Submitted by capcaunul t3_12704gj in Futurology
Comments
kindle139 t1_jedeaxk wrote
They would claim to own all the air and charge you for breathing if they could get away with it.
Farty_Nonsense t1_jee75rd wrote
Nestle is working on that I bet!
AbstractMirror t1_jedoook wrote
Hey I've seen this before. We just need to call the lorax
BigMemeKing t1_jeeof2b wrote
There are several movies about this very thing, several songs as well. It's an old concept as we continue to rip and cut our way through every tree we can to build housing materials, furniture, entertainment sources like skate boards, snow boards, surf boards and so that giant corporations can profit.
It has been and won't stop happening until we're left with very little natural habitats. We've long been cutting through our rainforests, and selling rights to national parks to certain companies so they can clear space for their machines.
But one hiker scribbles on some rocks with paint and the whole world loses its mind. Crazy right? Then we start to feel such disgust because "those are our national parks!" "We need to preserve them!" "We can't be slapping graffiti on the rocks there! Conserve their natural beauty!" While 100 ft to the left is a cleared out patch of earth with an oil pump just sipping on that crude, lining some oil barons pockets.
It's silly. Life is silly. Our priorities are silly. We have pipelines running for thousands of miles, causing oil spills at a disastrous level, and the courts just have these companies pay some millions of dollars and it's "ok". And we look and see a price tag of 30 million and think "Oh wow! That's a lot of money, so it's fair right? But to a multi billion dollar oil company that makes 500 million every year... 30 million is a small price to pay for progress right? Especially when it's just a one time payment for a disaster that has impacts for years to come.
Call it an oopsie tax.
No-Carry-7886 t1_jee8ofd wrote
They do in China and India, they sell canned oxygen.
kindle139 t1_jef4e5d wrote
Yeah man, humanity can really be quite.. human. Our capacity for greatness is matched only by our capacity for folly.
Zorothegallade t1_jedu8o5 wrote
Naaah, I say let it die
CptHammer_ t1_jee3biz wrote
Carbon credits. They're doing it already.
RuinLoes t1_jeed1t4 wrote
Thats not what carbon credits are. Are you serious?
CptHammer_ t1_jef1qxc wrote
Carbon credits have nothing to do with charging companies who pass the cost on to consumers for carbon going into the air... Got it, thanks.
RuinLoes t1_jefkzqp wrote
Even your weird conservative fantasy, taken as absolute truth, would mot make sense in this context.
CptHammer_ t1_jefrqgx wrote
>A carbon credit is a tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit a set amount of carbon dioxide or the equivalent amount of a different greenhouse gas.
Please edit the Wikipedia page to reflect that it has nothing to do with air and isn't a form of added value. It's clearly wrong because you know so much.
RuinLoes t1_jegia23 wrote
That wasn't me.
I wasn't the one who said carbon credits were a tax in air.
That was you.
Are you ok?
Like, you have to know that you look liek an absolute moron right now, ya?
CptHammer_ t1_jeh1273 wrote
>I wasn't the one who said carbon credits were a tax in air.
I also did not say this. Are you ok?
I'm pretty sure you're now pointing your insults at yourself.
I implied companies are selling air in the form of carbon credits. Wikipedia agrees with me, but I'll concede it's a source that should be edited by you if you don't agree with us. I'm not an expert as you're implying you are. I've deferred to your expertise twice and you had this to say:
>you look liek an absolute moron right now, ya?
People that concede to your expertise are morons? I withdraw my concession at your insistence. Now we're back to square one, companies have started to sell air you breath.
RuinLoes t1_jeh1dol wrote
Ph wow, that is both not what you said and even dumber.
Carbon credits are a way to subsidize maximum quotas.
You have it dead ass backwards. They have to buy carbon credits, and there is a hard cap on the industry overall.
You really are not bright, are you.
CptHammer_ t1_jeh4dvs wrote
>They have to buy carbon credits,
You don't think they pass that cost onto the consumer?
>and there is a hard cap on the industry overall.
Yes, making a carbon credit a valuable commodity. When one company makes a business decision that happens to align with reduced carbon output they earn a credit which they are allowed to sell. They are selling air pollution indulgences like the catholic church. There are literally companies created to mine carbon credits.
Another company buys the credit so the net pollution savings is zero if a credit didn't have to go through an exchange which can limit the exchange rate. It's still really close to zero because of the added industry of the exchange bureaucracy, if not actually creating more pollution.
In the end they are trading air rights, specifically the right to pollute it. Then if a government buys the credit they tax to pay for it. If a business buys a credit they add it to their overhead costs which 100% gets passed to the customer.
Since the entire carbon credits scheme is neutral at best the result is they are selling air.
