> But the U.S. economy is still more reliant on oil than others: U.S. oil intensity is twice as high as the European Union and 40% higher than China’s, according to Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at think tank Defense Priorities. This is largely because the U.S. doesn’t have much public transportation or electric-vehicle adoption.
A painful reminder of the harsh costs of automobile dependency.
We've had the solutions to get off this rollercoaster since the 19th century, but weird ideologues continue to throw up barriers to any and all change. The reality is that enabling the alternatives wouldn't just limit climate change, but save us money too.
It's not just the ideologues; it's the people with vested interests in seeing oil companies continue to dominate. Lindsey Graham has been pretty mask-off in wanting to take control of Iran's oil resources and, in his words, "make a ton of money."
> Lindsey Graham has been pretty mask-off in wanting to take control of Iran's oil resources and, in his words, "make a ton of money."
Which kind of set all of this off back in the day: UK/US oil companies controlled Iranian oil, the legislature nationalized it, the Shah suppressed the legislature and portions of the population:
I find it utterly amazing that a country like the USA does not have nationwide high-speed rail and mass transit in every major city (that works for everyone).
Comparing with Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia) and certain EU countries (Vienna, Netherlands, etc.), it just shocks me how much people need a car for everything. Even a visitor needs to rent a car to properly go about their business.
Automobiles also run on electricity, there’s no need to bundle them up with fossil fuels. Car centric development is awesome. Big backyards, lots of space, convenient setups with parking attached to each shopping center. What’s not to like? It’s definitely better than living in apartments which are essentially cages where you’re forced to be mild mannered. Places like shenzen are 90% EVs and we’ll get there too.
All those things are awesome (if you're into that sort of thing, many people aren't) but they don't really rely on the car. Many of the low density detached home suburbs that people drive to these days were once upon a time street car suburbs.
But answering the question, "what's not to like?" The main thing is the fact that none of this scales. All the good benefits you're describing rely on the fact that other people aren't doing them. Other people need to live in "cages" so that you can have all this extra space.
Similarly an enjoyable experience in a car free of traffic relies on other people not driving. If all the people that are using transit were driving a single car, the traffic congestion would spike and you'd be in misery.
None of it scales due to the unchangable dynamics of physical geometry.
By my back of the envelope math, once we've fully transitioned away from fossil fuels as an energy source (distinct from, say, as a chemical feedstock), and fully remediated the externalities and damage they've done both in terms of atmospheric CO2, political violence, and direct environmental contamination, the entire industry is likely going to be net negative as a whole from the beginning of usage to now. That's kind of an amazing thing to think about, even if it is an order of magnitude off in one direction or another.
A similar example would be the asbestos mining and manufacturing industry, which has been essentially fully destroyed by legal settlements.
The accounting only works if you assume the counterfactual is "same industrial civilization, minus fossil fuels." But there's a strong path-dependency argument that cheap hydrocarbons were the bootstrap not just for energy, but for the plastics, fertilizers, and chemical feedstocks that made modern manufacturing and agriculture possible in the first place. Renewables are downstream of that industrial base. You can't net out the externalities against a baseline that wouldn't exist without them.
Right I'm not saying that they were historically a bad idea, I'm saying that the future value of the industry is probably negative now that we're past the bootstrap to major alternatives in some areas. I don't see a way to get out of the energy trap of an early industrial revolution without concentrated combustion sources.
One does need carbohydrates for industrial bootstrap. Germans during WWII produced liquid fuel from coal. Modern version of this process becomes competitive with oil-base fuel around 80 USD/barrel.
Yes, this process is very energy intensive and generates like twice CO2 per energy used. But in a hypothetical world without oil and natural gas it may lead to earlier start with electric cars and renewables so the total amount of CO2 put into atmosphere would probably be the same. Plus, as coal is much more evenly distributed, there would be much less reasons for wars.
This only works up to a certain volume. The world economy requires about 38 billion barrels of oil per year. If you processed 100% of all grain, sugar crop, tuber and oilseed on Earth into liquid fuel, leaving zero for food, you'd get about 6 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in liquid fuels. Since it has to compete with food, the actual number would be much lower. It's not even close to being able to sustain our civilization.
There is absolutely enough coal to make liquid fuel for the current civilization. But if oil/gas would not exist, then electrical cars would be on the road much earlier as burning coal to produce electricity is much more efficient then converting it into liquid fuel to burn in a car engine. As electrical cars produces roughly the same amount of CO2 when using electricity from coal as ICE car running on gasoline, the climate impact would be roughly the same.
Then in a hypothetical scenario of 20th century without oil/natural gas nuclear energy would be much more widespread at this point and CO2 impact would be lower.
Just to be pedantic: I think you mean hydrocarbons (just carbon and hydrogen) rather than carbohydrates (carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen).
You could probably do it with carbohydrates (starches, sugars) or related molecules (wood, alcohol). But I'm pretty sure that hydrocarbons is what you intended there, and it's easier to dig that out of the ground.
It would've been impossible to bootstrap renewable energy without fossil fuels.
I'm strongly in favor of zero emissions. We also have to give fossil fuels their due for getting us here. I don't think the comparison to asbestos holds.
We've been milling wheat with wind power for more than a thousand years; run-of-river hydro-mechanical solutions have been used for milling, mining, and forging for just as long.
Electric wind and hydro solutions are hundreds of years old, at this point.
And of course, there's steam.
I think we'd have had a green revolution with wind and water. Petroleum wasn't necessary.
How do you make steam without burning something? If you say nuclear fission then you're proposing that humans would somehow have invented electric mining vehicles and mined enough ore to invent fusion without burning a single hydrocarbon molecule?
I suppose in an alternate reality where we simply had no fossil fuels this may have been the tech tree. It would have taken centuries longer though.
Coal was certainly a problem; we have the word "smog" for a reason. But we were already on our way to electrified transport, via street cars and similar, when the automobile surged to popularity.
And where does all that electricity come from? Until the 40s or so, hydroelectric plants and wind turbines could provide hardly any power output compared to coal plants, later supplemented by gas plants; even the electric streetcars relied on fossil fuels further down the line. Renewable energy development would've had to scale an order of magnitude further than in reality to be a basis for industry and transportation, alongside advances in electricity distribution and storage to pull it from where it's generated.
