I mean, I get that you have a quote from an article with the word Trump in the title by "America's largest online progressive news show". So that's almost evidence, but it also happens to be 100% wrong.
Non-physical traders in any commodity can't push prices forever, because the physical reality always catches up to them. Eventually all these products are convertible into a physical good, and if enough real people won't pay that price for it the price will change.
Think about the price going negative during the pandemic. That wasn't because of swaps traders, of shorts, it was because the storage for PHYSICAL crude oil at Cushing, OK was filling up.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Interest rates is slow and stifles companies ability to increase production and invest in optimization as they still need to hit dividend targets and lots of debt covenants are based around LIBOR.
If your goal is to suck dollars out of the economy taxation is the fastest way to it AND instead of increasing debt servicing costs with prime rate increases you pay down debt.
Essentially if you are going to do economic damage at least pay down debt while you do it.
We've been balls deep into Modern Monetary Theory for a decade now, which specifically says print money like mad to keep employment high, then when things get overheated, raise taxes to restore balance.
No surprise politicians are only willing to use the publicly palatable part of the system (print money).
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Interest rates is slow and stifles companies ability to increase production and invest in optimization as they still need to hit dividend targets and lots of debt covenants are based around LIBOR.
If your goal is to suck dollars out of the economy taxation is the fastest way to it AND instead of increasing debt servicing costs with prime rate increases you pay down debt.
Essentially if you are going to do economic damage at least pay down debt while you do it.
That’s how MMT is supposed to work, yes.
Unfortunately, MMT was dreamed up in a world where public opinion and elections don’t exist. In an inflationary period, when voters are distressed about rising prices, few politicians looking to get elected are going to run on a campaign of increasing taxes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-18-2022 at 07:28 AM.
Fossil fuels do need to end. We just aren't ready to do it yet.
Do they? If we can develop natural gas resources and the technology behind it in such a way that emissions are drastically reduced (which is possible), plus go further down the chain and make every single end point installation that uses natural gas as a source of energy ALSO more efficient (also possible), we can drastically reduce emissions immediately.
Why is that not an option? It should be, because it is the only short term (less than 5 years) option to curb rising emissions.
Why/how is Canada's natural gas any more climate friendly than anywhere else's natural gas?
Quote:
“Not all LNG is created equal,” researchers with the University of Calgary and University Toronto said wrote in report presented at the industry event GeoConvention 2021.
They compared the emissions intensity – or emissions per unit of LNG – of the LNG Canada terminal that is under construction at Kitimat, B.C. with American competitors, finding a lower footprint for the Canadian project.
The global average emissions intensity for LNG is 0.35 per cent CO2 per tonne, according to Oxford Energy Institute. Once operating after 2025, LNG Canada is expected to have emissions intensity of less than half that, at 0.15 per cent CO2 per tonne.
Proposed Indigenous-led project Cedar LNG would have emissions intensity of 0.08 per cent, and Woodfibre LNG, which recently received the go-ahead to proceed, would have emissions intensity of 0.03 per cent.
There are four key reasons why Canada has the advantage: shorter shipping distances to customers, a colder climate, the use of hydroelectricity, and methane emissions reduction.
The fact that you, as someone who follows this topic reasonably closely, doesn't know that answer to that, is a pretty good illustration of the misinformation we see coming from the environmentalists in this country.
The entire process matters, with respect to extraction, refinement, and delivery. And Canada is one of the most responsible nations in these regards. But that doesn't suit the narrative that Canadian oil and gas is the devil.
Yeah, pretty concerning. I'd consider Pete more informed than most, and if even he isn't aware of it, Canadian LNG is toast. The industry simply can't fight back against a populace and government standard that is literally ignorant and the facts our Canadian LNG. Jeepers.
Due to major supply chain disruptions and shortages of many commodities such as computer chips, coupled with soaring fuel prices, I don't think the current inflation can be solved simply through interest rate hikes. Fixing the supply chain issues is probably the only way things can return to some level of normalcy, and it'll likely take quite some time to get there. High inflation is probably here to stay for several years, unfortunately.
Of course.
Perhaps our government would like to get involved in solving congestion at ports, rails, trucking, etc.
Regardless of the timeline, the complete end of fossil fuels will just not happen...at least not without a drastic and draconian decrease of quality of life (and for many, life itself, because the impact would be massive). I don’t think many truly understand how much coal/oil/gas increased our quality of life over the last 200 years, and how much of our entire modern existence relies on them. It's not just about life without gas powered cars. It's life without the entire car, and virtually everything else we use today. Life without plastic. Without industrial fertilizer. Without medicines. Without rubber. Without steel. Without microchips. All these things are built from, or with, the critical use of fossil fuels and minerals. I mean life did exist before these things, but it was a much harsher and shorter one.
Now even if you ignore all that, and you're ready to party like its 1799 because you only care about the environmental impact, I think it's critical to understand that while time marches forward and new technologies will replace older technologies, the end of fossil fuels use does not equal the end of us getting our hands dirty. Natural extraction is here to stay no matter what technology you champion. Society does not happen without something being removed, dug up, grown, or hunted from nature. Never has, never will. From the first caveman who picked up a rock, to building the bleeding edge renewable technology, we’ve been exploiting natural resources to survive and thrive since Day 1. Life is extremely energy intensive, and will continue to be so, regardless of your favourite technology you want to replace fossil fuels with.
