• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are low fossil fuel prices a win for the environment?

portlandatheist

Illuminator
portlandatheist
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
3,725
The largest coal company in the states has filed for bankruptcy. Coal prices, along with oil, have plummeted.
From a power station perspective and from the consumer perspective, it seems like this would increase demand and be a net bad thing from an environmental perspective but paradoxically, from the miners perspective, this drives down production and may be a net win for the environment.
There were multiple proposed major coal projects to extract coal from Wyoming and Montana, ship it to a terminal in either Portland Oregon or Bellingham Washington and ship it to China. With prices at this level, it is impossible to make money doing that and so it is a non starter.
Tar sands in Alberta are still in production but they are losing money with each barrel.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...orthless-production-rises-even-prices-plummet

From a global warming perspective, is it better to have cheap or expensive fossil fuels? Or is that even the right question?
 
I'd say just the opposite... that low fossil fuel prices are a loss for the environment.

It is true that some fossil fuel extraction programs might end because they are no longer profitable. But, the low costs will encourage continued consumption, delaying the adoption of alternatives. Plus, the oil (or coal) is still in the ground, and once costs begin to rise again, they will be extracted and used (since the low costs have kept us dependent).
 
It all depends. If people are finding alternative ways to consume energy other than coal and this drives coal prices down then it is a gain to the environment. If someone opens a mine that has low expenses this again would drive prices down, but would be bad for the environment. Or if the economy collapses then this would be a short term gain for the environment which may be lost when the economy recovers.
 
portlandatheist said:
The largest coal company in the states has filed for bankruptcy. Coal prices, along with oil, have plummeted.
From a power station perspective and from the consumer perspective, it seems like this would increase demand and be a net bad thing from an environmental perspective but paradoxically, from the miners perspective, this drives down production and may be a net win for the environment.
There were multiple proposed major coal projects to extract coal from Wyoming and Montana, ship it to a terminal in either Portland Oregon or Bellingham Washington and ship it to China. With prices at this level, it is impossible to make money doing that and so it is a non starter.
Tar sands in Alberta are still in production but they are losing money with each barrel.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...orthless-production-rises-even-prices-plummet

From a global warming perspective, is it better to have cheap or expensive fossil fuels? Or is that even the right question?
Click to expand...

I don't see how any of this can possibly be considered a win for the environment. It's neutral at best.

It's not as if people are burning less coal and oil because some of the least cost-effective sources have temporarily shut-down.

All that's going to happen is that coal and oil will be continue to be provided by the cheaper producers for the time being, with exactly as much fossil fuels being burned as before (or possibly even more), until a point is reached where these cheaper producers begin having difficulty meeting demand for their products (either due to increased consumption, or depleted reserves), causing prices to rise, and these less cost-effective sources once again become an economically feasible source of fossil fuels and are re-opened for production once more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom