. Goodbye.

You left the most popular utility car option out of your reasoning there is no agenda at all. In the international market the station wagon is still first as utility vehicle and it is on the rise in the US as well. I don't know why you get so agetated about it.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/25864/station-wagon-sales-are-...

> Mercedes has 6 station wagons/shooting brakes, VW has 4, BMW has 4, Toyota has 5, Hyundai has 4, Kia has 3, Honda got 5

Okay, and now go to each of these manufacturer's US websites and check how many are available in the US.

Also, consider that Mercedes and BMW only offer luxury models at luxury prices in the US.

> The Silverado and the F-150 are the only 2 cars in the top 15 best-selling cars in the US which are particularly fuel inefficient.

Sure, however the F-150 was by far the biggest selling vehicle at least up until 2019. Over 3 times as many sold as the second most popular vehicle.

My father's F-150 is _more_ fuel efficient than my 4-cylinder crossover - both in the mid-20's for mpg.

In order to get a meaningful reduction in consumption, you need to be driving a sedan or coupe.

----

Many of the bigger vehicles have unnecessarily large engines. However, that's not necessarily true across the board.

Best of both worlds of capacity and fuel economy is a station wagon.

With the Golf Sportwagen (EU name Golf Variant) off the market in North America now, it leaves Volvos and Subarus as the only option.

I predict that in the next decade, station wagons will get rediscovered as manufacturers try to maximize range and reduce battery volume as electrification marches on.

Edit: forgot about Subarus

Isn't the Subaru Outback still a station wagon even if they try to disguise it with crossover inspired body panels.

It has quite a bit of ground clearance despite it's low profile. It's higher off the ground than more popular models like the CR-V, RAV4, Highlander, etc.

I just checked and it seems the Subaru Outback is bigger than the Golf Variant and has otherwise similar stats.

Are they not the same class of car?

My mistake. I did forget about this one!

Different size class. The Outback is a lifted large sedan with an extended trunk, there aren't any vehicles on the market that compare to it except perhaps the Toyota Venza.

Outback "competes" with the crossovers which are usually shorter in length and have taller interior space.

Don't they sell the Mercedes E-Class T Model in the US?

Perhaps, Mercedes is luxury though. People are more likely to purchase something that provides better value/size/gas mileage that costs 40% less.

Volvo wagons start at about $51k CAD, MB C-Class starts at $57k CAD and an E-Class starts at $81k CAD. This is out of reach of Jonny Everyman (including me).

I purchased a base Golf Sportwagen with 4Motion back in 2017 for around $29k which was surprisingly nicely equipped (DSG, tunable engine, decent soundsystem). A similarly equipped Suburu would have been mid-to-high $30s.

If I had freedom to "flex", I would have gone for the Volvo because of the safety street cred.

The very hard edge on the tail of a wagon makes it a terribly great at producing turbolence which is bad for fuel efficiency. I think shooting break or sort of stretched-out hatchbacks will be where it's at.

I hope you’re right. I’ve been driving wagons for years, but the US market for them has been shrinking consistently since crossovers became a thing. Europeans seemingly have oodles of options, but God forbid automakers allow Americans a sporty AWD wagon with a manual transmission…

What 4-cylinder crossover is getting mid-20s (at least hwy mpg)?

Certainly a lot of these lil crossovers with natural-aspirated 4-cylinder engines can really strain to heft a bigger vehicle up from a stop (I'm looking at you, Subaru!), but once one is driving hwy speeds they are really quite fuel-sipping.

My 2009 Honda Element gets 22-24mpg. A friend had a Nissan Murano that got similar.

The examples listed are Honda Element and Nissan Murrano, which are decidedly not small, fuel efficient vehicles but instead blown-up heavier counterparts built on a shared platform with a 4 cylinder engine. These cars are often less practical than their smaller, more fuel-efficient counterparts. So these are not exactly arguments against buying smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient cars.

One reason why SUVs are as popular as they are is that car manufacturers are allowed to produce less efficient cars if they are larger and with off-road capability. This allows bigger, less efficient cars compete with the more efficient ones because the sale price ends up being close enough to the more efficient counterparts for this to not matter.

> One reason why SUVs are as popular as they are is that car manufacturers are allowed to produce less efficient cars if they are larger and with off-road capability

This was true like in the 1990s. It hasn't been true in a very long time (almost 20 years now). The only limit at which these standards don't apply is truly heavy duty (5000 pounds) and not even a hummer is over that threshhold.

> The only limit at which these standards don't apply is truly heavy duty (5000 pounds) and not even a hummer is over that threshhold.

Edmunds has the 2004 H1 at 7,608 lbs. [0] and the 2009 H2 at 6,614 lbs. [1] 2004 and 2009 are the newest Edmunds has for those models. Looks like the new GMC Hummer EV is going to be over 9,000 lbs. [2] The lightest 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe that I could find on Edmunds was 5,473 lbs. [3]

[0] https://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h1/2004/features-specs/

[1] https://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h2/2009/features-specs/

[2] https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022-gmc-hummer-ev-pickup-ed...

[3] https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/tahoe/2022/features-specs/

My mistake, the limit isn't 5000 but 8500 pounds. In 2027 these will also be covered under fuel-efficiency standards.

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/why-dont-heavy-duty-trucks-have...

Basically the entire segment: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/suvs-best-gas-mileage

Now, keep in mind, I'm talking about actual fuel usage. Not "ideal testing conditions". For example, my Chevy Equinox is supposed to get 32 highway - but it really only gets 26 (cruising at 70mph with no traffic).

I've owned sedans and coupes before. Never again. Lifting heavy objects out of a trunk is just too hard on my back.

A Forster or outback is not a coupe or sedan and the forester mpg is 33 highway.

> Many of the bigger vehicles have unnecessarily large engines. However, that's not necessarily true across the board.

"Unnecessarily large engine" sure sounds like something that would have negative consequences, but Cylinder Deactivation (CDA) is a thing. Just like your CPU, your engine doesn't need to spin up every "core" if it's not loaded to 100%. And fewer concurrent explosions per second, means less gas needed to drive all those explosions. A V8 that's only driving 4 of its 8 cylinders in most situations, is likely going to be even less gas-guzzling than a V6 that always has to drive all 6 cylinders. (Well, other than the fact that the V8 has to work slightly harder to move a car that's heavier from the additional engine weight.)

Of course, not all vehicles have CDA. But more and more do.

And, relevant to the discussion — as of the 2021 model, the F-150 has CDA. (https://pickuptrucktalk.com/2020/10/2021-ford-f150-5-0l-v8-e...)

Mostly fleet purchases or commercial vehicles which contradicts the parents point about individual purchasing decisions. I know a lot of people who drive trucks as their primary vehicle, none of them drive f150’s. It’s absurd.

Some Ford F-150 models get 25 mpg combined fuel economy. That's pretty good. At that rate a typical owner will spend only a few hundred dollars per year extra on fuel compared to a smaller car.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=43614

are you trying to tell me finite resources aren't infinite? You ain't mur'ican den buddy.

> Now, suddenly, everyone is shocked, shocked that oil prices have gone back up.

We also had ten years worth of truck and SUV purchases prior to inauguration day early this year, and I recall everyone paying almost a dollar and a half less per gallon during that time period.

> The shortsightedness of people is amazing: since the '70s, when oil prices go down, people reliably buy wasteful and large cars. Then they go up, and people reliably do the opposite.