The solution, in the absence of oil, would be to simply build more hydro and wind. Neither are particularly difficult technologies. Where they would have lagged in efficiency they make up for in simplicity.
Distributing electricity isn't easy, but it also isn't particularly insurmountable. We had to solve it even with oil as a source of electrical generation.
Your scenario seems baselessly optimistic. If it were just as simple to run society off of those, we would've been doing it to some extent already: it's not like Big Coal or Big Oil was blocking everyone else from having ideas about how to generate power (see: the initial spread of gas power, followed by the spread of nuclear power), and surely many people would've had the incentive to produce power without dealing with coal miners or oilmen. It's that it would've been dramatically more expensive without all the design iterations they have since gone through.
And if you greatly restrict supply at a given price point, without changing the underlying demand, you'll end up with much higher prices and lower total volume, so we wouldn't enjoyed all the compounding benefits from access to energy.
There are places that do. Here in Canada there are at least two provinces that subsist almost entirely off of hydro, and have for the better part of a century. Both export huge amounts of electricity to the USA.
And we have active political conflict between big oil and everyone else, where there seems to be an insatiable demand for socializing the externalities of oil and gas while receiving public funding to make oil production competitive and market viable. In that manner, it places itself in front of efforts to use literally anything else.
If oil and gas had never received a single dollar of public funding, including by way of public funding for externalities that support or recover from oil and gas, then it never would have been market viable as an energy source in places where it doesn't seep out of the soil. Roads would not have been paved, power plants would not have been built, suburbs would only exist for the very wealthy.
Respectfully, from reading all your other comments all over this thread, I don't think you understand everything that modern technology stands on top of. You're handwaving away enormously difficult, complicated things and processes with "just use hydro". It doesn't work like that.
Your heart is in the right place and I sympathize with you about car-oriented development in North America. But I think you have a massive blind spot.
Fossil fuels were good and necessary for the modern world. Their owners have perpetrated heinous lies to keep us tied to them for far longer than was good or necessary.
We might argue whether they were good (I disagree) but I cannot agree that they were ever _necessary_ as an energy source. Viable alternatives exist and have existed for the entire duration of their use as a form of energy; and the story of oil-as-energy is the story of human suffering in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries; without oil there would not be wars over oil, there would be healthier populations, and (likely) climate change would be less of a concern.
It wasn't necessary for it to happen eventually, but if eventually is several generations further down the line because it would have been painfully slow that's an important factor to consider.
Slower industrial and economic development would include huge human costs in terms of slower medical, social, economic and possibly also political development. It might have some beneficial effects as well though. I don't think it's an easy calculation to make.
We had rapid social progress _despite_ suburbanization. It never came to pass that we could assume that every household had a car, there was always a statistically significant urban populations that preferred transit, and delivery of public services is less efficient with lower density populations.
I happen to believe that we would be a healthier, happier society if suburbanization had never occurred. If we walked more, and had better access to the services we need, then we'd be healthier and happier. And it would be cheaper to deliver services.
I think that may be insufficiently factoring in energy costs. If energy costs a n order of magnitude or two more for an extended period, you just get a whole lot less economy generally, and therefore a whole lot less of everything an economy can provide.
Walking more sounds great, but I'm not sure it compensates for what could be an order of magnitude less health care generally.
Health care is more efficiently delivered to higher density populations. Low density populations increase the time to access health care, which increases the risk of delivering emergency care but it also encumbers access to primary care with the associated access time. Suburban areas are a great deal more expensive in terms of health care delivery.
Consider that in the absence of suburbanization there is decreased demand for energy. Higher density housing is cheaper to service overall, but also provides greater efficiency in accessing services. The reduced efficiency of suburban residences _requires_ the existence of high density forms of readily accessible and consumable energy; it simply isn't viable to build an American suburb without cheap energy, because it is a hideously inefficient model.
But other models _do_ exist, and _are_ successful. The suburb can die and society will be better off for it.
I imagine it would not have been so dramatic, though. Might have ultimately found our way to the same spot, but a few hundred years longer. It is hard to argue that the incredible energy density of fossil fuels (oil in particular) is not a big driver of our industrialization.
There's certainly a quality to it that has lent itself to the suburbanization of the USA. In the absence of viable electric battery technology, the suburbanization would have relied on street cars and pedestrians.
Which existed. And were ripped up around the time the automobile took over; which has all sorts of theories around it as to why...
I think without oil we'd have higher density cities, better public transit, and healthier populations.
Absolutely true, my point is more about extraction per se now that alternatives for some uses exist, and definitely the bootstrap problem is real and fossil fuels were the only way to get past it.
What I'm saying is more of an "externalities may exceed the value for any future time" than "we should go back in time and ban them from the beginning". I also suspect that as chemical feedstock and niche uses they'll effectively never be replaced, just probably be synthetic instead of extracted.
Soviet Union built one in Crimea. It worked. And nothing special was used that could not be built 200 years ago. But it was rather inefficient and in presence of cheap coal there were no point to continue with it after the collapse of Soviet Union.
You're going to have to give us your calculations there.
Because a gigantic amount of life improvement is also attributable to using fossil fuels for energy. So how exactly are you weighing up the two sides? Not to mention, it's hard to see how we ever would have been able to create the modern forms of renewable energy in the first place without fossil fuels as an intermediate technological phase.
And it's not even clear how you'd attribute political violence to fossil fuels. You don't need fossil fuels for massive warfare. And if you remove one primary resource from the equation, then another resource now becomes primary, and people will be fighting over that. In the days of the Roman Empire, grain was the strategic resource.
> it's hard to see how we ever would have been able to create the modern forms of renewable energy in the first place without fossil fuels as an intermediate technological phase.
That wasn't the point. It's clear that fossil fuels are a phase, one that can't last forever because they're finite. At some point they'll run out. But long before that can happens, we're more likely to transition away. Perhaps not completely, but to the point that they're something like whale oil.
Thank you for stating my thesis better than I could, exactly right. I think they were (and to some degree, especially as a feedstock, are) essential to escape from the energy poverty of e.g. the late 1700s. I just think we could have transitioned away at the turn of the previous century, or the turn of this century, and saved ourselves a lot of pain. The fact that they are still widely used as nominally primary energy (actually stored secondary energy) is a little disappointing.
> I just think we could have transitioned away at the turn of the previous century... and saved ourselves a lot of pain.