It seems like we're 100% back on the same page since you've acknowledged carbon credits must be purchased. I've only explained how business works.
RuinLoes t1_jeh54su wrote
Holy shit.
Like, i can't give you anymore. You just fundamentally don't understand what "maxium" means.
Credits are a negative sum. If a company has creddits to sell, it means they came in under THE MAXIMUM QUOTA.
They are not selling the ability to pollute more, they are selling the balance left of their regulatory limit.
I cannot help you. You are just so fucking dumb.
LegendOfDarius t1_jee80v0 wrote
Carbon credits are a stupid ass system.
doctorcrimson t1_jedtry4 wrote
Theres one thing standing in their way and thats a democratic public entity and system of laws upheld by legislators and courts.
People say both sides bad but only one side keeps attempting to sell off native land and public forests.
sharksnut t1_jedvwjd wrote
>only one side keeps attempting to sell off native land and public forests.
In this case, Biden. This is a unilateral Department of the Interior move, not Congress
doctorcrimson t1_jeerhmv wrote
That's fair, Haaland is a Biden appointed Secretary of Interior.
RuinLoes t1_jeeczet wrote
You are right, this but its also not native land or public forests.
CntrllrDscnnctd t1_jeejdsf wrote
People are so naive. We haven’t even scratched the surface on what will be bought on this planet, we are, for all intents and purposes, still one of the early citizens of this planet, life will exist in 50-100-500 years, infrastructure will be put everywhere it can be. The question is, will be personally see it? No, we will be long gone, but it’s naive to think that we’ve peaked at what and where we will buy and purchase in the near and distant future.
TheLit420 t1_jeec1ft wrote
They also build you your housing.
RuinLoes t1_jeecw02 wrote
What a strange and nonsensical counterpoint.
TheLit420 t1_jeedj40 wrote
It didn't come off as nonsensical in the OP's statement considering they were saying that the wealthy would only build their houses on large amounts of land.
RuinLoes t1_jeee0cq wrote
Uh, ya it is, its a complete and total non sequitur.
Watch:
"The hell, gary just stole my wallet!"
"But didn't gary make the wallet?"
If you don't see the problem with that second statement, i have some bad news for you.
BigMemeKing t1_jeeis1z wrote
The wealthy would, only build there houses on large amounts of land. They want the space, the privacy, not just from prying eyes but from prying ears. They want their "personal space" as it were, and that's their own form of a 6 foot covid barrier.
viavant t1_jecymlw wrote
Article said proposed area will produce approximately 1 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. That may seem like a lot of oil but that number could only supply all of humanity’s current demand for about 10 days. Tainting a large portion of America’s gulf waters for an entire generation just to supply 10 days worth of oil…
7adzius t1_jeei59t wrote
Crazy cause oil might not even matter in 50 years lol
Barbarossa_25 t1_jeel512 wrote
Gasoline perhaps but we need hydrocarbons for so many products most don't realize.
7adzius t1_jeennqr wrote
Not gonna be a demand for any products if the planet is on fire
Barbarossa_25 t1_jeewe5p wrote
Ok but the point is even when we stop burning fossil fuels, we will still need to drill for oil for the thousands of day to day products we use today. Drilling for oil and burning it are two separate processes with different downstream impacts.
joeyjojojoseph t1_jeg72lb wrote
The gulf has been tainted since the BP spill and the destruction and erosion of the gulf will never end.
Mithra10 t1_jeeckyq wrote
We need to reduce global reliance on Russian oil, and have supply available to reduce the impact of price shock events during war time. The USA also needs to replenish its strategic oil reserves.
You can drill for oil and still move towards a greener tomorrow.
iamprosciutto t1_jeeeljm wrote
No, you can't lol. That's like saying it is okay to litter if there's no trash can because you would prefer proper disposal
Comfortable_Shop9680 t1_jeegrsp wrote
No they are indirect opposition and lived experience proves otherwise.
SrpskaZemlja t1_jeemnly wrote
You're absolutely right and it's a shame people don't get that real world situations are nuanced and immediate needs matter.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jebz750 wrote
>Pursuant to the Property Clause of the United States Constitution (Article 4, section 3, clause 2), Congress has the power to retain, buy, sell, and regulate federal lands, such as by limiting cattle grazing on them. These powers have been recognized in a long line of United States Supreme Court decisions.
Tl;Dr: OP blaming sleepy Joe over Republican Congress and Supreme Court decisions.
Edit: If you all took the time to do a single Google search you'd see that the Bureau of Land Management is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior, and as such, it is accountable to Congress through the Secretary of the Interior.