You don't want people to respond to economic incentives? That means there is no point to adding gas taxes to incentivize fuel efficiency - or do you believe that people only respond to increasing gas prices and not decreasing prices?

How, in your view, would such an asymmetric response function work?

Is that the reason, though? I heard on the news (unfortunately don't remember where) that oil production decreased when people were driving less, then as people resumed driving, production didn't increase as fast as demand.

Which would make sense to me because there have been a ton of situations where some pandemic event has caused some previously generally stable thing to shift (up or down) to some new level, then we have chaos as other things try to adapt and find a new equilibrium. Then when the pandemic stops forcing that thing to an unusual level, it springs back toward its normal level, and again other things take time to adapt and find an equilibrium.

So actually we seem to get two edge-triggered periods of chaos where something shifts from value V1 to V2 (that's one edge trigger) and then shifts back from V2 to V1-ish (the other edge trigger).

And if you look at crude oil prices over the last few years, they were lower during 2020 than in previous years. Now they are higher. So that fits the pattern I'm describing.

> Then when the pandemic stops forcing that thing to an unusual level, it springs back toward its normal level, and again other things take time to adapt and find an equilibrium.

There will be no stable equilibrium for a long time ahead. Governments around the world continue to introduce lockdowns on a short notice when cases rise and we are nowhere near COVID-restrictions free international travel. Any change in restrictions would change oil demand too.

I was reading car and drivers list of worst mpg vehicles today, not surprisingly pick up trucks are awful. 16mpg highway with giant gas tanks.

No wonder people feel the pain when they have to pay like $200 to fill up and be able to drive ~400miles. I don’t have sympathy except for the ones that legitimately use it for work. Otherwise it’s massively wasteful and all that’s different now is they can feel how wasteful their car is.

How much does the gas mileage of consumer automobiles in the USA actually affect oil prices?

To put this in perspective, US daily oil consumption is 18 million barrels. So a 50 million barrel release from the strategic reserve is less than a 3 day supply.

It’s not even that:

“ Of the total 32 million barrels will be an exchange over the next several months, while 18 million barrels will be an acceleration of a previously authorized sale “

So it’s a single day’s supply.

Gas (RBOB) is a refined product. The SPR is crude. There is obviously a relationship between them but it is a complex, laggy function of refinery capacity, distribution, etc. It will at least effect spot crude prices at the relevant delivery points.

> Has it got bigger?

Yep: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_S...

Doesn't look like enough on its own to justify a change in reporting that much though.

Let's ask the government agency responsible for maintaining the strategic petroleum reserve: https://www.energy.gov/fecm/strategic-petroleum-reserve-9

"This is equivalent to approximately 1,069 days of supply of total U.S. petroleum net imports."

Sounds like it might affect market prices if the government decides to use it to lower the price.

As for accurate media reporting... has that ever happened? On anything?

Comparing the SPR size to imports is meaningless. The US obtains most of our crude oil from domestic wells.

Net imports: 7.8 MMb/d Net consumption: 18.1 MMb/d

So, we get slightly more than half from domestic wells. (We could fully cover it if we choose not to export)

But either way, that means the SPR still covers ~500 days of consumption. Still sizable enough to impact the market significantly, I'd say

Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much, there need be no hint of tightening belts or doing without things we like. Most Americans could drop our emissions and waste 50 percent just improving our lives. We live this huge lie that consumption correlates with quality of life, health, or happiness for most of us.

We could improve our lives by cutting out most of the useless, pointless junk instead of solving every problem by burning more fossil fuels.

Yeah… that’s not how Americans work.

A significant portion of politicians would be parroting impeachment minutes after a statement like that.

Wouldn't make much of a difference. The MAGA crowd would just start using even more gas "to own the libs".

Consumption does correlate with quality of life, health and happiness.

Keeping in mind that degrowth isn't going to happen (for good or bad), it probably isn't a great use of time to advocate for it.

> Consumption does correlate with quality of life, health and happiness.

At the current rate America consumes food, I'd bet that there's a _negative_ correlation between amount of food consumed and health.

Europeans have half the ecological footprint of Americans, yet our quality of life is dramatically higher. It might have some correlation, but at a certain point that correlation stops and it just gets gratuitous.

> our quality of life is dramatically higher

(as a fellow European) By what metric ? Would love to know.

It isn't: https://mises.org/wire/these-us-states-have-higher-incomes-n...

(Disposable) income != quality of life.

According to numbeo local purchasing power in my city is the same or better than most US cities despite the fact that my wages are much lower over here in Germany.

Tax policy has massively dragged the absolute price level downwards while having almost no effect on the relative price level.

Life expectancy and infant mortality come to mind[1]. As does leisure time[2].

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/america-li...

[2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w11278

If I go to Costco and look at the amount of meat you get per $, I am not sure if we aren't way beyond basic "quality of life, health and happiness."

I am saying this as someone who lived for years in the US and now lives again in Europe.

It really makes me sad when I go to Costco to buy food. I don't know how people will feed their kids right at these prices honestly.

Reduce protein intake to the recommended amount. Rest of meals come from, carrots, onions, potatoes, rice, eggs, flour and beans.

Sticking with the above food is very affordable for the median income.

Rice, beans, block American cheese, stew meat, whichever fruits and veggies are on sale, make your own baked goods. People found ways even when prices were much, much higher relative to incomes. Eat-whatever-you-like-whenever-you-like is not the historic norm for the working class.

Not saying this is a positive development, mind you, but there are whole cuisines designed around these kinds of needs, for good reason. Stretching out meats over multiple dishes, finding ways to use worse cuts, re-using fats, using all those parts most Americans won't eat anymore, but used to. Making stock from veggie scraps so they're not wasted (then using what's left for the garden, if you don't have chickens and/or pigs to recycle it into eggs and meat for you). Food waste should drop as prices go up, as it's largely a convenience thing. Assuming we remember how to really cook....

Degrowth will happen. Nature will force it's hand.

Nature has no say in Meta Worlds!

Long Growth.

If degrowth happens on average, people with privilege will expect (and take steps to ensure) that it won't apply to them but only to others.

Well, that is exactly why there is growth dependence. Some people have extra things they don't really want, so others will have to repeat the same work just to get the same things that already exist.

It's like group homework. If one person does everything, others won't get to do it themselves. So they have to redo the homework on their own to learn instead of learning together.

It's also why the wage inflation spiral exists. Full employment may require busy work, as we do our work more efficiently we need an exponentially growing amount of busy work. If people simply worked less, without leaving individuals unemployed, you wouldn't have the damn spiral.

Correlation does not imply causation. Just purely saying “consume more and you will have a higher quality of life” seems off. Consuming the right things is important imo.

In my opinion governments should really pay attention to what the nation needs over the long term and spend money on that rather than count beans and get tricked by fiscal rules. That means no to boondoggles, yes to healthcare.

Waste will not be a problem after Mars colonization. /s

This is like a cook at a restaurant burning dinner and then telling the patrons they needed to go on a diet anyway.

> Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much, there need be no hint of tightening belts or doing without things we like. Most Americans could drop our emissions and waste 50 percent just improving our lives. We live this huge lie that consumption correlates with quality of life, health, or happiness for most of us.

To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life, nor would most people, which is why you never hear a politician say things like that. The average person does not want to hear that they need to tighten their belt so that someone else's belt now or in the future can be loosened. That's just not how people work.

