This is a complex conversation and extremely hard to summarize here. As a part-time libertarian (like many here), my tendency is to push against ANY government agency that impedes economic/financial progress. The recommendations of the IPCC, being a government agency by definition and name, admittedly make me cringe a bit. However, can we honestly say, with a straight face, that Oil and Gas companies are not Government Entities just because they have controlling families and shareholders? I would argue that they effectively own governments and dictate policies. Indeed, they have historically influenced when and where wars are waged. In the not-so-distant past, we toppled regimes and invaded countries under their direction. To equate them and their motives with a group of university professors, often stereotyped with crazy hair and worn-out suits, seeking the next grant or boondoggle, seems excessive to me.
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had a lot to say about the necessity of government involvement in this area. You and I had (and I still have) the privilege of living in a state that, under Reagan's governorship in the 70s, imposed some of the strictest emission rules, prompting massive investments and reorganizations. At that time, California was the world’s 9th largest economy; today, it oscillates between the 4th and the 5th. I'm not suggesting a direct correlation, but if someone were to attempt this, then the IPCC seems to have a stronger argument in this debate then the energy-independence-deniers. 😉
Careful though: California has become the 4-5th largest economy in spite of energy regulations, not because of. It's been blessed by Silicon Valley's success, but energy regulation brought some of the highest energy prices in the country; together with a lot more regulation and extremely high taxes, this has been driving manufacturing out of the state.
Also, as for energy independence: the US had achieved energy independence with the shale revolution, which has then been squashed by an IPCC-adoring Biden administration, which has then gone down on its knees begging Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to pump more oil; so via the current administration, I'd say the IPCC has done more damage to energy independence than Oil and Gas companies by far.
I have always valued your acumen and insights. This conversation, however, is becoming lengthy and complex, to the point where I find it daunting to even begin. My straightforward question for you is: whom do you consider credible in this intense and almost religious intellectual debate? O&G?
Leverage technology to reduce waste has always been a great investment. Take Las Vegas as an example. Since 1970, the city has seen a ninefold increase in visitor volume and a tenfold increase in room inventory up to 2020. Despite this growth, the total emissions and the overall amount of water used have reduced to a third of what they were in 1970. This represents a 30-fold improvement over the past 50 years. Notably, this efficiency has been achieved despite an increase in both lighting and water usage today. Such efficiency directly benefits the bottom line of the hotel industry.
So, NO, the transition doesn't increase the production cost. It builds resilience, eliminate reliance on dictatorships, monopolies and on a completely unreliable supply chain.
Dear Fabio, I always enjoy our exchanges, and if I stop at your initial straightforward question -- do I consider the Oil and Gas industry credible in an absolute way? The answer is of course no. (Just as i do not completely trust the IPCC and most climate scientists.)
But like me you can't resist a bit more complexity, so to the rest of your points: I absolutely agree that greater efficiency pushed by market-driven innovation will keep delivering massive benefits. I also agree we have to keep pursuing resilience and reduce reliance on "hydrocarbonocracies"... But that is very different from government mandates to electrify x% of the auto fleet by 2030, outlaw gas boilers, or cap beef consumption. That kind of government-mandated transition most definitely does increase costs and reduce growth.
This is a complex conversation and extremely hard to summarize here. As a part-time libertarian (like many here), my tendency is to push against ANY government agency that impedes economic/financial progress. The recommendations of the IPCC, being a government agency by definition and name, admittedly make me cringe a bit. However, can we honestly say, with a straight face, that Oil and Gas companies are not Government Entities just because they have controlling families and shareholders? I would argue that they effectively own governments and dictate policies. Indeed, they have historically influenced when and where wars are waged. In the not-so-distant past, we toppled regimes and invaded countries under their direction. To equate them and their motives with a group of university professors, often stereotyped with crazy hair and worn-out suits, seeking the next grant or boondoggle, seems excessive to me.
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had a lot to say about the necessity of government involvement in this area. You and I had (and I still have) the privilege of living in a state that, under Reagan's governorship in the 70s, imposed some of the strictest emission rules, prompting massive investments and reorganizations. At that time, California was the world’s 9th largest economy; today, it oscillates between the 4th and the 5th. I'm not suggesting a direct correlation, but if someone were to attempt this, then the IPCC seems to have a stronger argument in this debate then the energy-independence-deniers. 😉
Careful though: California has become the 4-5th largest economy in spite of energy regulations, not because of. It's been blessed by Silicon Valley's success, but energy regulation brought some of the highest energy prices in the country; together with a lot more regulation and extremely high taxes, this has been driving manufacturing out of the state.
Also, as for energy independence: the US had achieved energy independence with the shale revolution, which has then been squashed by an IPCC-adoring Biden administration, which has then gone down on its knees begging Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to pump more oil; so via the current administration, I'd say the IPCC has done more damage to energy independence than Oil and Gas companies by far.
Dear Marco,
I have always valued your acumen and insights. This conversation, however, is becoming lengthy and complex, to the point where I find it daunting to even begin. My straightforward question for you is: whom do you consider credible in this intense and almost religious intellectual debate? O&G?
Leverage technology to reduce waste has always been a great investment. Take Las Vegas as an example. Since 1970, the city has seen a ninefold increase in visitor volume and a tenfold increase in room inventory up to 2020. Despite this growth, the total emissions and the overall amount of water used have reduced to a third of what they were in 1970. This represents a 30-fold improvement over the past 50 years. Notably, this efficiency has been achieved despite an increase in both lighting and water usage today. Such efficiency directly benefits the bottom line of the hotel industry.
So, NO, the transition doesn't increase the production cost. It builds resilience, eliminate reliance on dictatorships, monopolies and on a completely unreliable supply chain.
Dear Fabio, I always enjoy our exchanges, and if I stop at your initial straightforward question -- do I consider the Oil and Gas industry credible in an absolute way? The answer is of course no. (Just as i do not completely trust the IPCC and most climate scientists.)
But like me you can't resist a bit more complexity, so to the rest of your points: I absolutely agree that greater efficiency pushed by market-driven innovation will keep delivering massive benefits. I also agree we have to keep pursuing resilience and reduce reliance on "hydrocarbonocracies"... But that is very different from government mandates to electrify x% of the auto fleet by 2030, outlaw gas boilers, or cap beef consumption. That kind of government-mandated transition most definitely does increase costs and reduce growth.
Let's keep the debate going!