. . . resources we need - this is not a question of "addiction" or anything like it, but a simple fact of the real world around us.
It's both. We have built a mechanized economy that will stop if it runs out of fuel. Yes, we need fuel for our machines. We didn't have to build that kind of economy, though; that was by choice. Look at European countries who chose to tax fuels quite a bit more; their fuel economy is better, and therefore more resilient to supply shocks.
By contrast, we gave tax breaks to exploration/exploitation companies in the hopes of getting the stuff cheaper. Many states (like my own) have mandates to exclude gas sales from normal retail tax revenue. Just as an addict has a choice on whether or not to try the hard stuff, we chose to rely on the gooey stuff.
The difference between ANWR and Ecuador might be the sheer diversity of species, if not the sequestration the natural forest provides. Not much solescence up north.
I think it's probably more worth criticism that he's trying so desperately to keep wealth from his country. . . .
"From?" No, at first he was trying desperately to keep wealth in his country, in the ground where it belongs. The fact that he couldn't reveals the pressures the addicts can exert in tapping new supply. If he could have kept that wealth below the forest for even a decade, I predict supply would be so low that his country could demand a premium for the reserves, forcing the extractors to take what today would be considered outrageous steps to protect the environment around it.
With crude prices so low, it just wouldn't pencil out to provide those protections now, as it was demonstrated just about everywhere oil has been extracted in Latin America.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 01:29 (UTC)It's both. We have built a mechanized economy that will stop if it runs out of fuel. Yes, we need fuel for our machines. We didn't have to build that kind of economy, though; that was by choice. Look at European countries who chose to tax fuels quite a bit more; their fuel economy is better, and therefore more resilient to supply shocks.
By contrast, we gave tax breaks to exploration/exploitation companies in the hopes of getting the stuff cheaper. Many states (like my own) have mandates to exclude gas sales from normal retail tax revenue. Just as an addict has a choice on whether or not to try the hard stuff, we chose to rely on the gooey stuff.
The difference between ANWR and Ecuador might be the sheer diversity of species, if not the sequestration the natural forest provides. Not much solescence up north.
I think it's probably more worth criticism that he's trying so desperately to keep wealth from his country. . . .
"From?" No, at first he was trying desperately to keep wealth in his country, in the ground where it belongs. The fact that he couldn't reveals the pressures the addicts can exert in tapping new supply. If he could have kept that wealth below the forest for even a decade, I predict supply would be so low that his country could demand a premium for the reserves, forcing the extractors to take what today would be considered outrageous steps to protect the environment around it.
With crude prices so low, it just wouldn't pencil out to provide those protections now, as it was demonstrated just about everywhere oil has been extracted in Latin America.