And this is why doing anything about climate change is such an uphill battle.

Correct, if we are serious about solving climate change, we need to come to grips with the fact that people will not lower their quality of life, and so we need to find impactful changes that either maintain the QoL status quo or improves it. For example, a Tesla or the new Ford Lightening pickup is something people can live with. Extremely good public transportation that saves people time and money is something people can live with. A bike is not something most people will live with.

Yes, as the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole keep digging until you find a better shovel.

Another popular saying: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Tell us again about all the awful things that will happen in the future and all the huge sacrifices we need to make today to prevent them so that people can shrug yet again and go back to ignoring you. We can either live in a fantasy or accept reality / human nature for what it is and actually start being productive.

>we need to come to grips with the fact that people will not lower their quality of life

No problem, climate change will do it for them.

I don't know what the actual answer is, but I think tax does a pretty good job of influencing behavior. Maybe there needs to be more of it.

You get a tax credit for buying EV's. Maybe there needs to be a bigger credit, or a bigger tax on fossil fueled cars. Don't ban stuff, just increase taxes on stuff and influence people's direction. The money raised can be used for making things better.

> A bike is not something most people will live with.

Observations from cities that have actually made tangible improvements to their cycling infrastructure and seen a significant increase in cycling mode share suggest otherwise.

Doubly so when the people telling me to tighten my belt, are flying to climate conferences in private jets.

> To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life

Yeah, that is unfortunately a very common sentiment and a large part of why things continue to suck in the world and are unlikely to get better. It isn't just climate, people are far too selfish in pretty much every aspect of society and the whole is suffering because of it. I wish I could be optimistic about the future, but then I see comments like yours and am reminded that humanity has well earned it's pain. When the possibility of success approaches zero, giving up is a rational alternative to trying.

I feel you are being overly pessimistic. We can still accomplish substantive change, we just need to know how to market it. A message of collective sacrifice doesn't resonate with a society like ours because we don't view ourselves as part of a collective; we are individuals. You need to alter your messaging to fit the existing culture. Changing your messaging is far easier and effective than changing the existing culture.

Alright, so what is the message then? How do you get a selfish entitled status-obsessed overconsumption-promoting culture to do anything that will actually help?

I'm pretty convinced there is no such message. I think it is telling that you refer to such a concept without even suggesting what it's co tent might be. It is fairy dust.

The message is that many changes we will have to make for climate change will either make life better or will not negative affect people. Switching to electric vehicles will lower long term vehicle ownership costs and mean that you never have to go to the gas station, and oh yeah they are faster, more modern, and cooler; using efficient appliances lowers costs without lowering quality; switching away from beef will make you less likely to get fat, improve longevity, and save you money; switching to solar power makes you more resilient against the type of issues that happened in Texas; switching to high speed rail means less TSA bullshit and more comfort for less money; carrying a water bottle around instead of buying one time use plastic bottles means you will always have a cold beverage with you and you will never be thirsty; etc.

These aren't messages that will resonate with everyone, but they will resonate with more people than saying "life sucks deal with it". Look at how Ford is marketing their new electric pickup. Do you ever see the words "global warming", "climate change", or "sacrifice" appearing anywhere in their copy? No, because that messaging doesn't work so they focus on talking about capabilities, features, and QoL improvements instead.

> The average person does not want to hear that they need to tighten their belt so that someone else's belt now or in the future can be loosened. That's just not how people work.

People did it during WWII, not just by participating in combat but by donating their possessions to the war effort, and that was within living memory of people still alive today. Saying "that's just not how people work" assumes that it has always been so. I think something has changed since the 40s to make any kind of sacrifice for the community look like anathema to most.

(using the US as an example)

People "tightened their belt" during WWII because they had their sons conscripted by the government to go fight in the war. Some people never saw their fathers or sons ever again once they left the train/ship for Europe. Women were leaving the homemaking roles and working in wartime factories, offices, etc. because you had (theoretically) half of your population off in another country fighting for their lives.

You had _everybody_ on board since everyone knew somebody who was currently fighting, died/wounded in battle. It was a very real, persistent, visible issue. Climate change is not visible to everybody and doesn't affect everyone like the war effort did.

People see higher cost of living and they're living their daily lives just as they have been for the past decade. There's been no directly observable reason for the majority of people to start encouraging climate change action. It sucks, but that's the way it is right now because humans are humans.

Climate change is not that visible of a threat, (un)fortunately, depending on how you look at it. The majority of humans don't look farther than a couple years ahead, _if that_. They're too busy trying to survive with increased taxes, inflation on all goods and services, along with horrific monetary policy during a pandemic.

> That's just not how people work.

In 1973, when OPEC fully embargoed the Netherlands (among other countries), the Dutch government instituted "car-free Sundays" for three months in an attempt to curb oil use. It seems to have been fairly popular.

>To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life

Interesting that you interpreted what @spodek said that way, they talked about improving quality of life and you read the complete opposite.

Fossil fuel will die only when the alternatives are better. Focusing positively there is where the effort should be.

So reduce environmental review for solar, massively reduce red tape for fission, invest in fusion, and invest in carbon capture technology are the main things here IMO.

We should strive for energy abundance, not austerity.

The thing is, consuming large amount more fossil fuels now is the opposite of energy abundance long term.

Alternatives delay the end of oil rather than bringing it about. If we use more oil now, we have to switch to alternatives sooner.

There’s currently ~42 years until the end of oil: https://www.worldometers.info/

A key problem is that environmental consequences of burning that oil will be catastrophic.

We'll run out eventually, but we've got to stop using it well before then.

This is something that people will need to come to their own senses about. Politicians run to get elected/re-elected and economy is almost always the #1 driver for building a platform.

In the economic sense, if everyone reduced consumption then unemployment would go up, GDP down, recession, etc…

This is just my observation of how some dominoes might fall. There will always be upsides and downsides.

I can imagine a good portion of the population would not be inclined to take the advice of any President on self-moderation. The number of people struggling to keep their head above water is very high. The best chance we have is to make the environmentally friendly approaches profitable, especially if it creates local jobs and opportunity.

>The number of people struggling to keep their head above water is very high.

Yet American emissions per capita are among the highest in the world. Something doesn't add up.

Being poor is incredibly expensive.

In reality climate change is a problem caused by the rich, not the poor. Poor people can't afford to consume much, it's the rich who can afford big cars, large houses and flights to Bali.

I don't think consumers on the lower class strata could be blamed for climate change, but we have a series of massive industrial complexes and incentives which creates a lot of feedback.

Those without the means don't really have the leverage against this economic apparatus.

I think you're right, but we'll need to see a lot of empathy and humility exemplified in our societal power structures.

I don't like that we built those structures as pyramids, but I also don't think anyone likes the idea of the foundation collapsing.

> Has anyone heard from the President a message to reduce consumption in the U.S.? We waste so much

Who is 'we'? It's big companies and the military that are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse. Telling the working class to 'improve their lives' is quite ridiculous. This is a production problem at a systems level, not an individual consumption problem. That narrative of individual change is simply gaslighting by the propertied class.

While I agree in general, I think as long as the rest of us persist in our mindset that we don't need to change we will resist all efforts to do so on a societal level as well.

>>>It's big companies and the military that are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse.

