The positive externalities far outweigh the negative ones. Society can't function without cheap energy. It isn't even close, the negative externalities might add up to a couple of years of QoL life lost; and cheap energy enables all the other years. If we taxed based on negative externalities and rewarded based on positive ones oil companies would own literally everything.
This cycloptic focus on downsides is also why we're still largely stuck on 1800s energy technology instead of moving to nuclear. People ought to be using cost-benefit logic to evaluate the power grid.
And yet, France is the country with the most nuclear-generated energy, despite having a tons of state regulation and social push-back to prevent companies to privatize gains and socialize losses.
In fact, water, electricity, the road and internet have one of the best cost/quality ratio have ever seen in the entire world, and I traveled a lot.
France is not a great place to make business, but the quality of life is fantastic.
Meanwhile, the US as a terrible health care system, they have water and electricity scandals every years, your internet has awful value (especially in the silicon valley, talk about irony) and roads are hit or miss.
So yes, the USA are a great place to do business, but touting it has the only way to not be stuck on 1800s technology is a joke.
They are the ones having tasteless tomatoes and $800 insulin, things that were cheap and good less than a century ago.
They are the ones with power outages and polluted water.
We had a war at our border, cutting energy supplies, and last winter, my power wasn't cut even once.
They get a strong winter or summer and their grid dies, plus the public pays the bill.
>France is not a great place to make business, but the quality of life is fantastic.
France is a privileged country from the geopolitical point of view.
I am from Spain, and if you compare it with it has much more water flows, most of the country is plain and easy and cheap to transport things by rail or rivers(without so much mountains in the middle), the soil is rich and is irrigated, and it is in the centre of Europe. It have access to the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. It has warn weather.
I also have traveled a lot. Could you compare France with Morocco or Lybia? China? Russia?
The only country that I personally know that is as privileged as France in the world geopolitically is Argentina. Argentina is richer than France, the political system has lots of similarities and it is an absolute mess.
Other things that you mention has not so much to do with the political system but with History. E.g French, Italian or Spanish people love to eat well, good food, as part of our culture, while anglo saxons in general do not consider eating healthy a priority.
IMHO the political system is France is sh^t, with other system they would be much wealthier. It is very centralised so Paris is very different from the rest of the country. Bureaucracy is so high (bureau is a French word).
What saves France is competition with other systems in Europe when they do crazy stuff like putting a 75% tax on the rich, people can move easily to neighbour countries and their politicians reconsider things.
> The only country that I personally know that is as privileged as France in the world geopolitically is Argentina. Argentina is richer than France, the political system has lots of similarities and it is an absolute mess.
What. Argentina has inflation >100% per year, their currency has a thriving black market to be useable at all, many people stockpile dollars in their homes because the banks won’t give it back, they block exports, etc.
They’re not more geopolitically privileged than the United States, for one, which has the global reserve currency.
> Bureaucracy is so high (bureau is a French word).
~30% of English has roots in French so I don’t think this is relevant. That includes words like legume, but they don’t hold a special place in the nut or vegetable markets. (For fun historical reasons, what English calls legumes is largely associated with nuts but the French word refers to vegetables. This is also true of prune/plum and grape/raisin.)
> The only country that I personally know that is as privileged as France in the world geopolitically is Argentina. Argentina is richer than France, the political system has lots of similarities and it is an absolute mess.
What. Argentina has inflation >100% per year, their currency has a thriving black market to be useable at all, many people stockpile dollars in their homes because the banks won’t give it back, they block exports, etc.
They’re not more geopolitically privileged than the United States, for one, which has the global reserve currency.
> Bureaucracy is so high (bureau is a French word).
~30% of English has roots in French so I don’t think this is relevant. That includes words like legume, but they don’t hold a special place in the nut or vegetable markets. (For fun historical reasons, what English calls legumes is largely associated with nuts but the French word refers to vegetables.)
Can't agree here, France has cca 2x GDP of Argentina, and TBH Argentina is a typical South America mess, could be worse than some neighbors, could be better (ie Chile).
As much as I like bashing France for some weird aspects of their mentality and correspondingly not reaching a fraction of the potential its population has (from somebody living in Switzerland this is painfully obvious anytime I visit, which I do constantly, but Spain doesn't fare better in my eyes in this, in contrary), it is a progressive nation, modern, labor force is smart and effective so they don't need to pull overtimes just to match expectations, relatively (or absolutely if considered globally) rich, stable, with astonishingly beautiful nature - no wonder its year after year the most visited country in the world by tourists. Poor don't just bow down and work endlessly barely surviving, destroying their lives to support rich classes, chasing some pipe dream of emerging as a winner of some absurd rat race if you work yourself to death, quality of life looks different to them (and I agree 100% here, life is too short for that crap).
But yes for opening business its outright horrible place, state is your enemy and if you are above median income, they go after your money without even trying to hide it or act fairly. Somebody has to sponsor that western Europe communism and its not going to be poor burning cars on barricades or blocking roads or city centers. But these are rather just very visible details, overall what I wrote above stands.
