[pptr]

This really seems like a nothing burger.

The $1B were a refund. Net exchange ~$0.

Building out fossile fuel production shifts oil revenue from various dictatorships around the world to the US in this case. That's a good thing. I wish we in Europe produced more gas ourselves instead of being highly dependent on other countries.

This does not mean higher gas demand, which is what matters for CO2 reduction.

[danny_codes]

I would argue it’s a waste of resources. Fossil fuels will be phased out over the next 50 years. If China is an indicator it can be done quite a bit faster than you’d think.

It’s already questionable to build fossil fuel capacity at today’s prices. In 10 years it won’t make any financial sense. In 20 you’d be laughed out of the room.

Why waste money on a dying technology? It’d be like mining bitcoin

[pptr]

(Based on AI research) fossile fuel production takes a few years to recoup investment. Only refineries seem quite long term (15-20 years). I'm sure the companies have projections about future demand to decide which projects are worth pursuing. If they miscalculate, the oil companies loose money (oh no! /s). Anyway, you won't loose money on this.

There is of course also an argument about national security, not being at the whim of some Iranian dictator. So some form of government investment would be justified, but not necessary IMO.

[danny_codes]

I do lose money on this. I (and you, and the rest of the world) have to both clean up emissions and pay for climate change. The more we emit the worse the effects.

[pptr]

Right, but that negative externality is on emissions. For emissions it doesn't really matter who is producing the oil.

[danny_codes]

Or we could invest in renewables. Renewables get cheaper than oil when you do that. Then nobody produces oil.

[happosai]

The production shifts oil revenue from Islamic dictatorships to Christian dictatorship of USA. Maybe a hyperbole for now, but for how long? Independent media and education under attack, gerrymandering your voting rights away etc. Considering most of the population lives is solid red or blue state and thus their vote for president doesn't count, how much of a democracy is USA when the minority of independents live in swing states are the only who's vote counts?

Also USA us doing nothing relevant to reduce gas demand like CO2 cap and trade or CO2 based tariffs.

At this rate buy Chinese will be a more moral choice than buy American by next decade.

[pptr]

Voters in the US have the ability to actually change the course of their country. Voters can say they want Obama or Trump in charge and the government has to obey that choice.

In Europe you only have the same parties/"uniparty" in power all the time. Many people never had a representative they voted for.

I understand the nuance about the US voting system. But when I look at the outcomes, the US seems way more democratic than Europe.

Re gas demand: Renewables are cheaper than fossile fuels. They will obviously win out in a free market. No subsidies needed.