Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 474 posts

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#141

Post by manyaoman »

megous wrote: post #43

Anyone has any respect left for US Americans after they elected this? This is so ridiculous at so many levels: Not US hollywood culture or whatever Americans culturally exported in the past all around the world, but this will forever represent US Americans in my mind. That this is how they overall want to be seen and represented as all around the world, seemingly: “Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the…

The thing is that back in 2024 Kamala didn't exactly come across as a much better option, although in hindsight she likely would have been.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#142

Post by anovikov »

_alternator_ wrote: post #133
anovikov wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why does US need any of that? It's a massive exporter of fossil fuels and will be much richer as a result (but yes just as every other way of getting richer, it will also increase inequality).

The argument that high oil prices are good for America is one of the most ridiculous ideas being pushed right now. Yes, on a trade deficit front, it slightly reduces the net amount of money leaving. But we are also the world’s largest consumer of oil, and it literally powers every part of our economy. Saying that America is better off with high gas prices is like saying Americans will eat more beef if the price of be…

Think of it this way: less trade deficit means more imports that come through without causing extra damage. It means more cheap products of all kinds for everyone.

And yes this is exactly how petrostates work. I wonder why is it surprising. Sure their population also pays higher prices for gas at the pump when the oil goes up, but they massively win in every other way.

It's simply a long, embedded stereotype of "high oil price = bad" because of traumatic experience of 1973 and 1979. It's different today. The higher the oil price, the better it is for America.

Also again, US gas prices are by far the cheapest among every halfway developed countries. Everyone else will suffer more. So relatively again, US wins even here.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#143

Post by defrost »

anovikov wrote: post #131
standeven wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burning fossil fuels also raises the global temperature, reduces air quality, and people still have to pay more at the pump.

But US mostly wins from global warming relatively, right? I mean, it's going to suffer less than others (except EU), for geographical reasons, thus winning. I don't think global warming is a concern for US at all (some places sure, Florida will be royally fucked, but not most places).

In the short to medium term, sure . . . again, left unchecked gets bad for every human when tipping points are passed.

Eg: When surface ice gets very low the trapped heat will go more torward heating water than melting ice.

That's very double plus bad (ask a high school physics teacher about the energy used to melt, say, a kilogram of ice .. then ask them by how many degrees C does that same energy raise the temp. of water).

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#144

Post by noelsusman »

anovikov wrote: post #110
ryukafalz wrote: post #44

As someone who's been pushing for renewables for quite a while now it's dismaying that it's taken a war to accelerate this push, but I'm glad to see that it's happening at least. It's doubly dismaying that my own country (US) is still doubling down on fossil fuels despite everything. The concern about a new dependency on China is real, but renewables do have the advantage that once you have the infrastructure in plac…

But why does US need any of that? It's a massive exporter of fossil fuels and will be much richer as a result (but yes just as every other way of getting richer, it will also increase inequality).

Being a net exporter of a global commodity is only relevant in an extremely acute crisis (e.g. WWIII).

Plus one of the reasons why we export so much oil is because it's cheaper to import oil to a refinery in New Jersey from Saudi Arabia than to get it there from Texas due to some very stupid US laws.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#145

Post by schnitzelstoat »

tialaramex wrote: post #117
schnitzelstoat wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the results are very similar, the motivation of energy independence is quite different that of climate change. America has ample supplies of natural gas, oil etc. and so doesn't need to turn away from fossil fuels to be energy independent. Whereas in Europe we do as there isn't much natural gas or oil and even the coal that remains is difficult to extract and thus less economical.

> America has ample supplies of natural gas, oil etc. and so doesn't need to turn away from fossil fuels to be energy independent. In the short to medium term. The natural gas, oil etc. are in fact finite resources created over a tremendously long period of time in pre-history and so once they run out you're done. You could run nuclear power plants much longer, perhaps even indefinitely, and of course wind and sunlig…

Yeah, exactly. We have a relatively short window of a few centuries, perhaps less, to master nuclear power (perhaps even nuclear fusion), photovoltaic panels, efficient wind turbines (including more complex offshore construction) and deploy them all at scale.

And to do it all before we cook ourselves in greenhouse gases.

I'm rather optimistic about it but it does seem that most people don't fully grasp the importance of such a transition.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#147

Post by anovikov »

_alternator_ wrote: post #139
anovikov wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But US mostly wins from global warming relatively, right? I mean, it's going to suffer less than others (except EU), for geographical reasons, thus winning. I don't think global warming is a concern for US at all (some places sure, Florida will be royally fucked, but not most places).

This seems like soft trolling. Global warming is canonically the opposite of a zero sum game. Everyone is losing.

Everyone is suffering sure, but what matters is relative degree of it. Side that suffers less, wins against others and that's the only thing that matters.

And no, in China global warming means worsening desertification, in Russia it means melting permafrost that covers 60% of the country, same in Canada. Europe and the US are uniquely positioned to suffer the least from it and many industries will win outright. For example, there will be year-round tourist season within continental EU: all summer on the Baltics and the North Sea and all winter in the Mediterranean; winemaking in Spain and southern France will suffer badly and in some places may become commercially non-viable, but will expand to great lot more territory in northern Germany, low countries, Poland, UK, thus enabling a lot richer wines due to great variety of soils.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#148

Post by throwccp »

ryukafalz wrote: post #44

As someone who's been pushing for renewables for quite a while now it's dismaying that it's taken a war to accelerate this push, but I'm glad to see that it's happening at least. It's doubly dismaying that my own country (US) is still doubling down on fossil fuels despite everything. The concern about a new dependency on China is real, but renewables do have the advantage that once you have the infrastructure in plac…

[dead]

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#149

Post by layer8 »

davedx wrote: post #109
ryukafalz wrote: post #44

As someone who's been pushing for renewables for quite a while now it's dismaying that it's taken a war to accelerate this push, but I'm glad to see that it's happening at least. It's doubly dismaying that my own country (US) is still doubling down on fossil fuels despite everything. The concern about a new dependency on China is real, but renewables do have the advantage that once you have the infrastructure in plac…

I've been arguing with Europeans on twitter (including an environmental scientist) who believe this war shows we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen. It feels like this collective insanity will never end

> It feels like this collective insanity will never end

You’re referring to Twitter, right? ;)

Post reply on HN