While often wasteful, the military is only 4% of US GDP,[1] and almost 40% of its expenditures is Pay & Benefits.[2] The rest, about $400 Billion, is <2% of the US's ~$21 Trillion economy (real 2019 GDP). It's...interesting...to single that sector of the economy out in particular.

[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

> It's big companies and the military that are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse.

oops i mixed up two different points in my original sentence. this is what i am talking about:

1) big companies are causing massive amounts of resource waste and overuse: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...

2) the US military is the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/11/worlds-m...

Big business is wasteful on our behalf. If I fly on plane, you'd blame American Airlines, but it was 100% my consumption. Are you going to blame me or Toyota for my V8 4Runner? I bought it.

You might think, "well, its American Airlines choice not to use carbon neutral biofuel!" But consumers always pick the lower priced flight. So if AA cost 15 bucks more than UA because of green fuel, 90% of the country would just fly UA.

You can blame certain companies for lying about global warming or polluting even when it wouldn't raise costs. But that doesn't absolve you from your role in consumption.

> Big business is wasteful on our behalf. If I fly on plane, you'd blame American Airlines, but it was 100% my consumption.

the problem is that the development of technology is not done democratically. there is an artificial scarcity in the solutions the working class can choose between due to the way our economic system bottlenecks/limits innovation by imposing an 'intellectual property' regime. those with privileged access to existing techno-scientific tools can expand their control of intellectual property, and the exorbitant economic rents the state empowers them to extract.

> You can blame certain companies for lying about global warming or polluting even when it wouldn't raise costs.

> But that doesn't absolve you from your role in consumption.

again, you are implying we live in a world where we make choices. we do not. decisions are made for us way before we buy the products/commodities we use and consume from supermarket shelves or car dealer showrooms or wherever.

an example to counter your flights example. instead it's take the option between train and air travel and consider the underdevelopment (terrible state) of railways in the US compared to many other countries. 'consumers' cannot choose train travel in the US because the state has not invested in the infrastructure (despite the proven reduced CO2 emissions).

add to all this the fact that all modern tech was developed using taxpayer money (an example of state innovation is SEMATECH - basically a 'socialist' programme which had US tech companies temporarily waive patent claims (at the cost of $100 million payout from the US govt.)) to try to out-innovate Japanese firms together, because the existing economic systems that are supposed to foster innovation, didn't.

when you look at it from this systemic perspective, blaming individuals is gaslighting by the propertied class.

https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/vol24-2-dont-be-evi...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley

https://jacobinmag.com/2015/03/socialism-innovation-capitali...

Improve our lives according to whom? You? Have you cut your consumption by 50% this year? Have you installed solar (if you own a house)? Have you started growing your own vegetables? Have you bought a house that is 50% smaller to reduce heating/cooling needs? Do you want someone telling you that you have to do all these things and more?

> Have you cut your consumption by 50% this year? Have you installed solar (if you own a house)? Have you started growing your own vegetables? Have you bought a house that is 50% smaller to reduce heating/cooling needs? Do you want someone telling you that you have to do all these things and more?

My consumption isn't very high to begin with, there wasn't much to cut. My house is shaded by large trees and solar wouldn't provide much benefit, so instead I've cut electrical use. I do have a garden, yes. I have a modestly sized house and 2 roomates.

Could I do more? Sure, not that it'd make much difference with the apparent sentiment being "fuck the future if it makes things inconvenient for me now". Especially for the incredibly well off portions of our society that consume ludicrously more resources than the median and then tell us all there's nothing we can do.

Sadly, I'm convinced that only an authoritarian dictatorship could actually pull this off, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that either. I'd much prefer if people would just not throw up their hands because they're asked to be a little less comfortable for the sake our descendants' future.

Since you ask, I've reduced over 90 percent, which I've shared publicly, anticipating I may be like a Roger Bannister to some. Will you join?

Here is a graph: https://joshuaspodek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ReduceFo...

On my blog https://www.joshuaspodek.com I post my electric bills, that I pick up litter daily, that I haven't flown since 2016, haven't filled a load of garbage since 2019, and more. Most importantly, that each of these changes improves my life. Or watch my TEDx talks on sustainability leadership: https://joshuaspodek.com/tedx.

Leadership, not individual action is the point. Yet more important and magnifying my effect, I lead workshops in food deserts, coach executives and politicians, and host a podcast helping change American and global culture from the attitude I read in your post, that sustainability and stewardship are burdens, deprivation, or sacrifice, to expecting it will improve their lives, help the most vulnerable, and create stability and abundance.

Where have you been the last 2 years? People got pissed from being told to wear a mask to help slow the spread of a disease. I think it's safe to say telling people to tighten their belts when it comes to consumption would piss off members of all political parties.

Its kind of an interesting parallel

the politicians that are forcing mask use laws have been shown time and time again not wearing masks themselves.

the politicians forcing environmental laws have been shown time and time again leading extravagant environmentally damaging lifestyles.

You can't escape the feeling that these mandates are meant for the poor and not the rich and powerful political class

that’s what jimmy carter did and it didn’t work out great for him whether or not it’s true. it’s the same reason politicians don’t tell americans to get exercise or eat healthy

They have done this several times in my lifetime. It never works to lower the price of anything.

I wonder if it's priced in before the idea is even brought up?

If it wasn't done, would prices have increased further though ?

Politicians have to be seen as "doing something" even if that something isn't productive or even is counterproductive. At least no one is messing with the clocks again. Maybe there was enough blowback from the last DST change for political points that no one will resort to it again.

The US bought 77M barrels of crude oil in March 2020 under a Trump executive order. The purchases were directly from US producers, but WTI was trading around $20-25/barrel in that period. Selling 50M barrels now is going to profit the country by $50/barrel (before holding and transport costs), so by all measures this has been a good trade for the country!

While researching this I was also reminded that we are already selling 20M+ barrels per year from the SPR. Many major budget bills over the past 7 years included a sale from the SPR as part of the funding. We also need to pay $450M for overdue maintenance on the SPR itself - and you guessed it, that was "paid for" by selling 10M barrels from the SPR this year. This is not a petroleum reserve anymore, this is a budget reserve for Congress to balance its bills.

> so by all measures this has been a good trade for the country!

three cheers for good old America Inc.

Personally when I came across internet discussions about Norwegian oil production, it is mostly pointed to CO2. In case US - topic is usually about profit.

If you happen to own a unique storage facility for a (somewhat) volatile asset, exploiting it to produce income for the country seems like a smart idea. I also see no issue using the same profits to pay for the maintenance of the storage facility itself. What is the problem, exactly?

If you think buying low and selling high is simple, then you can just buy futures contracts.

Futures contracts alone can't do this. A futures contract for March 2023 delivery will always be delivered in March 2023, no matter how many times you buy and sell.

Instead you need to buy a contract for Dec 2021, store the oil, and sell another contract today for delivery in 2023 for a higher price. This is exactly what people with storage facilities do, and is why people who buy CRUD ETF's don't make all the money, even if they make the right call about which direction the oil price will go.

All the professional futures traders were of course trying to do exactly this, with the result that all of the storage capacity that was available on the open market was full. What made this a good opportunity for the US government was that they had a whole bunch of storage space free in the strategic reserve to execute this strategy, and making use of it would both make them money and reduce the disruption to the economy from the sudden surge in oil demand once everything opened up again. It was both entirely predictable and predicted that oil and fuel prices would shoot up again once that happened, there just wasn't any way for most people to take advantage of it due to the difficulty of storing oil.