I mean, that's a hugely provocative statement that needs to be backed up with some level of analysis.
You need to look at all of the industries and products that would have become impossible, and what the ramifications of that are.
Even today, you're basically proposing that entire industries, such as long-distance air travel, effectively disappear. And that sea shipping effectively regresses to sailing ships? I can't even imagine how one could begin to perform an even remotely plausible analysis, given how much each industry relies on other industries, and how difficult it would be to estimate how other technological advances would have developed instead.
Mills using water as a source of energy are known for thousands of years. If oil, natural gas or even coal would not exist, that and wind energy would be used on much bigger scale. Then a solar power station using thermal solar could be built like 200 years ago. And nuclear energy would be eventually discovered.
> Yeah you do. Compare the casualties and destruction in 19th century and 20th century wars.
Looking at Wikipedia's list of wars by death toll[0], it seems that people were capable of massive casualties and destruction without fossil fuels, too. Like the Taiping Rebellion in 1850–1864, with a death toll of 20–70 million. The Mongol invasions in 1206–1368, with a death range of 20–60 million, and the Three Kingdoms period in 184–280, with a death range of 34 million.
"With no reliable census at the time, estimates of the death toll of the Taiping Rebellion are speculative. Most of the deaths were attributed to plague and famine".
That just means there was a large population around that could die from the effects of the war.
> The Mongol invasions in 1206–1368 [168 years]... and the Three Kingdoms period in 184–280 [96 years]
If WW2 [6 years] had gone on as long as the Mongol invasions the death toll would've topped 1 billion.
Casualties from Mongol invasion are very likely much less than what was given in Wikipedia. There are good arguments that in fact probability of being killed has not changed throughout the history. It just in modern times wars are less frequent but are more devastating.
I think this falls in line with the sentiment from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":
"And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees
in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans."
The way fossil fuels have been exploited has been categorically evil, and from that perspective I think the "industry" is going to be seen as a net negative. The negative externalities are in line with the waste generated by the development of nuclear weapons (think Hanford) on an even grander scale. But it would have been impossible for us to reach a point where it was possible to produce solar cells, hydro, and wind energy without the incredible energy density of petroleum fuels. The fuel for the industrial revolution that gave us our modern livelihoods. Petroleum-derived fertilizers are what enable the global population that we have today, so in a very real sense you and I would not exist without the development of fossil fuels on a grand scale. Whether or not that is a benefit or a deficit to mankind will probably be left to the historians.
Lest anyone think I condone the irreparable damage done to the planet by the industrialization enabled by reckless exploitation of petroleum, I think the whole thing is shameful, and I feel a bit of shame every time I have to drive my gasoline-powered car to the store. But I think there was a responsible way to harvest and benefit from that natural resource and like most natural resources, human greed found a way to make the worst of it.
I daresay it will be tricky to make any back of the envelope calculations without the use of fossil fuel products, given that both the envelope and the writing tool heavily rely on them.
The pen, pencil and paper are somewhat obvious. Less obvious is that we also need them to make glue at an industrial scale [1].
Insert here the New Yorker cartoon about the shabby business executive around a campfire with a bunch of kids crowing "Yes, the planet got destroyed, but for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
That sounds like it's smuggling in some assumptions that do not hold. Modern industrialization has led to human flourishing on an unprecedented scale. Pre-industrial civilizations are not getting to this point without high-energy-density materials and bootstrapping to photovoltaics, wind, and nuclear seem highly unlikely. Even solar concentrators seem unlikely to help considering fossil fuels provide portable energy storage that was unmatched in utility until recently.
I think there's probably a lot of rosy math in this counterfactual. Perhaps one can argue that post the nuclear age, we could have made some choices that environmentalists would oppose that would nonetheless have been better for the environment, but "from the beginning of use"? I think that I'd like to see.
EDIT: It would be a fun universe to play with, though. Do we use solar concentrators to provide the power to make grain ethanol? We'd have to master food production first without Haber-Bosch though. That sounds like a real challenge.
My statement is just forward looking - I don't see a way to get out of the energy trap from 1700 to perhaps 1900 besides fossil fuels, practically speaking, the regret I have is that we've continued past the point where alternatives are comparable or even superior.
I am curious how your back of the envelope calculations valued the reduction in transportation speed and cost afforded by fossil fuels over sails, paddles, and draft animals for the last 150 years or so.
Likewise, curious about the cost and value that air conditioning and refrigeration have provided. I'm not sure how you do a back of the envelope calculation to address opening up the southern United States-- something that wouldn't have been likely without the low cost of electricity given by coal (outside the TVA region).
It is unlikely that we will ever fully migrate away, unless the infrastructure to produce the fuels collapses. What kind of military transport airplanes or bombers will be electric? There will be many uses for fuel, just not perhaps in urban centers of the majority of people.
Right, I'm not saying we'll stop using e.g. JP8, I just think it will be synthetic over the long run. Similarly for chemical feedstocks - hydrocarbons are very useful materials that aren't going to disappear any time soon. I just think the "drilling them out of the ground" part is going to end.
I have no idea how you possibly came up with this.
For a start, there are a ton of non-energy uses of fossil fuels (eg fertilizer, plastics, roads). There are certain vehicles with huge impediments to switching away (eg planes, ships).
And beyond all that there are a ton of other sources of greenhouse gases, notably construction, specifically concrete.
We’ve taken a ton of sequestered carbon from the ground. To get net zero we’d have to sequester at least this much and the real way we have is growing plants. There are only so many plants you can grow.
My hyperbolic suggestion was to build four pyramids of carbon cubes. They'd have to be about 5km wide and similarly tall, and would be by far the largest structures ever built by humanity. You'd need supplemental oxygen to spend any substantial time on the peak.
Assuming we had too-cheap-to-meter fusion or a dyson swarm or something like that, of course.
Call it total cost of say, $50 trillion, no big deal, right?
> Is there an active, bloody conflict occurring due to any of those
The Congolese Civil War and the ongoing M23/Rwanda-led War [0], as well as the Myanmar Civil War [1]. Even the Russian Invasion of Ukraine has a critical minerals component [2] as does the ongoing Central African Republic Civil War [3][4] and the Oromo insurgency within the Ethiopian Civil War [5].
This does not mean that we shouldn't invest in building renewable and battery capacity (we in fact need to further enhance capacity), but we need to recognize that hard power trumps soft power in a multipolar world.
Renewable power doesn't imply pacifism. It is powered by critical minerals that all regional powers are rushing to control either with ballots [6], bribes [7], or bullets.
Renewable power will be covered in blood, but less blood than will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. If we need to make deals with devils, so be it. Such is life.
> The European Union has already seen the benefit of pivoting to renewables after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, though it also sought alternative sources of gas which are now under threat. Between 2019 and 2024, EU countries installed enough wind and solar capacity to avoid burning 92 billion cubic meters of gas and 55 million tons of hard coal in 2024, according to Agora Energiewende.
> “We’ve had tangible results,” said Frauke Thies, the think tank’s Europe director. “It was thanks to renewables that Europe wasn’t hit harder by the last energy crisis.”
Sort of. There’s a bullwhip effect with starting and stopping production from those economically marginal fields, whereas clean energy and storage deployed due to these fossil energy price levels will remain in service for at least the next two decades. For more research on this topic, keywords are “restart logistics shut in well.”
If these fields are currently in production, certainly, it squeezes some more life out of them unfortunately.
Which inflation measure are you referring to? Because of course petrolium products directly (gas, heating) and indirectly (cost of shipping) contribute to the effective price of most consumer baskets.
In other words, this might be true because the “inflation-rate“ was high, but it was high because the cost of oil went up.
I think we are likely to see really low oil prices in the future, for a while. Electrification of transportation is proceeding so quickly in some regions that demand is falling for oil.
Morals aside, Is not like anyone could have predicted this would have happened if you just go bomb the living shit out of a country that has the ability to shut off 1/5th of the worlds oil supply.
The US and Israel have made it clear that they intend this to be an existential war, so the current regime might as well go with whatever low-probability strategy gives them a chance at survival.
Yet, it's projected timeline seems to be extending
> Trump first said military action was expected to last "four to five weeks" but on 7 March White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said the operations could last up to six weeks.
> A day later, Trump told Israeli newspaper The Times of Israel that a decision on when to end the war would be decided mutually with Israel.
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the start of war that the campaign would "continue as long as it is needed".
Iran's calculation is that its been in the shit for the last 40 years, whats a bit more pain? Plus it knows that the USA can't invade on the ground without massive losses.
All it has to do is outlast the attention span of trump
It can be confusing for non-enthusiasts, but the 3L measurement in this news is the blower, not the engine. This is the metric used for positive displacement blowers, in particular, like the Whipple. The engine is still 5.0L.
For a moment I was excited. I'd be a little bit interested to see someone come up with a smaller V8 -- more efficient, but still all the right noises! Still have higher pumping losses compared to fewer cylinders, but might be worth it even still.
Oil was $109 when I checked. Some parties may ramp up production but an active military conflcit is going consume a large volume of oil. Prices are only going up from here.
The direct consumption of oil and petroleum products from the conflict is trivial compared to marine traffic being restricted from passage through the Straits of Hormuz. ~20% of global crude production pass through the Straits.
There may be some short term spikes, but $100/barrel is the hard limit now. We actually have effectively unlimited oil supplies now, but the economics of it don't converge until that price. At 100$, it becomes feasible for all of the more expensive fracking infrastructure to come back online, which puts a hard cap on the price.
The debate over whether oil prices drive inflation or vice versa usually ignores the lag in supply chain adjustments. When oil hits a certain threshold, it doesn't just increase the cost of a gallon of gas; it reprices the entire logistics layer of the global economy. Even if the current price is lower in inflation-adjusted terms compared to 2008, the volatility matters more for business planning than the absolute number. A rapid spike forces companies to price in risk, which stays sticky even if the price of crude eventually drops back down.
No, I don't remember anything about oil prices during Bidens term; no one bitched about gas prices or put stickers of his face on gas pumps or anything like that. Oh wait... that's all we heard about.
https://archive.is/c3LGR
> But the U.S. economy is still more reliant on oil than others: U.S. oil intensity is twice as high as the European Union and 40% higher than China’s, according to Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at think tank Defense Priorities. This is largely because the U.S. doesn’t have much public transportation or electric-vehicle adoption.
A painful reminder of the harsh costs of automobile dependency.
We've had the solutions to get off this rollercoaster since the 19th century, but weird ideologues continue to throw up barriers to any and all change. The reality is that enabling the alternatives wouldn't just limit climate change, but save us money too.
It's not just the ideologues; it's the people with vested interests in seeing oil companies continue to dominate. Lindsey Graham has been pretty mask-off in wanting to take control of Iran's oil resources and, in his words, "make a ton of money."
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/9/we-are-going-make-a-...
> Lindsey Graham has been pretty mask-off in wanting to take control of Iran's oil resources and, in his words, "make a ton of money."
Which kind of set all of this off back in the day: UK/US oil companies controlled Iranian oil, the legislature nationalized it, the Shah suppressed the legislature and portions of the population:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
the population got tired of being pushed down, and so eventually fought back:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
I find it utterly amazing that a country like the USA does not have nationwide high-speed rail and mass transit in every major city (that works for everyone).
Comparing with Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia) and certain EU countries (Vienna, Netherlands, etc.), it just shocks me how much people need a car for everything. Even a visitor needs to rent a car to properly go about their business.
Didn't know Vienna was a country.
I am sure you understood what I meant.
When the greed of the powerful rules everything, progress has to take a back seat.
> ideologues
Ideologues? No, profit at all cost and oil companies are particularly powerful in politics. Everything else follows from that.
Automobiles also run on electricity, there’s no need to bundle them up with fossil fuels. Car centric development is awesome. Big backyards, lots of space, convenient setups with parking attached to each shopping center. What’s not to like? It’s definitely better than living in apartments which are essentially cages where you’re forced to be mild mannered. Places like shenzen are 90% EVs and we’ll get there too.
All those things are awesome (if you're into that sort of thing, many people aren't) but they don't really rely on the car. Many of the low density detached home suburbs that people drive to these days were once upon a time street car suburbs.
But answering the question, "what's not to like?" The main thing is the fact that none of this scales. All the good benefits you're describing rely on the fact that other people aren't doing them. Other people need to live in "cages" so that you can have all this extra space.
Similarly an enjoyable experience in a car free of traffic relies on other people not driving. If all the people that are using transit were driving a single car, the traffic congestion would spike and you'd be in misery.
