this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
384 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
61129 readers
2948 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this is what i'm dubious about. just because less is burned in, say, passenger vehicles does not mean any less is produced or burned in some other industry. this article actually says that we made more oil this year than last.
But it does mean less was produced for and burned by the automotive industry
All other things equal if those EVs were ICE then even more oil would have been used for what should be obvious reasons
if the oil is in the ground, it can't have been used.
Do you think we literally use oil as we dig it up with no buffer?
Or that oil extraction amount isn't being constantly adjusted based on demand by every entity in charge of it?
Or that if more ICE vehicles were on the road more oil would be needed?
These are all very basic concepts
i think there is no way to prove we would have dug up and burned any more oil than we did since we can't prove a counterfactual. what we do know is, despite an increased use of electric vehicles, oil extraction increased.
unless it actually decreased GHG emissions, it did no good. it's rearranging the deck chairs.