[slashdev]

That may or may not be true. But it won't stay in the ground as long as there is money to be made by extracting and consuming it.

Right now all that's happening is the US is extracting that natural gas, and the middle east extracting that oil, and Europe is importing it. Which pollutes more and costs more. Just develop your domestic supplies.

I don't follow your logic.

[Scarblac]

The only direct thing we (the Netherlands) can do to prevent carastrophic climate change is to leave fossil fuels on our territory in the ground. Everything else is indirect.

[Sabinus]

No, the only direct thing the Netherlands can do is decarbonise the economy.

Shifting sources of carbon to outside the country is just passing the buck.

[Scarblac]

Decarbonising is indirect. Once it gets out of the ground, it will be turned into CO2 by someone, somewhere.

[kyboren]

I know this is an unfathomable concept, but to actually "leave fossil fuels [...] in the ground" you have to stop using fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels someone else refused to leave in the ground means--surprisingly--that fossil fuels weren't left in the ground after all.

And it turns out that we actually live on a shared planet with a common atmosphere; sourcing your fuels from abroad does nothing to prevent climate change. But it does mean that you are unable to secure some of the most fundamental inputs to your economy.

[slashdev]

Plus you have no control over the standards for extractions (e.g. methane leaks), and shipping it causes more pollution.

They're actually worse off, and they pay more for it instead of creating jobs and keeping the money in their own economy. Meaning less money for e.g. green programs to move away from fossil fuels.

It's just a losing proposition in every way.

[Scarblac]

> I know this is an unfathomable concept, but to actually "leave fossil fuels [...] in the ground" you have to stop using fossil fuels.

Obviously not, as we're closing these fields and haven't stopped yet. Someone will have to stop using it, yes.

[Tostino]

That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations.

People hate migrants enough as it is. Climate crisis migrations will make these "little" war migrations seem quaint.

[nandomrumber]

> That is because that money is allowed to be made by externalizing the cost to future generations.

I don’t understand why you wrote this in response to the comment you replied to.

No matter which way you slice it, the UK and Europe using the oil from wells physically closer to them has to be less energy intensive that shipping oil / gas from far away.

What bearing does externalising anything have on that fact.

[Tostino]

Demand isn't static.

Economics 101: if Europe taps new wells, global supply increases. Higher supply drives down prices. Lower prices induce more consumption.

We wouldn't just be cleanly swapping imported fuel for domestic fuel 1:1; we'd be making it cheaper to burn more fossil fuels globally. The marginal emissions saved on shipping are completely wiped out by the net increase in total carbon burned.

The only reason expanding that supply looks like a "win" on a balance sheet today is exactly because the long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.

[nandomrumber]

> long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.

That’s not science.

That’s wishful thinking.

We can’t actually know the long term climate-costs of burning fossil fuels.

It’s unfalsifiable.

We don’t have a second identical Earth we can use as a control.

Expending the fossil fuel supply today (months) reduces the impact of global oil / gas shocks to people suffering high prices today.

Waiting for your team to invent new battery and storage technology, and littering the countryside with wind turbines and replacing the entire existing vehicle fleet does nothing to help people now.

[Tostino]

Your initial claim was that Europe should start opening more wells for domestic production.

If they started right now, that would help with this current oil/ gas shock in the market? They wouldn't come online until far after this is over.

You know you're being disingenuous. This is not a discussion you're having in good faith so I'm going to just going to end it here.

[slashdev]

It would be useful against future supply shocks, don't you think?

[nandomrumber]

Months to years vs your plan of doing nothing for decades, with technology that doesn’t exist.

[slashdev]

I agree, but that's the world we live in.