You have heard the argument, right? Because of new "fracking" technologies, the USA is now supposedly destined to become the New Saudi Arabia, an exporter of oil and natural gas on a massive scale. this article discusses the shortfalls of that concept. fracking will give you a lot of fossil fuels for short period of time, but the return on investment drops off sharply. also, this a world market. so if you manage to crank out a bunch of product, the price does not go down, because you are still not producing enough to swing the global market.
Actually what has happened in the New World of Fracking has been interesting, but not always good. fracking has resulted in a steep drop in natural gas prices in the USA (because natural gas is hard to liquefy and export) but no corresponding drop in oil prices. Meanwhile, coal producers in the USA have seen the market here destroyed, not from EPA meddling, but rather from the cheapness of natural gas. So where does the coal go? Do they leave it in the ground? No, they ship it to Europe where it stills gets burned. And meanwhile, China, which does not have cheap natural gas, is burning almost as much coal as the rest of the planet combined.
What I am seeing here is that cheapness of fossil fuels is not the solution to global warming. No, it is the source of the problem of global warming. When one fossil fuel gets temporarily cheaper, the global market merely plays musical chairs until a new equilibrium is reached. meanwhile, the adoption of renewable energy takes a temporary hit, slowing the advances that are essential to the long term prospects of the human race.