Fossil Fuel Divestment - Saudis Want Out

[TheTalkingMule]

It speaks to the state of the world that I take this turn of affairs as a small sign of the potential to actually right the floundering ship that is our species.

It's quite literally next stop Star Trek economy. Now before we get there we might get a world war or climate reaction dark age that wipes out 60% of the species, but it's close!

If we can hang on for say 40-50 more years without freaking out, I think we can get there. Ubiquitous free energy isn't far off, a few of the newest most wealthy seem OK with giving all their money away, organized religion is on it's way out. Indications are not too bad and getting better.

 

[tigerade]

Arch Coal filed for bankruptcy. Coal companies just can't stay alive - and this is WITHOUT a carbon tax.

Arch Coal (NYSE:ACI) Files For Bankruptcy As Plunging Prices, Weak Demand Batter US Coal Sector

 

[beeeerock]

It's quite literally next stop Star Trek economy. Now before we get there we might get a world war or climate reaction dark age that wipes out 60% of the species, but it's close!

If we can hang on for say 40-50 more years without freaking out, I think we can get there. Ubiquitous free energy isn't far off, a few of the newest most wealthy seem OK with giving all their money away, organized religion is on it's way out. Indications are not too bad and getting better.

I think you're right. Or at least I hope you are, minus the world war and dark ages of course... LOL.

How an economy can work without the test of success being 'growth' I don't know, but I do know plenty of economists have been theorizing. The change from continuously harvesting the raw materials for energy, to simply building the gathering equipment and maintaining it, has more far-reaching impacts than John Q Public even begins to understand. If we don't have to collect firewood all day, that frees up resources to do plenty of other things.

If we survive the transition, the world and how it works will look completely different than it does today.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I think you're right. Or at least I hope you are, minus the world war and dark ages of course... LOL.

How an economy can work without the test of success being 'growth' I don't know, but I do know plenty of economists have been theorizing. The change from continuously harvesting the raw materials for energy, to simply building the gathering equipment and maintaining it, has more far-reaching impacts than John Q Public even begins to understand. If we don't have to collect firewood all day, that frees up resources to do plenty of other things.

If we survive the transition, the world and how it works will look completely different than it does today.

Bhutan uses a Gross Happiness Index working from the sound principle that money can't buy happiness. There are some challenges with this approach, but it certainly changes the terms of debate. For example, suppose a developer proposes to take over some parkland to build a factory. From a GDP point of view, this is probably a good proposal: parkland doesn't generate much income. From a GHI point of view, though, the parkland may be generating a lot of happiness, which has to be weighed against the happiness created by having jobs in the factory.

 

[ohmman]

the sound principle that money can't buy happiness

While there is conflicting research on this very broad topic, I do believe the current consensus is that money does indeed buy more happiness. Specifically when used to purchase experiences (not goods) and services that take out some of the small displeasures of life. Most research that concludes the opposite focuses on things like large scale weddings, or large and multiple properties.

I could be wrong, but the last I looked, that's where we stood. I don't know if it affects the GNH measure you linked, I just know that the axiom "money doesn't buy happiness" is often stated and rarely challenged.

 

[beeeerock]

I could be wrong, but the last I looked, that's where we stood. I don't know if it affects the GNH measure you linked, I just know that the axiom "money doesn't buy happiness" is often stated and rarely challenged.

And here I always thought the axiom was "Money may not buy happiness, but it buys the kind of misery I like"... ;-)

 

[TheTalkingMule]

The change from continuously harvesting the raw materials for energy, to simply building the gathering equipment and maintaining it, has more far-reaching impacts than John Q Public even begins to understand. If we don't have to collect firewood all day, that frees up resources to do plenty of other things.

I would say the biggest resource to be freed up are all our top minds who are currently building tax avoidance products and transaction-leeching algorithms for Goldman. So sad to see genius wasted. I'd like to see the banks re-broken up just for that reason alone.

Good times ahead no doubt.

 

[RichardC]

I would say the biggest resource to be freed up are all our top minds who are currently building tax avoidance products and transaction-leeching algorithms for Goldman. So sad to see genius wasted. I'd like to see the banks re-broken up just for that reason alone.

Good times ahead no doubt.

Sadly true in Canada as well. The number of top engineering graduates who go to work at hedge funds and other similar jobs is very disconcerting.

 

[GoTslaGo]

Sorry to go off topic a bit here, but this is something I think about a lot. One of the downsides to personalized news driven by recommender systems is that our biases are constantly confirmed and become ever stronger. This results in more polarization, as far as I can tell, because we're only hearing what's easy to hear. Not only that, but the content providers are more incentivized to deliver news articles that will be directed to their constituents (click counts confirming this). It's not the best recipe for opening minds.