None of it scales due to the unchangable dynamics of physical geometry.
> If all the people that are using transit were driving a single car
I was anticipating a punch line?
"It would reach halfway to the Moon"
or "it would be a very crowded train car".
lol oops
By my back of the envelope math, once we've fully transitioned away from fossil fuels as an energy source (distinct from, say, as a chemical feedstock), and fully remediated the externalities and damage they've done both in terms of atmospheric CO2, political violence, and direct environmental contamination, the entire industry is likely going to be net negative as a whole from the beginning of usage to now. That's kind of an amazing thing to think about, even if it is an order of magnitude off in one direction or another.
A similar example would be the asbestos mining and manufacturing industry, which has been essentially fully destroyed by legal settlements.
The accounting only works if you assume the counterfactual is "same industrial civilization, minus fossil fuels." But there's a strong path-dependency argument that cheap hydrocarbons were the bootstrap not just for energy, but for the plastics, fertilizers, and chemical feedstocks that made modern manufacturing and agriculture possible in the first place. Renewables are downstream of that industrial base. You can't net out the externalities against a baseline that wouldn't exist without them.
Right I'm not saying that they were historically a bad idea, I'm saying that the future value of the industry is probably negative now that we're past the bootstrap to major alternatives in some areas. I don't see a way to get out of the energy trap of an early industrial revolution without concentrated combustion sources.
One does need carbohydrates for industrial bootstrap. Germans during WWII produced liquid fuel from coal. Modern version of this process becomes competitive with oil-base fuel around 80 USD/barrel.
Yes, this process is very energy intensive and generates like twice CO2 per energy used. But in a hypothetical world without oil and natural gas it may lead to earlier start with electric cars and renewables so the total amount of CO2 put into atmosphere would probably be the same. Plus, as coal is much more evenly distributed, there would be much less reasons for wars.
This only works up to a certain volume. The world economy requires about 38 billion barrels of oil per year. If you processed 100% of all grain, sugar crop, tuber and oilseed on Earth into liquid fuel, leaving zero for food, you'd get about 6 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in liquid fuels. Since it has to compete with food, the actual number would be much lower. It's not even close to being able to sustain our civilization.
There is absolutely enough coal to make liquid fuel for the current civilization. But if oil/gas would not exist, then electrical cars would be on the road much earlier as burning coal to produce electricity is much more efficient then converting it into liquid fuel to burn in a car engine. As electrical cars produces roughly the same amount of CO2 when using electricity from coal as ICE car running on gasoline, the climate impact would be roughly the same.
Then in a hypothetical scenario of 20th century without oil/natural gas nuclear energy would be much more widespread at this point and CO2 impact would be lower.
Just to be pedantic: I think you mean hydrocarbons (just carbon and hydrogen) rather than carbohydrates (carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen).
You could probably do it with carbohydrates (starches, sugars) or related molecules (wood, alcohol). But I'm pretty sure that hydrocarbons is what you intended there, and it's easier to dig that out of the ground.
It would've been impossible to bootstrap renewable energy without fossil fuels.
I'm strongly in favor of zero emissions. We also have to give fossil fuels their due for getting us here. I don't think the comparison to asbestos holds.
We've been milling wheat with wind power for more than a thousand years; run-of-river hydro-mechanical solutions have been used for milling, mining, and forging for just as long.
Electric wind and hydro solutions are hundreds of years old, at this point.
And of course, there's steam.
I think we'd have had a green revolution with wind and water. Petroleum wasn't necessary.
> And of course, there's steam.
How do you make steam without burning something? If you say nuclear fission then you're proposing that humans would somehow have invented electric mining vehicles and mined enough ore to invent fusion without burning a single hydrocarbon molecule?
I suppose in an alternate reality where we simply had no fossil fuels this may have been the tech tree. It would have taken centuries longer though.
Coal was certainly a problem; we have the word "smog" for a reason. But we were already on our way to electrified transport, via street cars and similar, when the automobile surged to popularity.
And where does all that electricity come from? Until the 40s or so, hydroelectric plants and wind turbines could provide hardly any power output compared to coal plants, later supplemented by gas plants; even the electric streetcars relied on fossil fuels further down the line. Renewable energy development would've had to scale an order of magnitude further than in reality to be a basis for industry and transportation, alongside advances in electricity distribution and storage to pull it from where it's generated.
The solution, in the absence of oil, would be to simply build more hydro and wind. Neither are particularly difficult technologies. Where they would have lagged in efficiency they make up for in simplicity.
Distributing electricity isn't easy, but it also isn't particularly insurmountable. We had to solve it even with oil as a source of electrical generation.
Your scenario seems baselessly optimistic. If it were just as simple to run society off of those, we would've been doing it to some extent already: it's not like Big Coal or Big Oil was blocking everyone else from having ideas about how to generate power (see: the initial spread of gas power, followed by the spread of nuclear power), and surely many people would've had the incentive to produce power without dealing with coal miners or oilmen. It's that it would've been dramatically more expensive without all the design iterations they have since gone through.
And if you greatly restrict supply at a given price point, without changing the underlying demand, you'll end up with much higher prices and lower total volume, so we wouldn't enjoyed all the compounding benefits from access to energy.
There are places that do. Here in Canada there are at least two provinces that subsist almost entirely off of hydro, and have for the better part of a century. Both export huge amounts of electricity to the USA.
And we have active political conflict between big oil and everyone else, where there seems to be an insatiable demand for socializing the externalities of oil and gas while receiving public funding to make oil production competitive and market viable. In that manner, it places itself in front of efforts to use literally anything else.
If oil and gas had never received a single dollar of public funding, including by way of public funding for externalities that support or recover from oil and gas, then it never would have been market viable as an energy source in places where it doesn't seep out of the soil. Roads would not have been paved, power plants would not have been built, suburbs would only exist for the very wealthy.
Respectfully, from reading all your other comments all over this thread, I don't think you understand everything that modern technology stands on top of. You're handwaving away enormously difficult, complicated things and processes with "just use hydro". It doesn't work like that.
Your heart is in the right place and I sympathize with you about car-oriented development in North America. But I think you have a massive blind spot.
Fossil fuels were good and necessary for the modern world. Their owners have perpetrated heinous lies to keep us tied to them for far longer than was good or necessary.