Or you can do the real deal.

Aren't futures dependent on storage capacity anyway?

Like at some point at scale, it's got to be better to do the physical rather than contract equivalent.

> so by all measures this has been a good trade for the country!

If your measure is LIFO accounting, sure.

When I look at the SPR levels at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W... it doesn't show an increase of 77M barrels. From March 2020 to the end of President Trump's term is shows an increase of about 3m barrels.

Where can we find the information of the 77M?

That's probably because previous Congressional acts mandated regular sales from the SPR as evidenced here https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35032

Not to mention the 10M barrels we sold just to pay for the upkeep (it's like selling gas from my car to pay for new brakes - we shouldn't be bartering oil for maintenance expenses).

But a trade is a trade - had they not bought the 77M the SPR would have dropped by 74M rather than the increase of 3M.

50 million? Given the USA's consumption, that doesn't feel like much.

That aside, what's worrisome is that just days ago there was a climate agreement. Again. But - once again - the economy comes first. When is this cycle going to stop?

This administration has already stated that they aren't going to do much to lower gas prices, that this is just a growing period to encourage investment in green energy. Besides, Americans have been saving too much these past couple of years, what's a little bump in gas prices? All those people living at the poverty line should be just fine. The economy will recover.

In all seriousness, I grew up in a household where the car was always on E, rising gas prices were sometimes the difference between eating or not eating. All goods will be more expensive, and this will have the biggest impact on the poor. Squeezing the lower and middle class now does not seem like the answer.

> All goods will be more expensive

This is something that is often overlooked. A lot of HN commenters like to be smug about how they don't use any gas, and all we need is a few more bike lanes. As if every single thing they have ever bought isn't trucked in to local stores.

An increase in energy prices affects _everything_. Sharp increases in oil prices is a pretty reliable leading indicator of a recession[1].

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/spiking-oil-prices-have-led-...

I'd be careful to derive causality from overlaying charts with stuff. Especially, if the source is CNBC and the sample size (on their chart) is 3.

Is the federal reserve a good enough source for you[1]? Oil price shocks causing recessions is widely accepted by economists.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2014/1114/ifdp1114....

"A good case can therefore be made that rather than studying the response to an average oil price shock, one ought to consider the response of U.S. real GDP to each type of oil demand and oil supply shock. This would require a different class of econometric models that explicitly incorporates quarterly U.S. real GDP growth into a structural model of the global oil market. Such an extended model, building on the work of Kilian and Murphy (2014) and Kilian, would help in understanding the role of the deeper determinants of the real price of oil in explaining recessions, while avoiding the generated regressor problem and loss of degrees of freedom associated with alternative econometric approaches. Developing such a framework is nontrivial, however, because many of the identifying assumptions currently in use in structural oil market models are specific to monthly data, and hence is left for future research."

TL;DR: It's complicated.

And I wouldn't call 80$ oil a "shock", especially in relation to current asset and commodity prices. Look at prices from 2011 to 2014 - was 100$ oil shocking then?

> TL;DR: It's complicated.

Economic modeling is complicated. The core fact that oil price shocks cause recessions is not. Your response is the reminiscent of a climate change denier saying "See! These two scientists disagree about how to model climate change, therefore it must not be real".

> And I wouldn't call 80$ oil a "shock", especially in relation to current asset and commodity prices. Look at prices from 2011 to 2014 - was 100$ oil shocking then?

Its not shocking as in "I'm shocked this is the price of oil". Its a price shock as in the price of a commodity rapidly changing. The absolute price doesn't matter as much as the percent change. There's no hard and fast rule about what constitutes a shock, but the price of crude oil has doubled since last November.

> therefore it must not be real

I've never claimed the opposite. There is space between black and white. Granger causality in economics differs from the classical principle of causality typically used in natural sciences like climatology. My comment was "I'd be careful to derive causality from overlaying charts with stuff."

> In all seriousness, I grew up in a household where the car was always on E, rising gas prices were sometimes the difference between eating or not eating.

The solution for that is not to artificially subsidize gas consumption (which has its host of side effects on a geopolitical scale, from CO2 targets to dependencies on dictatorships), but to raise minimum wages and tax the rich to fund social security systems worth their name and actually usable public transport.

>>>tax the rich to fund social security systems worth their name and actually usable public transport

If you not only taxed the rich but confiscated the entire net worth of the top 1%....it wouldn't even fund the Federal government for 10 years ($41.5T vs ~$4.5T).[1][2] That's barely two Presidential terms. What next?

[1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/how-much-wealth-top-1percent...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Over the last fifty years, we see a steady decline in corporate taxes (from somewhat 48% in 1970 to 21% currently [1]), as well as an explosion of extreme wealth concentration - and complaints from actual billionaires that they're paying a lower tax rate than their secretary [2]. Correspondingly, we see a drop in investments in infrastructure [3].

How about you Americans go and reverse that trend? That won't need confiscation of the 1%'s wealth, but will massively improve the quality of life of the average American.

Regarding social security systems, follow the European model - single payer healthcare, no for-profit middlemen in administration gobbling up money for "bullshit jobs" - and you won't even need to spend any more tax money. To the contrary, European healthcare systems spend half the amount per capita than the US [4], with worse outcomes (as measured in years of life expectancy, [5]).

[1]: https://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-an...

[2]: https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secret...

[3]: https://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/rayfair/pdf/2019d.PDF

[4]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...

Lest us forget Reagan-nomics, slash our taxes, and then instead, increase military spending - whilst stealing money... sorry, allocating money from social security for spending on say... military needs.

> Squeezing the lower and middle class now does not seem like the answer.

I agree. But we can't keep having the same approach and expecting change. It's been ~50 yrs since the oil crisis (read: wake up call) of the 70's. Yet here we are again...don't hurt the little guy\gal...don't hurt the Big Guys / Gals either. Well, Mother Nature is ok to hurt. She doesn't push back. Not :(

Not only is it not that much (for reference, world oil consumption is ~100 million b/d[0]), after releasing the oil it is gone and with it the threat of being able to release it in the future. I guess, the most sustainable solution to high oil prices in the short term is to implement a deal with Iran. Iran's capacity is estimated to be 3.8 million b/d[1]. An unknown factor though, is how much of that is being bought up by China already.

The lacking investment to replace rotting infrastructure is already showing in some OPEC member states[2]. Unless we put more effort into reducing demand the problem will only grow worse in the future. And in my view, current efforts to reduce reliance on oil are far from sufficient.

[0] - https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

[1] - https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/countries...

[2] - https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2275580-opec-compliance-u...

The US can always elect to subsidize fracking and oil sand mining, should it feel a need for mid-term capacity expansion. And in any case, everyone and their dog is looking to reduce their dependence on oil as far as possible as investors demand action on climate change.

Not to pick on you specifically, but the “economy vs climate” dichotomy is nonsense. The climate crisis is an economic crisis. The real dichotomy is near-term economic issues vs long term economic issues. Do we stop incurring credit card debt now or do we go bankrupt in the future?

Your dichotomy is incorrect as well.

We can't "pay off the debt" in the short term without significant and long lasting instability. So the better analogy might be "do we go bankrupt now" or "do we go bankrupt later," and given everything else that's going on in the world today, "later" is definitely preferable.

