• bricks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    I mean, he sucks, but I also don’t disagree that having a bridge solution during OPEC fuckaround times is a good idea. Supply cuts aren’t fun, period, especially when we can’t influence them whatsoever (since it seems dollar hegemony is going bye-bye at some point):

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2023/04/02/a-spate-of-recent-deals-raises-chatter-of-a-fading-petrodollar/?sh=216df4c65964

    There’s probably a decent solution to temporarily boost and maintain domestic oil production while also feeding green R&D, whether that’s in the form of a tax, credit, government package, or full-blown turn-Shell-into-an-SOE; all of its years vs. months, I think. Bottom line, I think it’s a more complex solution than “fuck this guy”.

      • bricks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        This is actually a proven idea in net new real estate development involving wetlands and protected acreage; you can build on wetlands, but for every acre you displace, you have to create two acres, and both the plan and results are audited.

        To your point, the end result of this - in many cases - is to simply build elsewhere due to the considerably higher costs. I think a model similar in energy would pay dividends rather quickly - most likely, we’d see Shell, EM, CP, etc. rapidly transition to renewables from an imposed cost perspective.

        You bring up lobbying - definitely the major hurdle. Fortunately, if you go read these guys 10k’s, I think the shift is inevitable, they’re just artificially pumping the brakes to adhere to some kind of amortisation timeline of investments they’ve already made… which unfortunately, is super frustrating.