We might argue whether they were good (I disagree) but I cannot agree that they were ever _necessary_ as an energy source. Viable alternatives exist and have existed for the entire duration of their use as a form of energy; and the story of oil-as-energy is the story of human suffering in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries; without oil there would not be wars over oil, there would be healthier populations, and (likely) climate change would be less of a concern.
It wasn't necessary for it to happen eventually, but if eventually is several generations further down the line because it would have been painfully slow that's an important factor to consider.
Slower industrial and economic development would include huge human costs in terms of slower medical, social, economic and possibly also political development. It might have some beneficial effects as well though. I don't think it's an easy calculation to make.
We had rapid social progress _despite_ suburbanization. It never came to pass that we could assume that every household had a car, there was always a statistically significant urban populations that preferred transit, and delivery of public services is less efficient with lower density populations.
I happen to believe that we would be a healthier, happier society if suburbanization had never occurred. If we walked more, and had better access to the services we need, then we'd be healthier and happier. And it would be cheaper to deliver services.
I think that may be insufficiently factoring in energy costs. If energy costs a n order of magnitude or two more for an extended period, you just get a whole lot less economy generally, and therefore a whole lot less of everything an economy can provide.
Walking more sounds great, but I'm not sure it compensates for what could be an order of magnitude less health care generally.
Health care is more efficiently delivered to higher density populations. Low density populations increase the time to access health care, which increases the risk of delivering emergency care but it also encumbers access to primary care with the associated access time. Suburban areas are a great deal more expensive in terms of health care delivery.
Consider that in the absence of suburbanization there is decreased demand for energy. Higher density housing is cheaper to service overall, but also provides greater efficiency in accessing services. The reduced efficiency of suburban residences _requires_ the existence of high density forms of readily accessible and consumable energy; it simply isn't viable to build an American suburb without cheap energy, because it is a hideously inefficient model.
But other models _do_ exist, and _are_ successful. The suburb can die and society will be better off for it.
I imagine it would not have been so dramatic, though. Might have ultimately found our way to the same spot, but a few hundred years longer. It is hard to argue that the incredible energy density of fossil fuels (oil in particular) is not a big driver of our industrialization.
There's certainly a quality to it that has lent itself to the suburbanization of the USA. In the absence of viable electric battery technology, the suburbanization would have relied on street cars and pedestrians.
Which existed. And were ripped up around the time the automobile took over; which has all sorts of theories around it as to why...
I think without oil we'd have higher density cities, better public transit, and healthier populations.
Absolutely true, my point is more about extraction per se now that alternatives for some uses exist, and definitely the bootstrap problem is real and fossil fuels were the only way to get past it.
What I'm saying is more of an "externalities may exceed the value for any future time" than "we should go back in time and ban them from the beginning". I also suspect that as chemical feedstock and niche uses they'll effectively never be replaced, just probably be synthetic instead of extracted.
Thermal solar can be built 200 years ago. Although coal is very useful for production of steel, it is not essential as wood can be used instead.
> Although coal is very useful for production of steel, it is not essential as wood can be used instead.
Wasn't the production of charcoal in Europe during the middle ages the cause of rather massive deforestation?
I don't know about Europe, but mining deforested most of Nevada's pinyon-juniper woodlands to produce charcoal during the 1800s.
> Thermal solar can be built 200 years ago
That's good for heating water, but I'm not aware of it generating a significant amount of electricity even today.
Soviet Union built one in Crimea. It worked. And nothing special was used that could not be built 200 years ago. But it was rather inefficient and in presence of cheap coal there were no point to continue with it after the collapse of Soviet Union.
[dead]
That's a heck of a "back of the envelope".
You're going to have to give us your calculations there.
Because a gigantic amount of life improvement is also attributable to using fossil fuels for energy. So how exactly are you weighing up the two sides? Not to mention, it's hard to see how we ever would have been able to create the modern forms of renewable energy in the first place without fossil fuels as an intermediate technological phase.
And it's not even clear how you'd attribute political violence to fossil fuels. You don't need fossil fuels for massive warfare. And if you remove one primary resource from the equation, then another resource now becomes primary, and people will be fighting over that. In the days of the Roman Empire, grain was the strategic resource.
> it's hard to see how we ever would have been able to create the modern forms of renewable energy in the first place without fossil fuels as an intermediate technological phase.
That wasn't the point. It's clear that fossil fuels are a phase, one that can't last forever because they're finite. At some point they'll run out. But long before that can happens, we're more likely to transition away. Perhaps not completely, but to the point that they're something like whale oil.
Thank you for stating my thesis better than I could, exactly right. I think they were (and to some degree, especially as a feedstock, are) essential to escape from the energy poverty of e.g. the late 1700s. I just think we could have transitioned away at the turn of the previous century, or the turn of this century, and saved ourselves a lot of pain. The fact that they are still widely used as nominally primary energy (actually stored secondary energy) is a little disappointing.
> I just think we could have transitioned away at the turn of the previous century... and saved ourselves a lot of pain.
I mean, that's a hugely provocative statement that needs to be backed up with some level of analysis.
You need to look at all of the industries and products that would have become impossible, and what the ramifications of that are.
Even today, you're basically proposing that entire industries, such as long-distance air travel, effectively disappear. And that sea shipping effectively regresses to sailing ships? I can't even imagine how one could begin to perform an even remotely plausible analysis, given how much each industry relies on other industries, and how difficult it would be to estimate how other technological advances would have developed instead.
Mills using water as a source of energy are known for thousands of years. If oil, natural gas or even coal would not exist, that and wind energy would be used on much bigger scale. Then a solar power station using thermal solar could be built like 200 years ago. And nuclear energy would be eventually discovered.
> You don't need fossil fuels for massive warfare
Yeah you do. Compare the casualties and destruction in 19th century and 20th century wars.
> Yeah you do. Compare the casualties and destruction in 19th century and 20th century wars.
Looking at Wikipedia's list of wars by death toll[0], it seems that people were capable of massive casualties and destruction without fossil fuels, too. Like the Taiping Rebellion in 1850–1864, with a death toll of 20–70 million. The Mongol invasions in 1206–1368, with a death range of 20–60 million, and the Three Kingdoms period in 184–280, with a death range of 34 million.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
> Taiping Rebellion
"With no reliable census at the time, estimates of the death toll of the Taiping Rebellion are speculative. Most of the deaths were attributed to plague and famine".