Something I've learned to do when reading all news is to figure out their narrative first, and then read the article in that context. The more quickly you become aware of the narrative they're trying to tell, the easier it is to detect the BS. The most important time to do this is when you're reading something that is confirming your existing biases, as you're much less likely to have your skeptical radar up at that time.

I'm toying with an idea to create a recommender system for news which takes your preferences, and selectively gives you contrarian articles that aren't off-putting, but give you a different viewpoint. The problem is finding content that presents the evidence/news in a less narrative-based fashion.

/end off topic rant

Maybe you should post this idea with Facebook. I heard they were getting into the news business (compiler). You could get your usual feed (RSS?), then on the side it could identify contrarian articles. I'm sure someone would get pissed and blow it up. Or else it could be an opt in feature.... Just thinking. Nice idea.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Goldman is on CNBC talking about the Saudi's having "plenty of cash" to ride this out. $750B is not a lot of money when you're hemorrhaging $100B+ every year. I see no end to this oil over-supply, maybe another 2-3 MONTHS of prices drifting downward?

I think we're looking at a very interesting opportunity in the US right now. Shale producers will start defaulting in 3-9 months without a lifeline, renewables remain under attack at the state level even after a dream scenario extension of the ITC subsidy. Commodities are free. Money is free(for the US gov't). Solar/wind hardware are inexpensive. A jobs/infrastructure bill is desperately needed.

Why not strike a 5 year deal with these frackers? Bail out or in some way subsidize the US oil&gas industry in away that's directly tied to the price of oil in exchange for greatly increased fossil fuel taxes or a carbon tax. Kind of like the corn subsidies. The massive proceeds would go toward a robust renewable energy transition plan. It sounds like they'd never take it, but these guys are so leverage they'll do anything to survive. They own half of Congress(and most key state Houses) so the deal would be easy to push through just like the ITC tax credit extension. Once that blockade is removed, solar/wind would take over in the US and domestic innovation would do the rest.

What are the pros and cons? We frack a bit more than we would have, but we also get to 30% renewables far faster. OPEC will never be heard from again and the Saudi's would absolutely lose power within 3-5 years. 50% of new cars in the US would be electric within 15 years. Electricity production would be fully decentralized much faster. The US would be at the forefront of renewables tech globally. These are all good, no?

 

[RubberToe]

When all the bad actors in the part of the world that extracts the most oil start having to tighten their belts, you would think that all the extra money that was sloshing around that found it's way into the really bad actors hands would start to become a bit more scarce. Having less money available often tends to focus ones attention on things that matter, like keeping your people fed, and maintaining the "status quo", versus imposing your religious beliefs on others via the point of a gun.

I could also see a scenario where tensions start running high, and certain states get really pissed off because someone "stole their oil wealth". And then proceed to try exacting revenge, fueled to a great degree by religious fervor.

Exciting time we live in, can't wait to see how/when the renewable energy juggernaut takes out the fossil fuel cartel. Strap on your seat belts.

RT

 

[beeeerock]

I think we're looking at a very interesting opportunity in the US right now. Shale producers will start defaulting in 3-9 months without a lifeline, renewables remain under attack at the state level even after a dream scenario extension of the ITC subsidy. Commodities are free. Money is free(for the US gov't). Solar/wind hardware are inexpensive. A jobs/infrastructure bill is desperately needed.

It's an interesting idea and one I'd love to see come to reality. But the political and corporate interests would make it.... challenging... to say the least.

In 2008 (which seems so long ago now), I was thinking that the spending plan to get the economy on track again could put emphasis on making the big changes to renewables that we need. That didn't happen. But if you're going to spend money to stimulate the economy, what better way to spend it than on infrastructure we could use to evolve, rather than remain stagnant.

 

[Robert.Boston]

It's an interesting idea and one I'd love to see come to reality. But the political and corporate interests would make it.... challenging... to say the least.

In 2008 (which seems so long ago now), I was thinking that the spending plan to get the economy on track again could put emphasis on making the big changes to renewables that we need. That didn't happen. But if you're going to spend money to stimulate the economy, what better way to spend it than on infrastructure we could use to evolve, rather than remain stagnant.

We aren't going to see any big policy moves on energy from Congress this year. Why negotiate with a lame-duck president when the GOP might control the White House and Congress in a year? (Admittedly, I'm not sure if the GOP could be said to "control" the White House under a hypothetical Trump presidency....) The small-scale drillers sell out their interests to the big boys for pennies on the dollar, and the big boys have plenty of capacity to sit out the next year.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

We aren't going to see any big policy moves on energy from Congress this year. Why negotiate with a lame-duck president when the GOP might control the White House and Congress in a year? (Admittedly, I'm not sure if the GOP could be said to "control" the White House under a hypothetical Trump presidency....) The small-scale drillers sell out their interests to the big boys for pennies on the dollar, and the big boys have plenty of capacity to sit out the next year.

What if 2017 is worse than 2016? I don't think "sitting out" a year is ever an option again for any portion of the oil sector. 2020 is the beginning of the end, hence the selling of Saudi Aramco.

Also, the GOP just negotiated the extension of ITC Renewables tax credits in exchange for oil exports, Congress will do what they're told by fossil fuel interests no matter who is in the WH. Taking advantage of oil panic might make this the easiest legislation ever pushed through the House.

 

[Ulmo]

Edit: post removed because off-topic. Topic is oil; posted link was about coal, to which I responded. The response to mine about cement factories already quotes what it needs to for its own interest.

 

[beeeerock]

* I occasionally think mirror and lense networks could focus sunlight into the kiln if done right, but sun is variable and kilns like to stay steady; at least sunlight hours could get reduced coal utilization in the 10% to 20% range.

The cement plant near me actually started with natural gas AFAIK... then moved to coal a few years ago - obviously, cheaper. The nearby communities were less than thrilled by that, I can tell you.

They also collect our Keurig coffee pods and burn them grounds and all... (how many cups of coffee would it take to make a pound of cement powder I wonder...)

 

[AudubonB]

Goldman is on CNBC talking about the Saudi's having "plenty of cash" to ride this out. $750B is not a lot of money when you're hemorrhaging $100B+ every year. I see no end to this oil over-supply, maybe another 2-3 MONTHS of prices drifting downward?

I think we're looking at a very interesting opportunity in the US right now. Shale producers will start defaulting in 3-9 months without a lifeline, renewables remain under attack at the state level even after a dream scenario extension of the ITC subsidy. Commodities are free.

<---Annnnd........right there is where you lost me

 

[Ulmo]

When all the bad actors in the part of the world that extracts the most oil start having to tighten their belts, you would think that all the extra money that was sloshing around that found it's way into the really bad actors hands would start to become a bit more scarce. Having less money available often tends to focus ones attention on things that matter, like keeping your people fed, and maintaining the "status quo", versus imposing your religious beliefs on others via the point of a gun.

I could also see a scenario where tensions start running high, and certain states get really pissed off because someone "stole their oil wealth". And then proceed to try exacting revenge, fueled to a great degree by religious fervor.

Exciting time we live in, can't wait to see how/when the renewable energy juggernaut takes out the fossil fuel cartel. Strap on your seat belts.

RT

It's going to be pretty boring. The over-leveraged ones will crumble and the wealthy ones will come out wealthy and own different stuff.

But, you're right: a lot of the oil-fed evil will crumble since there won't really be a need, source, place, reason for it. But there's going to be a lot of people who grew up with Big Evil Oil that just now have ... ? A power vacuum will be created when Evil has no Reason and Subsistence (plug in any example -- I plug in "religious" "muslim" here mostly, and Oil is the Reason/Sustenance), and that vacuum will have to be filled by something. It USED to be more Evil. With Evil withering, IT will be replaced with ... ? Probably a lot more Mexico/China-like people: poor, poor morals, poor standards, poor cultures, and they want to improve. Good for them. But: any country that doesn't hold its borders firm and have an Ellis-Island approach to immigration will itself fall to the sinking ship of Too Many Unwashed Masses.

It's sad that at the precise time we could enlighten every human on Earth, so many on Earth don't have the tools in place for enlightenment.

I take back my original statement. It won't be at all boring. There's going to be HUGE potential for world enlightenment, and a LOT of dumb people not knowing what the hell is going on during it all.

(Hint: enlightenment is not stealing, but helping oneself through helping others, science, technology, intelligence.)

 

[dhanson865]

<---Annnnd........right there is where you lost me

I think he is saying if oil drops to near worthless and electricity is super cheap then the cost of living will go down and make commodity prices seem super cheap?

Dunno, I remember reading about "nuclear power being too cheap to meter" as a future to expect when I was a kid. But that was before microcomputers where common, now we have no problem charging someone for a billionth of a cent.

I suppose if energy were free and decentralized we'd have a period where prices for most goods reduced? Would that be deflation or inflation when it comes to the US dollar?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

<---Annnnd........right there is where you lost me

I'm just saying there won't be anything pushing against you if you wanted to do massive infrastructure or renewable energy projects nationwide. Oil will be $25, copper costs half what it did 3 years ago, Treasury rates are super low, etc...

The environment for stimulative projects will be wonderful.