Edit^2: The BLM is required to provide regular reports to Congress on its activities, budget, and performance, as well as to respond to requests for information or testimony from congressional committees. Congress also has the power to authorize and appropriate funds for the BLM's operations and programs, and to conduct oversight and investigations of the agency's activities.
Celtictussle t1_jed0w3c wrote
What? Secretary of the interior is on the cabinet, they report directly to the president......talk about confidently incorrect.....
Jackal427 t1_jed2q0f wrote
Yup, this guy has some serious selective Googling skills. It takes a special kind of stupid to confidently claim something a 10 second search proves false.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jed6la3 wrote
The BLM is required to provide regular reports to Congress on its activities, budget, and performance, as well as to respond to requests for information or testimony from congressional committees. Congress also has the power to authorize and appropriate funds for the BLM's operations and programs, and to conduct oversight and investigations of the agency's activities.
Talk about confidently ignorant.
Celtictussle t1_jed7hgp wrote
Nothing you said contradicts anything I said.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jed7kuv wrote
You know what. Fair play.
They also report to Congress, who controls their budget. Who created them. Who can dissolve them. Who has the final say in their activities.
But blame sleepy joe amirite?
There's a lot of reasons to hate our president, this ain't it.
Celtictussle t1_jed9x2l wrote
They don't report to congress. They report to the president. Congress is a check on the executive branch, and congress sets the budget.
This doesn't mean the executive branch answers to congress. They're checks on each other.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedb264 wrote
My dude. They literally do report directly to congress.
The Bureau of Land Management is a federal agency within the United States Department of the Interior that manages public lands and resources. The forms used by the BLM to report to Congress can vary depending on the specific information or data being reported. However, some common forms used by the BLM to report to Congress include:
The Annual Report of Lands and Minerals - This report provides an overview of the BLM's management of public lands and resources, including information on the status of grazing permits, mining claims, and oil and gas leases.
The Report on the Status of Oil and Gas Resources on Federal Lands - This report provides an assessment of the status of oil and gas resources on federal lands, including information on production, reserves, and exploration activities.
The Report on the Management of Wild Horses and Burros - This report provides information on the BLM's management of wild horses and burros on public lands, including population estimates, adoption rates, and range conditions.
The Budget Justifications - These documents provide detailed information on the BLM's budget requests and priorities, including funding levels for specific programs and initiatives.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents - These documents are prepared by the BLM to analyze the environmental impacts of proposed actions on public lands, and are often required by Congress as part of the agency's decision-making process.
It's important to note that these are just a few examples of the forms and reports that the BLM may use to report to Congress, and that the specific forms used can vary depending on the type of information being reported and the requirements of Congress.
Celtictussle t1_jedbh6s wrote
They give congress reports. They "report" to the president.
The president is their boss. Congress is not. Do you really not understand this?
SoulReaper850 t1_jedgheq wrote
The Secretary reports to the president. The Director of BLM reports to congress. All committees are held inside congress and committee seats are assigned to BLM staff, congress persons, and experts.
Tl:Dr Secretary is appointed by each new administration. Director is permanent.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedbq7f wrote
Congress can literally shut them down. They control their budget, they have the final say in where the money goes.
I don't think you understand exactly what this means.
If I control your income and I say "show me a report of where this money is going, it better not be to selling land for oil drilling" are you going ro say "fuck you I don't care if I have any income" or are you going to do what's required to stay alive?
PM_Ur_Illiac_Furrows t1_jecphim wrote
says the Secretary of the Interior (who reports to Joe) administrates land and water exploration rights.
Odd how native americans have lately been very much in the "Drill baby drill" mindset.
ZHammerhead71 t1_jecsjr7 wrote
They need money too. They get paid for easements at ridiculously high rated vs the general public.
TraptorKai t1_jedmivd wrote
Considering most of them exist in forced poverty, im not surprised.
stupidcasey t1_jecis5i wrote
Huh, coming in with no knowledge of what OP said, and yet I’m not confused at all… it’s almost like people regurgitate, political, talking points.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeckzzs wrote
You should probably read his comments then. 👉😎👉
Jackal427 t1_jecr2x6 wrote
You should probably read the article.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jecykof wrote
The Secretary of the Interior reports to Congress buddy.
Jackal427 t1_jed1j1s wrote
/r/confidentlyincorrect
> The department is headed by the secretary of the interior, who reports directly to the president of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jed6qd0 wrote
The BLM is required to provide regular reports to Congress on its activities, budget, and performance, as well as to respond to requests for information or testimony from congressional committees. Congress also has the power to authorize and appropriate funds for the BLM's operations and programs, and to conduct oversight and investigations of the agency's activities.
