It sounds like a thought-terminating cliche. Sort of like saying that we should solve all our problems on Earth before we start exploring space. If Saudi Arabia’s marginal oil is less cost-effective than fracking, then it’s better for them to stop extracting as much and us to extract more. Are you trying to say that we should stop our own production first regardless, or that fracking has the lowest cost-effectiveness and we should worry about fracking before drilling?
Changing oil extraction rates is a complex political issue where price isn’t the only variable that matters. Neither of the statements you made matches the one I made above.
The main thing you want to do when you want to reduce fossil fuel extraction is to outlaw fracking and make it harder by vetoing pipeline bills.
Paying Saudi Arabia to lower extration rates while at the same time increasing fracking production makes no sense.
Are you saying that’s true in general, or that it just so happens that Saudi Arabia drilling is more cost-effective than fracking?
I don’t know what “true in general” means here.
It sounds like a thought-terminating cliche. Sort of like saying that we should solve all our problems on Earth before we start exploring space. If Saudi Arabia’s marginal oil is less cost-effective than fracking, then it’s better for them to stop extracting as much and us to extract more. Are you trying to say that we should stop our own production first regardless, or that fracking has the lowest cost-effectiveness and we should worry about fracking before drilling?
Changing oil extraction rates is a complex political issue where price isn’t the only variable that matters. Neither of the statements you made matches the one I made above.