That just means there was a large population around that could die from the effects of the war.
> The Mongol invasions in 1206–1368 [168 years]... and the Three Kingdoms period in 184–280 [96 years]
If WW2 [6 years] had gone on as long as the Mongol invasions the death toll would've topped 1 billion.
Casualties from Mongol invasion are very likely much less than what was given in Wikipedia. There are good arguments that in fact probability of being killed has not changed throughout the history. It just in modern times wars are less frequent but are more devastating.
[dead]
I think this falls in line with the sentiment from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":
"And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans."
The way fossil fuels have been exploited has been categorically evil, and from that perspective I think the "industry" is going to be seen as a net negative. The negative externalities are in line with the waste generated by the development of nuclear weapons (think Hanford) on an even grander scale. But it would have been impossible for us to reach a point where it was possible to produce solar cells, hydro, and wind energy without the incredible energy density of petroleum fuels. The fuel for the industrial revolution that gave us our modern livelihoods. Petroleum-derived fertilizers are what enable the global population that we have today, so in a very real sense you and I would not exist without the development of fossil fuels on a grand scale. Whether or not that is a benefit or a deficit to mankind will probably be left to the historians.
Lest anyone think I condone the irreparable damage done to the planet by the industrialization enabled by reckless exploitation of petroleum, I think the whole thing is shameful, and I feel a bit of shame every time I have to drive my gasoline-powered car to the store. But I think there was a responsible way to harvest and benefit from that natural resource and like most natural resources, human greed found a way to make the worst of it.
I daresay it will be tricky to make any back of the envelope calculations without the use of fossil fuel products, given that both the envelope and the writing tool heavily rely on them.
The pen, pencil and paper are somewhat obvious. Less obvious is that we also need them to make glue at an industrial scale [1].
[1] https://blogs.canterbury.ac.uk/sustainability/sealed-fate-pe...
Your comment wins the day, as far as I'm concerned.
Here's to more back-of-the-envelope calculations (and less hand-waving).
I learned a lot about glue here.
Aaand this news about glue from used cooking oil, which can replace EVA glue: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a6968117...
Insert here the New Yorker cartoon about the shabby business executive around a campfire with a bunch of kids crowing "Yes, the planet got destroyed, but for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
That sounds like it's smuggling in some assumptions that do not hold. Modern industrialization has led to human flourishing on an unprecedented scale. Pre-industrial civilizations are not getting to this point without high-energy-density materials and bootstrapping to photovoltaics, wind, and nuclear seem highly unlikely. Even solar concentrators seem unlikely to help considering fossil fuels provide portable energy storage that was unmatched in utility until recently.
I think there's probably a lot of rosy math in this counterfactual. Perhaps one can argue that post the nuclear age, we could have made some choices that environmentalists would oppose that would nonetheless have been better for the environment, but "from the beginning of use"? I think that I'd like to see.
EDIT: It would be a fun universe to play with, though. Do we use solar concentrators to provide the power to make grain ethanol? We'd have to master food production first without Haber-Bosch though. That sounds like a real challenge.
My statement is just forward looking - I don't see a way to get out of the energy trap from 1700 to perhaps 1900 besides fossil fuels, practically speaking, the regret I have is that we've continued past the point where alternatives are comparable or even superior.
I am curious how your back of the envelope calculations valued the reduction in transportation speed and cost afforded by fossil fuels over sails, paddles, and draft animals for the last 150 years or so.
Likewise, curious about the cost and value that air conditioning and refrigeration have provided. I'm not sure how you do a back of the envelope calculation to address opening up the southern United States-- something that wouldn't have been likely without the low cost of electricity given by coal (outside the TVA region).
Not to mention synthetic fertilizer basically ending famine outside of war zones.
It is unlikely that we will ever fully migrate away, unless the infrastructure to produce the fuels collapses. What kind of military transport airplanes or bombers will be electric? There will be many uses for fuel, just not perhaps in urban centers of the majority of people.
Right, I'm not saying we'll stop using e.g. JP8, I just think it will be synthetic over the long run. Similarly for chemical feedstocks - hydrocarbons are very useful materials that aren't going to disappear any time soon. I just think the "drilling them out of the ground" part is going to end.
I hope we can switch to biofuels, though. The value of liquid fuels is undeniable, but we can make them without digging up more oil.
[dead]
> What kind of military transport airplanes or bombers will be electric?
Looked into how wars are being fought these days? Drones.
I have no idea how you possibly came up with this.
For a start, there are a ton of non-energy uses of fossil fuels (eg fertilizer, plastics, roads). There are certain vehicles with huge impediments to switching away (eg planes, ships).
And beyond all that there are a ton of other sources of greenhouse gases, notably construction, specifically concrete.
We’ve taken a ton of sequestered carbon from the ground. To get net zero we’d have to sequester at least this much and the real way we have is growing plants. There are only so many plants you can grow.
So how do you get to get net zero?
My hyperbolic suggestion was to build four pyramids of carbon cubes. They'd have to be about 5km wide and similarly tall, and would be by far the largest structures ever built by humanity. You'd need supplemental oxygen to spend any substantial time on the peak.
Assuming we had too-cheap-to-meter fusion or a dyson swarm or something like that, of course.
Call it total cost of say, $50 trillion, no big deal, right?
That's one hell of a big envelope!
[dead]
Can’t wait to get all that spilled blood back!
Water, lithium, high-purity sand, various other high-value metals. There isn't going to be a shortage of blood being spilled for resources.
Solar, wind, and batteries are already potentially trillion dollar markets. Is there an active, bloody conflict occurring due to any of those?
> Is there an active, bloody conflict occurring due to any of those
The Congolese Civil War and the ongoing M23/Rwanda-led War [0], as well as the Myanmar Civil War [1]. Even the Russian Invasion of Ukraine has a critical minerals component [2] as does the ongoing Central African Republic Civil War [3][4] and the Oromo insurgency within the Ethiopian Civil War [5].
This does not mean that we shouldn't invest in building renewable and battery capacity (we in fact need to further enhance capacity), but we need to recognize that hard power trumps soft power in a multipolar world.
Renewable power doesn't imply pacifism. It is powered by critical minerals that all regional powers are rushing to control either with ballots [6], bribes [7], or bullets.