Former-Lack-7117 t1_jeec9h3 wrote
All that means is that the BLM has to inform congress of their activities etc., and congress can use the power of the purse to deny them funds to act as a check on their power if they don't like what they're doing. But they are told what to do by the executive branch.
Jackal427 t1_jed371x wrote
Gonna have to record this stupidity for when this guy deletes his comment.
> If you all took the time to do a single Google search you'd see that the Bureau of Land Management is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior, and as such, it is accountable to Congress through the Secretary of the Interior.
One single google search later:
> The Department of the Interior is headed by the secretary of the interior, who reports directly to the president of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jed6sfi wrote
The BLM is required to provide regular reports to Congress on its activities, budget, and performance, as well as to respond to requests for information or testimony from congressional committees. Congress also has the power to authorize and appropriate funds for the BLM's operations and programs, and to conduct oversight and investigations of the agency's activities.
How about you delete yours?
Yoloswaggit420 t1_jedce4c wrote
Providing reports and reporting to your "boss" is not the same thing.... the bmv gives me a driving report does that mean they report to me? You can't be this dense can you?
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedcsob wrote
Hey buddy, it seems we're starting to get a little heated, I just want to let you know I'm not attacking your intellect or character here. For all intents and purposes, the President can try to make them do whatever he wants.
That said, Congress can literally cancel them.
This is akin to your boss being the chief of police so it's okay for you to ignore the city council and mayor telling you to quit selling Crack to kids or they'll cut your department's funding and have you fired.
Let me know if there's anything I missed in my analogy, or if I need to clarify anything alright? I'm all for clear communication.
Yoloswaggit420 t1_jederz5 wrote
They don't report directly to congress no matter how much you say they do. Now we Americans have something for our government called checks and balances. Congress doesn't give BLM orders. The president does and then afterwards congress can check them after the fact. Also your analogy was pretty out there and has no relevance to the discussion. The mayor can't fucking fire a policeman for selling Crack to kids, only their employer (the chief of police) can. You really are just stupid 😂 👋
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedf7il wrote
I tried to be cordial with you, I made sure you knew it wasn't a direct attack against you, I gave you the exact documents they use to report to Congress, and gave you an analogy as to why it's important they obey Congress or lose their funding entirely, and your response is:
>You really are just stupid 😂 👋
Classy. Nice chatting with you.
Yoloswaggit420 t1_jedfelv wrote
Who gave BLM the order to sell this piece of land? Please tell me since you know everything
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedg5ml wrote
That's a great question.
The decision to hold an auction of oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico by the Bureau of Land Management would have been made by the agency itself, based on its statutory authority and the policies and priorities of the current administration. The BLM is an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior, and its decisions are subject to review by the Secretary of the Interior, who is appointed by the President of the United States. Point to you.
However, it is worth noting that the decision to offer leases for oil and gas drilling in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is a longstanding practice that has been in place for decades, and is not specific to any one administration or political party. The BLM regularly conducts lease sales as part of its management of the Outer Continental Shelf, which includes the waters and submerged lands beyond state coastal waters. These lease sales are conducted in accordance with federal law and regulations, and are intended to promote the responsible development of the nation's energy resources. Congress is the deciding factor in allocations of funding within the BLM in regards to this matter.
It's not an either or, we can both be right you know.
Koda_20 t1_jee8pxj wrote
I'm not the guy who was being a dick to you, but could you explain me some more?
Is it possible the president did direct this action and we just don't know? Since it's in his authority?
And, also, why does it seem like the president is flipping back and forth on oil, like, allowing this to happen under his watch when he just interrupted pipelines a bit ago to fight big oil no? Shouldn't Biden veto or cancel or whatever this auction if he's anti oil?
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeeci36 wrote
The President can tell his cabinet to do whatever he wants. The BLM Director is not part of his cabinet, in not so many words they do in fact report to congress.
Regarding your other question about Biden's flippant nature, it's important to note that his stance on oil and gas development has not changed significantly since he took office. During his campaign and since becoming president, he has emphasized the need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy in order to address climate change and "create a more sustainable future". This has included a focus on promoting renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, as well as investments in electric vehicles and other low-emission technologies.
However, it is also true that the Biden administration has faced some criticism and scrutiny over its approach to oil and gas development. In particular, there has been some concern among industry groups and some politicians that the administration's policies could harm the economy and lead to job losses in regions that depend heavily on oil and gas production.
In response to these concerns, the administration has taken steps to reassure the industry and to emphasize that its policies are focused on promoting a gradual and responsible transition away from fossil fuels, rather than an abrupt or drastic shift. For example, the administration has emphasized the importance of reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations, which can help to mitigate the environmental impacts of fossil fuel production while also supporting domestic production of natural gas.
