There was a lot of blather at the Republican debate last night about the need to supercharge our energy production, all of it centered on fossil fuels. (For some reason Republicans have no apparent interest in supercharging any other type of energy production.) This makes me think that a lot of people don't realize just how much US oil and gas production has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. It's more than doubled:
Here is annual growth in crude oil production by president:
- Bush: -1.4% per year
- Obama: +9.1% per year
- Trump: +6.2% per year
- Biden (so far): +5.9% per year
Well, coal production has fallen off a cliff during that time (and for good reason), so not *all* fossil fuel production has skyrocketed.
Well, methane emissions are climbing fast, so thanks to Toyota and BP, blue hydrogen for the win.*
OT: Threads now has a web client.
* - for the fastest way to hit IPCC 1.5°C limits.
New Mexico needs to take a big share of the "credit." Most of the state budget is made up of (paltry) royalties from oil & gas production. The guv wants to fight global warming, but refuses to forego all the succulent easy money.
I'm inclined to give NM some slack, poor as it is and with so few options. After Mississippi, NM and Louisiana jostle for 2nd poorest state. Lujan Grisham is playing a bad hand with no good choices. If we're picking a villain there are way better (worse) candidates.
Presumably a combination of (in order of fundamental importance)
(1) appeal to MAGA with all its backwards looking cultural backlash politics, for whom Traditional and Familiar are part of their identarian reaction - ergo hydrocarbons double plus good, RE bad as Left Democrats like it.
(2) Republican donor influences with overweight to petrol interests
(3) lack yet of counter-weight of enough economic interest in RE in R weighted voting constituencies, although the Biden IRA is changing this and perhaps can become material economic counter-weight in political interest (although Texan examples of efforts at self-harm limiting on RE are not encouraging)
But really I think (1) is largely explanatory for Republican primary rhetoric.
Were a normal R to become candidate one could well expect post-election pivot to more normal policies, as after all the MAGA rubes don't particularly track policy over Feeling.
With Trump as the probable candidate, well.... For God's sake the bloody Democrts better mobilise in Nov24 and don't let Trotskite thinking kick in.
This is presumably a result of fracking, not really any political decisions. Fracking has done two things which are good; gas has largely replaced coal and fracking oil has eliminated dependence on foreign oil. It is now claimed that non-fossil energy is cheaper than fossil energy. Whether this is true or not (the Chinese and some others don't seem to believe it), the reduction in price of non-fossil energy came too late to prevent the fracking boom.
Fracking is not supposed to last too much longer and then economics may force the switch to non-fossil fuels regardless of MAGA politics.
"For some reason Republicans have no apparent interest in supercharging any other type of energy production."
Follow the money.
There are trillions of dollars of fossil fuels in the ground. Industries have done way worse for a lot less money.
And never forget, Exxon Mobil has done a fantastic job of predicting climate change for nearly 40 years. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063
Then lying about it. Buying a few politicians and Fox News is couch change for them.