The fact is our ability to extract and development fossil fuel resources in a clean & sustainable way has been severely compromised because of the stupid idea that we actually need to END fossil fuel usage instead.
Canada has been a world leader in developing the technology that allows countries & companies around the world to develop their fossil fuel resources at lower emissions. But because that hasn't allowed to continue, and because our government bodies have effectively created a regulatory nightmare that discourages more investment, everything has stalled.
If the argument that more time and money had been invested into battery technology = battery technology that allows to switch away from fossil fuels, why is that argument also not true when it comes to natural gas development?
If Canada would have been allowed to go full scale ahead with developing natural gas plays, is it unrealistic to expect that we'd have plays coming online at less than 0.03 percent?
We are already up to 5x more efficient than the US, how much more efficient are we than every other country, and can you imagine exporting that technology? We could literally solve the emissions problem in 5-10 years. But no, gas = evil. No compromise.
The fact is our ability to extract and development fossil fuel resources in a clean & sustainable way has been severely compromised because of the stupid idea that we actually need to END fossil fuel usage instead.
Canada has been a world leader in developing the technology that allows countries & companies around the world to develop their fossil fuel resources at lower emissions. But because that hasn't allowed to continue, and because our government bodies have effectively created a regulatory nightmare that discourages more investment, everything has stalled.
If the argument that more time and money had been invested into battery technology = battery technology that allows to switch away from fossil fuels, why is that argument also not true when it comes to natural gas development?
If Canada would have been allowed to go full scale ahead with developing natural gas plays, is it unrealistic to expect that we'd have plays coming online at less than 0.03 percent?
We are already up to 5x more efficient than the US, how much more efficient are we than every other country, and can you imagine exporting that technology? We could literally solve the emissions problem in 5-10 years. But no, gas = evil. No compromise.
That isn’t true without Carbon Capture. The geology required for carbon capture is not available everywhere
Do they? If we can develop natural gas resources and the technology behind it in such a way that emissions are drastically reduced (which is possible), plus go further down the chain and make every single end point installation that uses natural gas as a source of energy ALSO more efficient (also possible), we can drastically reduce emissions immediately.
Why is that not an option? It should be, because it is the only short term (less than 5 years) option to curb rising emissions.
I would bet that’s fake. Edit: Quick googling suggests it’s real though. I’m surprised that Argentina labour is that much more expensive than Thai labour that it covers the shipping cost.
Why does it have to be either-or? Why can't it be both-and? In other words, why can't it be true that working cooperatively with O&G would have moved things along faster, but also increased public funding into clean energy R&D would also have moved things along faster?
One thing I'll say though, by secretly funding climate change denial efforts, O&G companies have made themselves rather hard to trust...
As for solutions, I'm more excited by the advancements in geothermal technology than any other (though wind, solar, and nuclear certainly have their role to play as well). Posted about it here: https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...11#post8336811
I'm not talking a hypothetical. I'm talking it seems obvious that O&G seems to feel this way. We've seen some evidence of this with Keystone and transmountain. They followed the stringent rules and still got taken for a turn or railroaded. That might be why they'd choose to be combative rather than cooperative.
Had the original idea been that we want to reduce emissions, how do we cooperate with O&G and give them a chance to survive, I think they pour more into both O&G improvements, but also green tech. They'd have to spend less on marketing against the smear campaigns, fighting misinformation with misinformation... Etc. IMO, both O&G tech and green tech would be further ahead rather than green tech behind and O&G fighting to entrench. Far less resources go into black holes and into incremental steps forward.
Pairing Oil/Gas and green together as a package could have been an outcome. This could have helped curve inflation and also address other climate issues and environmental issues. But nope. Went into arguing. But again, maybe I am being too optimistic.
Interest rates is slow and stifles companies ability to increase production and invest in optimization as they still need to hit dividend targets and lots of debt covenants are based around LIBOR.
If your goal is to suck dollars out of the economy taxation is the fastest way to it AND instead of increasing debt servicing costs with prime rate increases you pay down debt.
Essentially if you are going to do economic damage at least pay down debt while you do it.
Inflation has been very much fueled by the real estate market. Raising interest rates has an immediate affect on that.
Also not sure how higher interest rates have such a negative effect on business, but taxing doesn't? The idea that people will pay down debt even interest rates are very low is also extremely optimistic.
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment Outside of Centre
682.35 $(888.90 C$)
3,029.67 $(3,946.77 C$) +344.01 %
This is a big outlier for me. In Canada you can be in the absolute middle of nowhere (right now), and the cost of housing is just bonkers. In the States you can drive out of the city and live a good life. Here, it's "welcome to Olds MF! Save $100!".
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment Outside of Centre
682.35 $(888.90 C$)
3,029.67 $(3,946.77 C$) +344.01 %
This is a big outlier for me. In Canada you can be in the absolute middle of nowhere (right now), and the cost of housing is just bonkers. In the States you can drive out of the city and live a good life. Here, it's "welcome to Olds MF! Save $100!".
From a quick Realtor search I don't believe you - houses appear to be 30-40% cheaper in Olds (than Calgary), lots of listings for detached single family homes under $400K.