Cutting our emissions now will be painful (precisely because we waited so long to do anything). Not cutting our emissions in time will be ruinous. These two outcomes are not in the same ballpark, hence the dichotomy. Moreover, if we collectively choose to do so, we can put the bulk of the burden on the very rich so that the economy—which is driven by middle class spending—remains strong.

Setting aside the massive issues with the whole "just make the rich pay for it" shtick, climate change is not ruinous. Humans are incredibly adaptable. We can survive just fine in even the worst predicted climate change scenario. We also have plenty of tools for drastic geoengineering if needed.

Climate change is not a threat to human livelihood in itself. Humans are a threat to humans. Instability makes humans do crazy shit to each other, orders of magnitude worse than the ongoing slow motion trainwreck of climate change.

> Setting aside the massive issues with the whole "just make the rich pay for it" shtick, climate change is not ruinous. Humans are incredibly adaptable. We can survive just fine in even the worst predicted climate change scenario.

Some of us are aiming a bit higher than the mere survival of humanity as a species. Allowing some significant regression in civilization merely to avoid some short term discomfort is foolishness.

> We also have plenty of tools for drastic geoengineering if needed.

Completely untested. Hoping for a technical miracle is nice, but I prefer a concrete plan.

> Instability makes humans do crazy shit to each other, orders of magnitude worse than the ongoing slow motion trainwreck of climate change.

What do you think happens when our access to food, water, and various raw materials becomes inconsistent or goes away in certain places?

If you want our civilization to thrive, you don't want to force it to go through any radical changes too fast.

Climate change is gradual. It won't cause famines and droughts overnight. The places that will become unlivable are already struggling, which is already forcing migration, government action, etc.

You're basically suggesting that we tear off the band-aid and immediately transition to the state we will be in in 50-100 years. Doesn't seem like a great idea.

Because the climate agreement is theatrics. The elite still buy waterfront property, doesn’t seem like they’re that scared.

Well, to be fair, some sub-corporation buys it. It's insured which is often gov subsidizing at this point. In other words, like all good entrepreneurs, they understand the risk and mitigate it.

> "Would that I had the magic wand on this," Granholm [U.S. Energy Secretary] told Bloomberg TV, laughing in a response to a question on what her plan was to raise U.S. oil output. "That is hilarious,".

So... magic is real.

Context is limited, but selling oil out of a reserve isn't increasing U.S. oil output.

It would depend on the context. I think you could reasonably say you can't wave a wand to change domestic oil production and also say you can use the strategic reserve, which I don't think has much of anything to do with production. Those don't seem to obviously contradict each other.

>> The coordinated release between the U.S., India, China, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom is the first such move of its kind.

And yet OPEC is a cartel and would be illegal in the US ;-) This move would probably get brought before the WTO but all the countries involved are big players there... It the world economy on the brink?

I wouldn't be so sure it would be illegal:

>The production controls of the IOGCC and the Texas Railroad Commission have been cited as precursors to the establishment of OPEC's caps on member state oil production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Oil_and_Gas_Compact...

Interesting, I hadn't heard about that. The difference seems to be weather it's a bunch of companies or a bunch of governments (even state ones).

Some history about the strategic reserve:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/04/19/c...

and the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(U...

cop26 has barely ended as everyone happily forgot all the climate pledges.

Because it ignored the obvious solution, nuclear.

Nuclear oil? Make it so!

You can literally use nuclear plants to manufacture hydrocarbons through the Fischer–Tropsch process.

The cheapest grid for the last two decades has been renewables for when the weather is optimal and fossil fuels when it is not. It is significant cheaper compared to renewables + storage or nuclear. A climate conferences doesn't really effects the conclusion unless governments start to add enough costs on the fossil fuel side so that one of the other solutions becomes economical viable, and clearly most countries are not willing to do that yet.

Pledges doesn't mean anything.

Half Measure at best.

If the US Federal Government wants to influence and bring down oil prices they need to stop with the moronic ban on new Pipelines, and new Oil Leases.

yes we need to "do something" about climate change, but that something is not ignoring the fact we need oil today, and we need price stability today

People need to work, eat, and heat their homes today, and they need to do that with affordable energy when today means oil

I wish the left could be more pragmatic. It reminds me of how CA pols are ditching our current criminal justice approach of mass incarceration. Sure, get rid of it, but until you have something to replace it that actually works, you need to keep the old system in place.

Meanwhile for Europe : U.S. imposes further sanctions over Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/11/23/Biden-sanctions-N...

Nord Stream 2 is done since a few weeks. Paper work needs to be done but it is naive to believe that it won't be used. That said, neither party is in a rush to start the pipeline, it will become more relevant in the future.

The US wants to sell its liquid gas. While I would prefer the US as a partner compared to Russia, this is just stupid banter and I think fracking should be minimized as a method for gas extraction (Russia and Germany do the same, although in a smaller dimension).

Can you please elaborate more regarding "I would prefer the US as a partner compared to Russia"? Shipping liquified gas with tankers from a place several thousand kilometers away seems like less eco-friendly alternative, to say at least.

When that partner is waging a hybrid warfare campaign against the EU, it makes sense to buy from somewhere else.

Don't you think this is a bit of a one sided view on the relationship?

It's realistic. Russia needs to sell natural gas to finance state activities, Europe needs natural gas to not freeze in the winter.

Russia can only play with natural gas diplomacy to Europe to a limited extent, because Europe is their main market and they don't move much into China (the PRC gets gas for cheaper out of the Stans, so not a great market for Russia). That's why Russia uses it pretty selectively against countries that are weaker (Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics). EU could counteract this by forcing a union-wide buying cartel, rather than letting countries negotiate working with Russia individually.

EU countries have been trying to get alternate routes up and running, but Russia has been pre-empting this with some maneuvering (any plausible route would go through Turkey, Syria, or Iraq)

I don't know about Poland and the Baltics, but wasn't it the Ukraine who wasn't paying bills / siphoning off gas?

What do you expect a supplier to do?

> waging a hybrid warfare campaign against the EU

tell me more, please

Russia is clearly willing to fuck with energy supplies for strategic reasons, like preventing a vigorous response to the invasion of Crimea, or future sanctions against Belarus, or whatever else. Building dependence on Russia is obviously a bad idea given their current leadership.

https://www.wired.com/story/russian-hackers-attack-ukraine/a...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_d...

Of course EU should be seeking energy independence, as US is also an unreliable partner (see Trump).

From that Wikipedia article I take that Ukraine was not paying the bills and such. What do you expect a supplier to do?

Are you expecting landlord to kick out tenant when they are late in payment? Are you also expecting landlord to interfere with the domestic affair of the tenant and threaten to kick the tenant out when things don’t go their way?

> On 8 June 2010, a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres (430 billion cubic feet) of gas to RosUkrEnergo

So they stole billions of cubic metres, and let the conflict escalate to a lawsuit. That is not paying late, that is theft.

And landlords do kick you out when you are sufficient late in paying the rent. What would you suggest otherwise? Enter a relationship therapy with them?

This is a very selective take from all those Russia-Ukraine relationships.

It's clear now that Russia just wants to destroy Ukrainian independence and its culture. And it's using any possible leverage to achieve this.

Ah, thanks for your perspective which sounds totally objective.

You just posted a link where there is a clear statement about Ukes not paying money for gas.