But I guess we could just blame it on his age if you'd prefer to approach it without any nuance, it is funnier that way.
Koda_20 t1_jeecwmo wrote
Thank you; makes sense!
Jackal427 t1_jee9kmt wrote
> I’m all for clear communication
Says the guy intentionally taking quotes out of context to fit his political agenda
You’re either a bot or really slow
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeeag9e wrote
I'm a Texas business owner with family ties to oil across the southwest, I'm about as far alligned economically R as it gets. That you honed in on that specific detail as the entire crux for your argument really says a lot.
Do you have any valid points to make against my statements?
Jackal427 t1_jeebc6u wrote
> I'm a Texas business owner with family ties to oil across the southwest, I'm about as far alligned economically R as it gets.
LOL, good joke
Not doing it for a political agenda is even worse, because it implies you’re actually just stupid enough to think what you’re saying is true.
Name checks out, you’re full of shit
Former-Lack-7117 t1_jeeciwq wrote
Nah...if there is an economic incentive to be ignorant, then that explains his reasoning pretty well.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeebzhh wrote
I approached you civilly, I guess this is all I can expect in return. Take care.
Jackal427 t1_jeechhl wrote
> I approached you civilly
Your first reply to me:
> Hit me up when you understand anything kiddo.
Once again, full of shit.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeecwbf wrote
That's quite a thin skin you've got there sport. I kid lol.
If you can't handle a little cajoling without flying off the handle then I'm sorry for provoking you my dude. I can see how without proper context and actively playing it out as a joke that would be rude and it won't happen again.
That said, have you anything to offer me in the form of factual critique over my statements?
Jackal427 t1_jeede49 wrote
> That said, have you anything to offer me in the form of factual critique over my statements?
This has already been done all over this comment section. If you still don’t understand how your claims are factually incorrect (apparently you don’t) then there’s probably no hope for your last 2 brain cells.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jeeevfl wrote
More insults...
The Director of the BLM reports to Congress. This is undebatable fact.
If that does not land, there's nothing I can do to help clarify things further. I'm sorry we came to an impasse, and I hope your day gets better. Thanks for the conversation, take care.
Jackal427 t1_jeefc9a wrote
I hope your life gets better. Take care of those last 2.
Jackal427 t1_jeegs5n wrote
> More insults…
That's quite a thin skin you've got there sport. I kid lol.
If you can't handle a little cajoling without flying off the handle then I'm sorry for provoking you my dude. I can see how without proper context and actively playing it out as a joke that would be rude and it won't happen again.
sharksnut t1_jedw1ti wrote
"TL;DR", indeed. You didn't read it; this is Biden's Interior Department doing this, not Congress.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jedwlzv wrote
Read all the comments before commenting yourself, it will save you a lot of headache and me time.
sharksnut t1_jedxdtw wrote
I did. You're still wrong. Congress has no power of prior restraint in preventing Interior from issuing resource extraction permits. Your desperate attempt at partisanship is transparent.
If you're unhappy with people pointing this out, correct your comment. That's all it takes.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jee2bjs wrote
You really didn't then. The Director of the BLM is a permanent position that reports directly to Congress. Congress directly overseas their funding and what projects within the BLM's scope are funded. I even listed the reports and FORM NAMES that the BLM has to submit in reports to Congress.
If you're unhappy with people pointing out your lack of reading comprehension, keep your mouth shut. That's all it takes.
sharksnut t1_jefy2o8 wrote
>The Director of the BLM
... has nothing to do with blue water drilling leases.
Knichols2176 t1_jed8gdx wrote
Sorry, but I can’t help but read this in Jennifer Coolidge voice.. white lotus vibes here.. “I thought it was Black Lives Matter! I thought you were like me! Who would guess it’s Bureau of Land fucking Management!”
TraptorKai t1_jedmkbn wrote
I didnt hear the coolidge before, but your quote was spot on XD
Jackal427 t1_jecq51e wrote
> US Department of the Interior
> executive branch
This wasn’t congress, numnuts, you’d know that if you read the article
OP is literally quoting the article header, and CNN says the same thing
You’re a doofus, and this comment section is bots
Edit: CNN has even more detail
> The administration was forced to hold the sale after Joe Manchin (D) added it to the Inflation Reduction Act, the major climate and energy bill that President Joe Biden signed last year.
Damn those republicans
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jecyfrb wrote
>The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior, and as such, it is accountable to Congress through the Secretary of the Interior. The BLM is required to provide regular reports to Congress on its activities, budget, and performance, as well as to respond to requests for information or testimony from congressional committees. Congress also has the power to authorize and appropriate funds for the BLM's operations and programs, and to conduct oversight and investigations of the agency's activities.
Hit me up when you understand anything kiddo.
Jackal427 t1_jed1ebj wrote
Accountable to congress =/= part of congress
You’re a donut
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jed6pmb wrote
When did I ever say that?
The BLM is required to provide regular reports to Congress on its activities, budget, and performance, as well as to respond to requests for information or testimony from congressional committees. Congress also has the power to authorize and appropriate funds for the BLM's operations and programs, and to conduct oversight and investigations of the agency's activities.
Educate yourself.
TheTinRam t1_jecwqfh wrote
Thanks Obama
HaikuBotStalksMe t1_jedi9g7 wrote
This comment made it, but mine gets removed for "being too short" when it's two sentences?
PogoArrow t1_jefnis4 wrote
How about the fact that they’re all corporate shills? It’s all political theatre at this point.
Also per the thread below, oversight != direction, cabinet receives direction from the president, oversight from congress. This is Biden’s team’s doing albeit not a decision that the Republican would disagree with except to score political points.
Loferix t1_jeculjm wrote
Dont care. The true way to combat climate change and move towards renewables is to simply make renewables superior than fossil fuels economically and business-wise.
We should be innovating our way through this. Not to mention fossil fuels will still play an important strategic role and reserve for a long time.
gimife t1_jednc73 wrote
Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, but the government subsides fossil fuels with billions. They wouldn't be economically sustainable otherwise
Smiekes t1_jedn8r6 wrote
Solar is the cheapest energy already. EV's are more efficient then gas cars. The charge time is a solved problem but the biggest problem is infrastructure and cost of new technology. We are optimised for gas, and coal. we will burn that shit up if we don't regulate it or invest heavily. We will always need oil for plastics and as lubricants but we could stop burning it within the next 20 years if we make regulations. In fact, the EU passed a bill that stops the selling of gas Cars in 2035. I don't think this will work but I hope it helps fast forward the process
RuinLoes t1_jeedoy2 wrote
This absolute 100% pure whole chuck bullshit.
Renewables are already cheaper to produce.
They are already ready to be intalled globally.
The problem is that we have been poisned by this "if it was better then the market would do it" nonsense. Thats not how markets have ever worked.
If you want renewables you have to vote for policies that will inplement renewables, ban money from politics, bar congressmen from trading, etc. Nothing is going to just happen.
ObnoxiousExcavator t1_jedx69b wrote
Pretty much anything is for sale in US isn't it? Like you could walk up to anyone holding their most prized possession and I feel you could buy it from them. In God We Trust. Lol. More like "1-800-CASH-NOW"
Azg556 t1_jeeqa9h wrote
You’re right, to an extent. Can you name anything that isn’t for sale?
[deleted] t1_jeccl0o wrote
[deleted]
dhonke t1_jeczqww wrote
Republican congress? The House voted 220-207, with no Republicans joining Democrats in supporting the inflation reduction act that put the drilling provisions in. The senate also voted along party lines with VP Harris as the tie breaker vote. Also Biden could have vetoed the bill if he wanted to.
RaR902 t1_jecx0kk wrote
You could have just ended your comment after the first sentence tbh.
[deleted] t1_jecxgvo wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jebu85l wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jebvcb5 wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_jebz3kp wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/capcaunul:
An enormous swathe of the Gulf of Mexico, spanning an area the size of Italy, was put up for auction on Wednesday for oil and gas drilling, in the latest blow to Joe Biden’s increasingly frayed reputation on dealing with the climate crisis.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/12704gj/us_puts_italysized_chunk_of_gulf_of_mexico_up_for/jebu4mx/
[deleted] t1_jecb868 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jed14vl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jednnfs wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jedzrl6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jee4d7n wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jeea44v wrote
[removed]
TheLit420 t1_jeec5cj wrote
Is the rest of of the Gulf belong to Mexico or is there an open-area that is up for grabs to whoever wants it?
[deleted] t1_jeeiuta wrote
[removed]
PF4LFE t1_jeeltfl wrote
Garbage move - I understand the short term situation but still garbage
BaronVonLazercorn t1_jeer6aq wrote
I read that as "US puts Italy-sized chunk of Mexico up for auction"
[deleted] t1_jeeso3z wrote
[removed]
Highwaters78217 t1_jeeu3v2 wrote
Who will the politicians find to blame as they stand at the gates of hell
after having destroyed this planets capacity to support our life
form?
drewbles82 t1_jeev2hd wrote
You can see how blinded by the media some people. I talk to my dad about climate and he falls for all the lies that the UK is ahead and doing so well on their part...yet are opening a coal mine and planning for more drilling for oil. Then you see this and people ask me why I have no hope for the future.
