Thread by @StuLoren

To all those who want to achieve a “Net Zero” emissions target by 2050, you realize that’s harder to do if the world is in a state of anarchy because no one can afford energy by like 2030, right?

#EFF #OOTT

wsj.com/articles/biden…

What’s so frustrating about US and western energy policy is it assumes we can smoothly transition to a carbon free world without worrying about the multi-decade interim effects of putting up roadblocks to conventional energy investment/usage.

I get no one wants to see coastlines spoiled. But every US barrel kept in the ground, means potentially a dirtier one is produced elsewhere. Do you think most countries have better environmental standards and more responsible firms?

The world - at least the modern one we’re accustomed to living in - needs oil and gas investment. A lot more of it. Pretending otherwise will set us up for severe supply shortfalls, even in rapid energy transition scenarios (per multiple analyses - JPM, BP and IEA below).

Conventional (non-shale) energy investments are expensive and long-term in nature and require some regulatory certainty to ensure adequate returns on investment. So the flip flopping on energy policy every few years here is entirely unhelpful.

And unfairly bashing energy companies for being evil, or price gougers, or unpatriotic doesn’t exactly make them more keen to invest either… These are legitimate businesses employing hard working Americans, generating domestic revenue.

https://twitter.com/StuLoren/status/1462292812708421634

And here’s an idea: if you don’t like their product, why don’t you try using less of it! For all the talk of supply-side restrictions, there’s comparatively little focus on demand. Turns out most of us are accustomed to a certain quality of life…

I could keep going on but the main point is that we have potentially prolonged energy supply tightness and need to incentivize production. Isn’t it better that happens domestically? There are huge geopolitical advantages to that as well.

https://twitter.com/StuLoren/status/1445783106162671617

And again, if your reason for opposing this is that it may impact the environment, try seeing how many people care about such matters when they can’t afford the cost of daily living. Inflation hasn’t exactly proven that popular so far…

Environmental stewardship really only works in countries with comfortable living standards, where people can afford to think about stuff other than where the next meal is coming from and staying warm in the winter. Many countries have energy insecurity and can’t afford to care.

If we mess up our energy system, we will undermine the environmental movement and any support for an energy transition. And in the process of doing so we will also destabilize our economies, societies and politics. It’s already happening in many places. linkedin.com/pulse/esg-road…

Finally, for all the focus on what US energy policy does or doesn’t do, in the time you were reading this China and India probably burned enough coal to negate the impact of your lifetime efforts to reduce your carbon footprint.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t try living more sustainably, but just an acknowledgement that the environment is global and overly focusing on what the US does misses the bigger picture.

Again, if you care about the environment (I do!!), your goal should be implementing policies that ensure we actually get to enjoy the benefits of better green technology in 2050 instead of living in an energy shortage induced state of chaos and conflict. linkedin.com/pulse/history-…

Anyways to tie everything back to the start, preventing offshore leases right now in the US seems like a bad idea.

This thread was sort of a follow-up to similar thoughts from yesterday. Hope everyone enjoys their 4th!

https://twitter.com/StuLoren/status/1542621461290041345

Post script: Europe is our future in the US if we don’t start getting this right.

https://twitter.com/javierblas/status/1543179590801162240