"Russia claimed Ukraine was not paying for gas, but diverting that which was intended to be exported to the EU from the pipelines. Ukrainian officials at first denied the accusation, but later Naftogaz admitted that because of harsh winter (lower than minus 30C) some natural gas intended for other European countries was retained and used for domestic needs."

If you want to pay for it - go ahead

Oh, it is less eco-friendly. Just in the current political situation the US is a lot closer to Germany than Russia.

I think the current conflict between Russia and the US is pretty stupid and a remnant of the cold war that has been rekindled for some reason. 15 years ago Germany had a vastly better relation to Russia and the situation was far more stable and peaceful. Return of aggression were almost unthinkable. All this has been destroyed by diplomacy of the last decade. I don't really care if it was Putin that needed to deflect from domestic issues or NATO that dabbled to deeply in Ukraine that ultimately lead us in this situation. Fact is that the situation vastly deteriorated.

But all that should be disregarded for energy policy. To get off coal, gas is the vastly superior energy source. Still a fossil fuel, but far less dangerous. Nuclear power cannot be brought up fast enough and there are political problems too.

Just a couple more comments/questions:

"US is a lot closer to Germany than Russia" - do you think that's natural, or more due to US lobby organisations such as Atlantik-Brücke ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantik-Br%C3%BCcke ) and other agents of influence?

"NATO that dabbled" - it feels like it would be more appropriate to say "US that dabbed". It was Victoria Nuland who was handing out cookies to "protesters" (and a lot of other shenanigans involving Hunter Biden, Westinghouse, selling junk vessels which point to that).

The EU was in to it : Guy Verhofstadt speaking to protesters in Maidan Square, Kiev

https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2014/video/guy...

Van Baalen ( NL ) was there too, both were EU parliament members at the time IIRC.

I think a trivial fact is that there are fewer language barriers. Doesn't guarantee a good relationship of course, but it leads to far more cultural exchange. Doesn't mean that you cannot have a good relation to Russia too. On the contrary, I think that could help right now.

I do think the Atlantik-Brücke is a vehicle to keep people talking to each other, but I believe the general reputation of the US in the population is relevant too. You hear much criticism of the US, but that is in my opinion because of the US position of hegemony.

Maybe the "US that dabbled" is more precise but there is a longer history in that region especially relating to nuclear disarmament. Even more precise would be the Bush administration I guess.

lol i thought we were trying to stop pipelines and reduce carbon emissions?

Seems like an economically smart move, prices are above the average of the last few years right?

cancel keystone pipeline, hamstring oil and gas companies, then blame these same companies for high prices. thanks for the incoming red wave in 2022!

Keystone would have raised oil and gas prices to US consumers.

Without Keystone much of the oil that Keystone would have carried currently goes to refineries in the US midwest, where it is used to supply US needs particularly in the the midwest.

With Keystone that oil would be going to Gulf Coast refineries where it would largely be refined for export.

Umm No.

The Keystone XL pipeline is already part of an existing transnational network, segmented into phases that cross Canada and the United States. The focus of the Keystone debate was the proposed fourth phase, which would transport heavy oil sands crude from Hardisty in Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska via Montana with a capacity of 830,000 barrels per day (bpd). Some estimates suggest that this would have reduced American dependence on Venezuelan and Middle Eastern heavy crude imports by 40%.

What do pro-oil-company people think about the climate? About the impact that continuing to pump record amounts of oil and methane from the ground does to the planet? About the lack of incentives to migrate from inefficient fuel consumption and towards green energy?

Don't spend money on nuclear, don't spend money on renewable, don't disincentivize oil consumption, fuck the planet because I won't be here in 50 years.

Listen, I know we can't snap back to 1800 technology, and that people need to get to work and keep the heat on. But it's one thing to complain, another to try to be part of the solution. So what do we do?

IMHO, the point is that oil needs to fixed demand-side (by switching to EV and other tech to reduce demand, carbon tax) and not supply-side (by limiting drilling in the US).

Trying to limit supply won't work since we can't get Russia and Saudi and Iran to reduce their exports. They'll manipulate prices for their benefit and when they feel like it, they'll supply the demand. Having the oil come from other state and not the US won't change greenhouse emissions much, and what good the supply-side approach could do - for example, by giving an economic push to green energy - is done anyway by the infrastructure bill and BBB (if it passes).

So the main result of going after domestic drilling is helping to fund klepto-oil-states which don't like the US all that much, and giving Republicans a stick to beat President Biden with, but not much help climate-wise.

So they banned new pipelines and oil leases. Now they want to offload reserves.

It seems like a sabotage rather than a thoughtful policy.

Who will benefit from this?

They have not banned pipelines or oil leases. Just last week was one of the largest oil lease sales. Line 3 construction continued into the Biden administration.

How do you explain the keystone xl pipeline shutdown earlier this year?

Halting construction of a single pipeline is not a “ban on all new pipelines”

A single pipeline under construction is sufficient to demonstrate that there is not a blanket ban.

A single pipeline under construction being shutdown is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a blanket ban.

The admin did try to ban new leases, until a Federal judge temporarily haled the ban:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/climate/biden-drilling-fe...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/federal-judge...

Hope there’s open refinery space somewhere to use this extra oil otherwise it’s noise. Thought the us was importing gasoline …

No need for hoping, we have data:

- Refinery Utilization and Capacity: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_dcu_nus_m.htm

- Weekly Imports & Exports: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_a_EPP0_IM0_mbblpd...

Nothing against you in particular, but sometimes I wish people would just spend the 5 secs. to look up stuff instead of guessing...

I love how resourceful you people are, every time I check out a HN thread I learn about more databases and references.

Some of us are young and untrained in how these markets work. I think the original commenter wanted to contribute a counter-example because they're learning about this market.

What would you suggest for learning more about the energy industry? Best references and anything to avoid?

Not oil-specific, but there are two podcasts I've been listening to that are really great. The Energy Transition Show and The Energy Gang. The former being a bit dry but very informative, the latter being more entertaining and maybe just as informative.

Just dig around on the web. There is lots and lots of material, EIA and API are good sources for factual information and data. Just keep in mind that there are opinions and biases when it comes to energy/policies.

To me it's always astonishing how gigantic this entire industry and the associated infrastructure is and how little average Joe knows and cares about it when he fills his car at the pump. The picture in this article captures it for me: https://www.portofgothenburg.com/news-room/press-releases/hi...

After sports and politics, oil and energy are probably among the most data-rich areas of human activity.

There's a global trade, it's critically important, the commodity, its trade, and data are quite fluid.

The US EIA, EU's IEA, and various private data providers (BP's Annual Statistical Review being among the more notable) are all excellent sources. And of course the financial markets for current trading prices.

For a wider viewpoint, there are numerous books and references.

For a general history (through the early 1990s), Daniel Yergin's The Prize is simply staggering. He's very much an industry partisan and cheerleader, but the story he tells is worth hearing for anyone, and to me read as strongly cautionary. It's quite well researched and you'll find a wealth of other earlier references within it.

For a more current general reading, Vaclav Smil cranks out a book or two a year, and has covered energy, energy transitions, and oil repeatedly since the early 1990 through the current year. Again, he does excellent research and will have numerous references worth exploring.

The IPCC have extensive information on oil, coal, and gas activity, past and future, as well as explorations of alternative energy. There are a few reports which specifically look at the energy mix and considerations. These are voluminous, and the consortium's website is a bit of a disaster to navigate, but the information is absolutely first-rate. I can check later to find the specific reference I have in mind, ping back if you'd like a pointer.