[deleted] t1_jeey0e2 wrote
[removed]
VIOLENT_WIENER_STORM t1_jef71hz wrote
This article made it seem like Biden just reversed course on climate change, but that’s completely false. The Guardian forgets to mention a lot of details about how Biden has been fighting this since his first month in office. Here they are:
-
Biden put a moratorium on new drilling leases with section 4 of this executive order when he came into office.
-
This is the first time the Department of the Interior has allowed a new lease since Biden took office.
-
Why reverse the policy? Well, Biden has no choice.
13 GOP-led States sued the Biden Administration in 2021, and they won in 2022. Led by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and accompanied by 12 other Red states, their case stated that Biden didn’t have the authority to halt new leases with an Executive Order. Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District Court of Louisiana, a Trump appointee, deemed the executive order unconstitutional and ordered the Biden administration to lift the ban.
- Actual production of oil from this lease won’t happen for about a year due to the amount of work required to begin drilling. The Biden Administration plans to appeal the court’s decision so they can get the moratorium reinstated. Also, there is still time to enact policies that will reduce environmental damage.
Schedule/timeline for BLM Lease bidding system: https://nflss.blm.gov/leasesale/list
Harvard’s litigation tracker related to this battle: https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/leasing-pause-and-review/
twohammocks t1_jeffhwu wrote
Doesnt anyone remember/foresee deepwater horizon? Ten years later, BP oil spill continues to harm wildlife—especially dolphins https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/how-is-wildlife-doing-now--ten-years-after-the-deepwater-horizon A decade after the BP oil spill: Sick fish, Gulf pollution, and human health problems - Florida Phoenix https://floridaphoenix.com/2020/04/16/a-decade-after-the-bp-oil-spill-sick-fish-gulf-pollution-and-human-health-problems/
Instead of new dirty oil projects, why not harness the sheer volume of water falling off greenland ?
'At peak melt Saturday, meltwater runoff rates clocked in as high as 12 billion tons per day — easily ranking as one of the top 10 largest runoff events on record, said climate scientist Xavier Fettweis.' For first time on record, Greenland saw extensive melting in September - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/09/06/greenland-ice-melt-heat-wave-summer/
Sometimes I wonder if 420ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is already impacting human cognition. Oh wait. It is. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GH000237
Edit: Removed some duplication
dstrelioff t1_jeg89bq wrote
To be fair the Gulf is already a toxic waste zone thanks to BP, maybe it's better to drill there than Alaska?
Actaeus86 t1_jecwrcf wrote
Renewables and electric vehicles might be the future, but we won’t be there for decades. Still need fossil fuels until then.
RuinLoes t1_jeedauo wrote
That argument kinda falls flat when you are talking about new oil drilling, and for not even that big of a resevoir, that will have devastating ecological impacts.
Actaeus86 t1_jeegsdt wrote
Maybe, but the fuel we need for the next few decades have to come from somewhere.
RuinLoes t1_jeei9ss wrote
Ya, renewables.
We aren't decades off interma of capability, we are there now, and it can be all build in under a decade.
And again, your argument fals completely flat because you are talking about new drilling.
Actaeus86 t1_jeeknhv wrote
We are decades away from only having electric cars on the road, new drilling will be needed to sustain those vehicles in the future. Especially with electric vehicle prices. I personally was wanting to get a F150 Lightning, but it went from 40k to 60k for the base truck. Prices like that keep buyers like me out of the market.
[deleted] t1_jefp8xd wrote
[removed]
d3sylva t1_jee5gq0 wrote
Is there is any thing I wish people knew it is that oil isn't fossil fuels like they said, and it is never running out soon. Fossils is found at 16,000ft but oil is found at 30000
RuinLoes t1_jeecor9 wrote
Fossil fuel means that its formed from decomposed organic matter trapped under rock.
Not that its made from literal fossils. Which are stone.
Also what the hell are you talking about? We find fossil from hundreds of millions of years ago anywhere from thousands of feet to a dozen feet down. Thats not how geology works....
jamesbeil t1_jeefpzx wrote
I think u/d3sylva must be one of the nutcases who buy the abiotic hydrocarbon hypothesis. I can't find the page at present, but there's a lovely late-nineties-style page floating around suggesting that oil is infinitely renewable and it's all produced by bacteria in the mantle anyway.
RuinLoes t1_jeeii2j wrote
Of course there are conspiracy theorists that think that bacteria can live in high pressure magma. I bet they cite bacteria living near hydrothermal vents as evidence, right?
ESPiNstigator t1_jeck8qj wrote
He who doesn’t use petroleum products or gasoline, cast the first stone. . . If the market wasn’t requiring more oil we wouldn’t make it.
Worldwide, we recently tried banning/limiting oil and gas production then paid through the roof because we didn’t stop using it.