Renewable power will be covered in blood, but less blood than will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. If we need to make deals with devils, so be it. Such is life.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/us-struggling-de-risk-c...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-explores-rare-eart...
[2] - https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/blog/lithium-the...
[3] - https://dayan.org/content/central-african-republic-between-f...
[4] - https://energycapitalpower.com/exclusive-central-african-rep...
[5] - https://www.thereporterethiopia.com/36610/
[6] - https://www.ibanet.org/Rule-of-law-Milei-election-win-raises...
[7] - https://www.ft.com/content/401a9e84-3034-4375-bf39-56b92500c...
Fantastic news, the longer the price is held up, the longer oil price levels tilts the economics towards electrification.
As Iran Crisis Upends Oil and Gas, Clean Energy Gets Complicated - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-02/middle-ea... | https://archive.today/fIND6 - March 2nd, 2026
> The European Union has already seen the benefit of pivoting to renewables after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, though it also sought alternative sources of gas which are now under threat. Between 2019 and 2024, EU countries installed enough wind and solar capacity to avoid burning 92 billion cubic meters of gas and 55 million tons of hard coal in 2024, according to Agora Energiewende.
> “We’ve had tangible results,” said Frauke Thies, the think tank’s Europe director. “It was thanks to renewables that Europe wasn’t hit harder by the last energy crisis.”
It also tilts the economics toward extracting from more expensive oilfields if the price stays high long enough.
Sort of. There’s a bullwhip effect with starting and stopping production from those economically marginal fields, whereas clean energy and storage deployed due to these fossil energy price levels will remain in service for at least the next two decades. For more research on this topic, keywords are “restart logistics shut in well.”
If these fields are currently in production, certainly, it squeezes some more life out of them unfortunately.
https://cyrusashayeri.substack.com/p/restarting-fieldwide-sh...
Additional citation:
Why $100 Oil Isn't Going to Spark a New Shale Boom – Oilprice.com - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47324000 - March 2026
Interestingly, in inflation-adjusted terms, oil is currently at a price level lower than the price level that was maintained from 2006-2014.
Which inflation measure are you referring to? Because of course petrolium products directly (gas, heating) and indirectly (cost of shipping) contribute to the effective price of most consumer baskets.
In other words, this might be true because the “inflation-rate“ was high, but it was high because the cost of oil went up.
> In other words, this might be true because the “inflation-rate“ was high, but it was high because the cost of oil went up.
No way. Housing and food have gone way up from Obama-era levels, but gas has yet to even come close to the cost at the time.
Edit: If anything, it's really the opposite. Cheap gas has been holding down inflation estimates.
Do you believe the price of housing and food is unrelated to the cost of oil?
For the time period in question, practically, yes, because the price of housing and food went up while the price of oil stayed flat.
This is true, but its not necessarily the price, its the doubling over night.
I think we are likely to see really low oil prices in the future, for a while. Electrification of transportation is proceeding so quickly in some regions that demand is falling for oil.
The global market a a good deal bigger, so it is much more money over all being demanded of the market buyers.
Morals aside, Is not like anyone could have predicted this would have happened if you just go bomb the living shit out of a country that has the ability to shut off 1/5th of the worlds oil supply.
Its not like they done it before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_war no, don't look at history, its for the woke.
Its not like they've been planning it for the last 30 years either.
Iran going after the other Gulf states oil production is a great way for Iran to accelerate its own demise.
The US and Israel have made it clear that they intend this to be an existential war, so the current regime might as well go with whatever low-probability strategy gives them a chance at survival.
Yet, it's projected timeline seems to be extending
> Trump first said military action was expected to last "four to five weeks" but on 7 March White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said the operations could last up to six weeks.
> A day later, Trump told Israeli newspaper The Times of Israel that a decision on when to end the war would be decided mutually with Israel.
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the start of war that the campaign would "continue as long as it is needed".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2dyz6p3weo
Iran's calculation is that its been in the shit for the last 40 years, whats a bit more pain? Plus it knows that the USA can't invade on the ground without massive losses.
All it has to do is outlast the attention span of trump
Works where archive.is is blocked, no CAPTCHAs:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/oil-is-already-near-...
Text-only, no Javascript, HTTPS optional:
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1XQ4RU...
Perfect timing for the new 3L V8 Ford Mustang!
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a70578826/ford-brings-3-li...
It can be confusing for non-enthusiasts, but the 3L measurement in this news is the blower, not the engine. This is the metric used for positive displacement blowers, in particular, like the Whipple. The engine is still 5.0L.
For a moment I was excited. I'd be a little bit interested to see someone come up with a smaller V8 -- more efficient, but still all the right noises! Still have higher pumping losses compared to fewer cylinders, but might be worth it even still.
You don't have a strong understanding of automotive engine design, do ya?
The engine is still 5.0L. The supercharger is 3.0L. And that is why it makes 810 horsepower.
(Looks sadly at the 1.3L Eaton supercharger on my workbench and feels inadequate)
Point of clarification - that's a 3L supercharger on a 5.0L V8, not a 3.0L V8
Oil was $109 when I checked. Some parties may ramp up production but an active military conflcit is going consume a large volume of oil. Prices are only going up from here.
The direct consumption of oil and petroleum products from the conflict is trivial compared to marine traffic being restricted from passage through the Straits of Hormuz. ~20% of global crude production pass through the Straits.
>"Prices are only going up from here."
There may be some short term spikes, but $100/barrel is the hard limit now. We actually have effectively unlimited oil supplies now, but the economics of it don't converge until that price. At 100$, it becomes feasible for all of the more expensive fracking infrastructure to come back online, which puts a hard cap on the price.
The debate over whether oil prices drive inflation or vice versa usually ignores the lag in supply chain adjustments. When oil hits a certain threshold, it doesn't just increase the cost of a gallon of gas; it reprices the entire logistics layer of the global economy. Even if the current price is lower in inflation-adjusted terms compared to 2008, the volatility matters more for business planning than the absolute number. A rapid spike forces companies to price in risk, which stays sticky even if the price of crude eventually drops back down.
And it's already down to $95 lol
did anyone do this same reporting during the biden or obama years?
You may not have noticed because they were also going on and on about egg prices.
Yes, of course!
No, I don't remember anything about oil prices during Bidens term; no one bitched about gas prices or put stickers of his face on gas pumps or anything like that. Oh wait... that's all we heard about.