On the energy conservation / transition / renewables side, mileage varies. I'm a firm believer that we'll have to go that direction, but also caution that there's a lot of woo, bogosity, and outright scams around. The US national energy research labs, particularly the National Renewabale Energy Lab (NREL) in Colorado, do excellent (if occasionally politically-motivated) work.

Rocky Mountain Institute has looked into alternative and low-carbon energy since the early 1980s, under Amory and Hunter Lovins.

The Post-Carbon Institute is a less-technical, more political group based in Norther California, which publishes materials on peak oil and post-carbon issues. It and 350.org, founded by Bill McKibben, are among the better decarbonisation groups I'm aware of. (There are many such, quality ... varies.)

The Worldwatch Institute seem to have gone inactive but published a series of books on the State of the World, covering numerous issues. Many are available at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/search.php?query=worldwatch+institute+st... Definitely opinionated, cover much more than oil, but high-quality information.

On who to look out for --- I'd take anything coming from the Libertarian/Free Market think tank network know as the Atlas Network with massive heapings of salt. That includes the Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, and many hundreds of other organisations around the world. Fortunately there's a handy list: https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partners

If you'd like to know why, I recommend Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway's Merchants of Doubt, which discusses the half-century-plus campaign of propaganda and disinformation these groups have carried out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

(As with much propaganda, there's often a kernel of truth, and frequently much more. The problem is that this is wrapped in a large helping of distraction and rhetoric whose principle aim is to persuade rather than inform.)

IPCC reports are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (2011) covers alternatives to fossil fuels:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-clim...

AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

This also addresses the question of alternatives and mitigations in part. An updated report is due next year.

This is great. The drop in capacity from March through August of this year is a bit concerning, but certainly not at historical lows (although I wonder if a tough labor market is precluding some of that capacity from coming online).

Another issue to consider is that gasoline isn't a generic commodity across the United States. California always has the headliner numbers for the most expensive gas, namely because they require their own formulation which only local refineries produce (last I recall, maybe some out of state refineries produce it as well).

California is the most egregious example, however there are other states with boutique gasoline requirements -- see https://www.api.org/-/media/Files/Policy/Fuels-and-Renewable.... It adds another wrinkle to "increase oil > use excess refining capacity" narrative.

Oil-based products all have prices intertwined. Eg if we produce more diesel, that price drops, refineries switch to other products (gasoline, kerosene, etc) and those prices drop too.

Doesn't the oil reserve consist of lots of refined products too?

Nope, not really. Here is their inventory: https://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

At one point I started worrying about oil, after watching some documentary about it, and my friend made two really good points in about 2014.

1). Peak oil will never happen, and in fact OPEC is scared of high oil prices, because it will automatically create an insane demand into research into synthesizing oil at an industrial scale instead of just being university research postings.

2). America has the best oil refineries of any other country; we might be dependent on oil but other nations are dependent on our export of gasoline.

I have no clue if those statements are accurate, but his claims made sense to me.

Regarding 1): There already are such projects, notably used by Nazi-Germany during WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction Coal prices are currently at insane levels compared to crude oil, however.

Regarding 2): US has been a net importer of distillates since 2012.

2.) You mean net exporter?

https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/documents/foreso... https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49596

Oh, yep, sorry. Held the chart upside down and looked at the sum of crude+products. Thanks for the correction.

1) What I heard is that we will never "run out" of oil because there will always be oil that is more expensive to extract than the current market price. Thus, the price can always increase if there is sufficient demand and then that oil is profitable to extract.

I wonder what strategic reserves will be released once we've converted to EVs.

If Trump had done this, I would have rolled my eyes. I will remain consistent. Feels like pure politics.

It's a pragmatic response. Trump did some sensible things but he balanced them with stupid things as well. Maybe Biden will only do the sensible things this time.

If only we had a strategic reserve of bike lanes and sidewalks to release instead.

If we didn’t do things like this [1] we really wouldn’t have these sorts of problems to this extent.

[1] https://twitter.com/urbanthoughts11/status/14628371343610470...

Bike lanes and sidewalks don't fix the commute to work being 30 minutes one way by car.

US society (especially around cities, where most Americans live) is car-sized-vehicle-centric.

The flat under mine is used as an office, and the ground floor has a cafe-delicatessen and also a Domino’s; this type of mixed use seems reasonably common here in Berlin. How much difference would it make if American cities just started to allow residential buildings to be used this way?

more American towns — and cities

Are you saying doing this would create more towns and cities, or that some towns and cities are already doing this?

A lot of office space and future development in general is probably going to shift to mixed use in the future(adding the residential to the commercial specifically, a lot of offices already have the cafe/restaurants). It’s highly appealing but from what I have seen it is also very expensive for the consumer.

There are two forces at work here, is my understanding. One has changed as the center of the economy in the US has changed and one will not without some kind of massive incentives.

The first is heavy industry. Mixed-use made no sense when America was an industrial backbone because nobody thinks it's wise to put everyone's houses right next to the steel furnaces (1). But as US labor shifts from manufacturing to service sector, I anticipate we'll see more mixed-use. We already see quite a bit of it in city commercial districts.

The second is suburbia. It doesn't matter how many apartment-bistros we rezone if "the good life" in America still looks like owning (or renting, nowadays) a 2-bedroom 2-story outside town with a lawn and a fence only to get on the freeway twice a day, 5-6 days a week to swear at traffic to get to and from work. But incentives will have to be massively restructured to alter that behavior because America is blessed with land (and its citizens blessed / cursed with a fascinatingly unlimited tolerance for travel time... I once had a coworker who did a 90-minute one-way drive from the next state over 5 days a week. Better jobs than her hometown, but she didn't want to leave home). It's generally still cheaper to buy (or rent from someone who bought) a home on nuked-and-paved farmland than deal with a landlord in a more concentrated urban center, where higher population density lets them charge more (and you never even have a prayer of owning that tenement building... 1950s suburbia is increasingly unattainable for most Americans, but it's a lie we still believe).

(1) I'm distorting history a bit... In what is now the Rust Belt, homes within walking distance of the factories were common in the industrial-center cities. But so was lung cancer, and personal transportation hadn't yet exploded into ubiquity like it has now.

> Bike lanes and sidewalks don't fix the commute to work being 30 minutes one way by car.

> US society (especially around cities, where most Americans live) is car-sized-vehicle-centric.

Does suburban development, artificially cheap oil, and more highways and federal funding for them fix it?

That problem could be solved with a land value tax. Of course, it won't happen because everyone wants to extract economic rents including me. I mean think about it. You're earning money without incurring costs related to that income. You'd have to be stupid or have a lot of integrity to not want such a thing.

If only we had wings and could fly we really wouldn’t have these sorts of problems to this extent…

America is a country of 330+ million people, with an economy built on the foundation of oil. Not to mention the fact that selling a commodity vs building out infrastructure aren’t even in the same sphere of activity.

Say that again when you have three kids all going to different schools/daycares, and then need to get to work.

How do people in Europe do it?

I believe e.g. in the Netherlands, the parents would walk or bike with their kids up to around 8-12, and then the kids would walk or bike on their own. Seems like schools are typically pretty close to home as well though; I found a paper indicating that 90% of students are within 1 km of school there and 97% within 2 km: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33297559/

We drive our SUVs until the local government complains about parents dropping off and picking up children ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com