RandomAnon846728 t1_jee6z21 wrote
That isn’t what happened.
Jcpage573 t1_jeed3oo wrote
More like he who hasn’t ruined the environment by spilling millions of barrels of oil into the ocean may cast the first stone
[deleted] t1_jecmvf1 wrote
[removed]
jezra t1_jebvjn8 wrote
if you are going to break a campaign promise, you might as well break it multiple times :/
94746382926 t1_jec4rym wrote
It's not Biden's decision to make.
deadlands_goon t1_jec9q8g wrote
then he shouldnt make campaign promises about a more environmentally friendly US under his administration or do things like launch the UN Global Methane Pledge. If he’s ineffective at doing the things he talks about, he shouldn’t talk about it
rileyoneill t1_jecbgio wrote
The IRA has been dominated by investments into clean energy. Joe Biden has majorly delivered on this front. He was effective at getting that passed.
luced t1_jecbxga wrote
Must be nice to be that naive.
deadlands_goon t1_jecc954 wrote
it must be nice believing partisan politics arent just for theater and that not all high level politicians are scumbag millionaires who have no one’s interests in mind except their corporate benefactors’
luced t1_jece0gn wrote
All politicians lie. All politicians make promises they have no intention of keeping. They do not work for us. They have no reason to keep their promises and to think they should when the other side doesn't have to care about anything other than "owning the libs" is naive. It would be nice if Biden and the rest of the Democrats kept their word but that's unrealistic.
deadlands_goon t1_jecec6g wrote
bruh theyre the same people democrats and republicans dont exist at that level
luced t1_jecf8q4 wrote
They work for the same people but have two different ways of doing things. What corporations want gets done regardless. the difference is one group is actively trying to tear this country apart and commit genocide on a section of the population.
deadlands_goon t1_jecfqgo wrote
theres only one group. They want you to believe there’s 2 groups, and stirring up the pot with social issues helps convince people like you of that. No one at that level of government gives a shit about any of the social issues youre alluding to when you talk about “genocide on a section of the population”. They do not care. Theyre all racist and homophobic behind closed doors
luced t1_jecq4di wrote
dude you said president Biden shouldn't lie. now your ranting about they are all the same. you are jumping all over the place. chill out. your not making any sense. i think you are somehow both naive and jaded however that works.
deadlands_goon t1_jefp4bc wrote
lol okay sorry you feel that way
capcaunul OP t1_jebu4mx wrote
An enormous swathe of the Gulf of Mexico, spanning an area the size of Italy, was put up for auction on Wednesday for oil and gas drilling, in the latest blow to Joe Biden’s increasingly frayed reputation on dealing with the climate crisis.
SlurpinAnalGravy t1_jebz164 wrote
>Pursuant to the Property Clause of the United States Constitution (Article 4, section 3, clause 2), Congress has the power to retain, buy, sell, and regulate federal lands, such as by limiting cattle grazing on them. These powers have been recognized in a long line of United States Supreme Court decisions.
So Congress and the Supreme Court, both overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans.
Wipe that egg off your face.
sharksnut t1_jedvkyx wrote
TIL that the Senate is "overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans."
Jackal427 t1_jeearfj wrote
Yeah, this guy has been spouting nonsense all over this comment section.
For anyone who cares about the truth, here’s the senate distribution:
Majority (51): Democratic (48) Independent (3)
Minority (49): Republican (49)
94746382926 t1_jec4pup wrote
Has nothing to do with Biden.
sharksnut t1_jedvqlc wrote
"The president’s Department of the Interior offered up a vast area of the central and western Gulf..."
... has "nothing to do with Biden"?
Canuck-overseas t1_jec0a8m wrote
In fairness, most of the Gulf is already an hypoxic dead zone.
SheoGodofMadness t1_jecfjuv wrote
You're a clown, read articles before posting sweeping judgements
datnetcoder t1_jedbd6l wrote
Sorry but this is fucking hilarious: OP posted the very opening paragraph of the article, verbatim. Very clearly, you did not read the article at all, since you are claiming OP is making sweeping judgements himself.
Snakepli55ken t1_jeciwod wrote
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about lol. Stick to Romanian politics.
Franklin_le_Tanklin t1_jecl7iu wrote
Lulz. Tell me more about how you don’t understand how government works
BigMemeKing t1_jecwrq2 wrote
I was once asked in a very "You're stupid" kind of way, if I believed corporations could buy up all the property on the planet.
Yes.
Yes I do.
As long as there is a need for space to produce goods, procure raw materials or house the ridiculously large homes of the wealthy. Those in a seat of wealth and power will find the way to lay claim to the space they need to further push their personal agendas.