"The positive externalities far outweigh the negative ones." I'm simply saying we should transparently price the cost of drilling operations to include end-of-lifecycle operations and we should not allow drilling companies to extract without fronting some part of the cleanup costs. The EPA is already managing thousands of superfund sites because the US legal system for corporations is designed to limit liability and what this article is talking about is liability exceeding all of the profits (which implies the drilling site owners will do some asset-shifting + shell bankruptcy games).
One analogy might be how California requires car drivers to have a minimum insurance to financially protect other drivers in case of collision. Insurance companies already have methods for determining likely risk (eg. a drill site in suburban Los Angeles is much higher risk of negative effects on humans than a rural desert in Texas).
"Society can't function without cheap energy." Prove it. I would argue that society functions fine at the market rate of energy. When you say "cheap energy", I get the feeling you advocate for subsidies, which are just ways to obfuscate that we are all paying more than the number we see on our electrical bill.
"instead of moving to nuclear" It's funny you mention nuclear. I've seen estimates that nuclear isn't cost competitive with other current electric generation if you include the actual cost to build, the insurance required, the likely events (eg. 1-in-100-year weather events), and the cost to safely dispose of all byproducts.
That said, I support nuclear power and wish we (USA) could build it at scale, but away from densely populated regions. I think nuclear is actually cheaper if the negative externalities of oil/gas energy generation (including toxins, carcinogens, and airborne pollutants) are factored into the costs.
> stuck on 1800s energy technology instead of moving to nuclear.
I really feel like your first paragraph refutes your second. Nuclear is a lot of things, but cheap is not one of them. Possibly because nuclear production is forced to account for externalities while fossil fuels aren’t, but it’s not cheap.
Nah, wind and solar are much cheaper, they just aren’t great for providing base load, without some other storage. Nuclear is very good at base load but makes a bad peaker (and is expensive). Gas is also “cheaper” when you ignore externalities, which most places do.
People say "cheap energy" though, and have something in mind. Sometimes they mean things like "our business model assumes cheaper energy than our competitors in country X."
IIRC Japan had a lot of business like that until 1973. All of the major industrial countries did, Japan perhaps the most. Except that although OPEC and the oil shock led to serious problems, the serious problems lasted only a year or so. "Can't function without cheap energy" was true? The dependency was solved so quickly that I find the word "can't" inappropriate.
Who chooses who to bear the negative externalities. Seems like if you're the one who's drilling, you should not be immune to the consequences of the pollution. But again, the ones least well positioned to deal with the pollution are the ones who have to suffer it.
That’s an argument to make every part of the supply chain free.
Positive externalities of free labor far outweigh the negative externalities. We shouldn’t have to pay for labor.
Positive externalities of free capital far outweigh negative externalities. We shouldn’t have to pay to get capital.
And so on and so forth…
If this $21Bn was split over the many gallons of oil extracted it wouldn’t have ended oil extraction or the growth of the economy. It would have simply priced it better, which would have meant alternatives that didn’t impose such negative externalities would have been competitive sooner.
You don't seem to understand the concept of externalities at all.
>If we taxed based on negative externalities and rewarded based on positive ones oil companies would own literally everything.
Negative externalities are costs that you inflict onto other people without compensating them. Positive externalities are benefits third parties receive without paying for them.
This means we already reward oil companies by letting them have free stuff and letting them monetize that free stuff. This is at the expense of all the people who weren't born into free stuff. We live in a world where "Oil companies already own literally everything" to a large extent.
If you have monopoly rights to a positive externality as a third party (e.g. extraction rights to oil), you get to charge for the full surplus, essentially making it so that it doesn't matter whether the positive externality exists or not for the rest of the economy. Privatizing a public externality as a third party is as simple as selling it.
Taxing CO2 cuts into the monopoly surplus and leaves less profits for oil companies. That is the defining feature of pigovian taxes. If we assume a reduction in income taxes, then the dead weight loss of income taxation shrinks and we get less income inequality.
>If we rewarded based on positive ones oil companies would own literally everything.
The producer of the positive externality of oil is a collaboration between plants accumulating carbon and the earth's crust compressing it into oil. You could also call the producer of this externality "the environment".
This means that if we wanted to reward the environment for its good positive externality producing behaviour, we should stop destroying it globally.
You appear to be under the misconception that the third party benefiting from the positive externality also produced the externality. E.g the oil company gets an income from oil, therefore it also produced the oil via photosynthesis and compression according to the neoclassical productivity hypothesis. This is not case by definition, rewarding the production of positive externalities would not reward oil companies, because they didn't produce the positive externality, they just extracted it.
This cycloptic focus on downsides is also why we're still largely stuck on 1800s energy technology instead of moving to nuclear. People ought to be using cost-benefit logic to evaluate the power grid.