Timeline for Why don't countries welcome high energy prices to fight climate change?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2022 at 12:58 | comment | added | Ander Biguri | @Allure finally, re oil: oil accounts for a bit less than the total fossil fuel burning for energy, coal and gas being almost on the same level each. Its not a "just oil" situation, albeit I acknowledge you may have just shown that as an example. Regarthless, this is starting to become a political discussion on how to solve the issue, or ideas on such. That is not what the question was about, nor am I able to provide a thorough answer on that. Simply: some people believe this may be a better option. Regardless if it is, or it isn't. | |
| Oct 18, 2022 at 12:52 | comment | added | Ander Biguri | @Allure while adjacent to the issue, you are showing a different thing. Those National oil companies are national in order to bring profit to the countries that have the oil. They are a de facto for profit organizations, such has been the geopolitcal importance of oil in the XX century. Clean energy could not become like that, because its not a resource that can be sold in barrels. (side note 7% is about foreign, not private, and 65% is about oil reserves, not % of countries that allow this. E.g. Saudi Arabia is 16% alone, so is Venezuela, covering half of that 65%). | |
| Oct 18, 2022 at 12:45 | comment | added | Allure | That's how it works in many places isn't it? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_oil_supplies "According to consulting firm PFC Energy, only 7% of the world's estimated oil and gas reserves are in countries that allow private international companies free rein. Fully 65% are in the hands of state-owned companies such as Saudi Aramco, with the rest in countries such as Russia and Venezuela" | |
| Oct 18, 2022 at 12:41 | comment | added | Ander Biguri | For transparency: I am a supporter of such policies that would aim to make public the energy sector. But the point of my answer was not to promote such ideas, just give you a view that many people have on this: free market capitalism is not the solution, and thus, the questions assumption is not entirely valid, as there are ways to tackle the problem that do not rely on the axioms of such economical system. This is why they don't support the price increase for fossil fuel removal. | |
| Oct 18, 2022 at 12:37 | comment | added | Ander Biguri | This can be applied to energy too, and in fact, in many countries, this was the original shape of the energy business, and it was later historically privatized. Obviously, having this as a public or private service is on its own a political debate. My point was that indeed it is a political debate and there are some people (and many more activists) that argue that this is what they want. Not everyone wants free market capitalism as a solution, as some argue that it is the cause of the problem. | |
| Oct 18, 2022 at 12:35 | comment | added | Ander Biguri | @Allure the literal same way than public transport, education or healthcare in most EU countries. There is nothing inherently complicated of making a service public. You simply shift the purpose of its function. In a free market economy, the purpose is, ultimately, make money. This is why in Europe you have the public services I mentioned. Their purpose, by being government owned, is not making money, even if in some cases they can make money (e.g. public transport is some places), but instead to provide a service. | |
| Oct 18, 2022 at 12:30 | comment | added | Allure | the government to own energy generation and distribution as a service, and to governments to take responsibility for the sources of this energy Can you describe how this works? | |
| Oct 18, 2022 at 9:11 | history | answered | Ander Biguri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |