Green Ink: Enviromaniacs and Peak Caviar
Bears have stormed into the oil market, which is now ignoring supply shocks like Nigeria and exploding pipelines in Turkey, Bloomberg reports, as oil settles under $120. But since oil is a lot higher than a year ago, so is natural gas—in the U.K. especially. So power companies there are warning of big electricity-price increases, the WSJ reports (sub reqd.). One solution: a solar-power boom that lets homeowners resell electricity at a profit, also in the WSJ (sub reqd.). Too much of a green thing? The NYT reports on a “green dictatorship” in Germany, where solar-power holdouts face heavy fines.
Senator Barack Obama’s call for a “complete transformation” of the U.S. economy to wean it off fossil fuels could indeed threaten growth, argues the WSJ edit page: “These Democrats aren’t environmentalists. They’re enviromaniacs.” But Sen. McCain’s sudden and boisterous conversion to the drilling movement isn’t a lot more rational, argues the NYT ed page: “You can’t help wondering if he’s been captured by some kind of drilling cult.” And all those pitches for more nuclear power don’t help much, either, says the L.A. Times edit page. Grist has more on the dueling campaign ads, replete with a battery of videos.
The NYT reports on the latest Bush administration cutback—a prestigious climate-change center looking for ways to help poor countries adapt has been shuttered. Might need the research: U.K. climate scientists tell the government to aim to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees, but expect a catostrophic 4 degree spike, in the Guardian. The EU and the UN will link their carbon-trading schemes later this year in a bid to curb emissions more easily, in the FT. But here and now, Europe has the same crazy energy ideas as the U.S., like windfall profits on Italian oil companies whose profits are falling, in the WSJ edit page.
The U.S. and Brazil pledged to work closely together on energy issues—as long as that doesn’t include the contentious U.S. tariffs on Brazilian ethanol imports, which are set in stone through 2010, AFP reports. Meanwhile, the Guardian looks at “wave power,” detailing the invention of the Anaconda, a 100-ton snake that can generate 1 megawatt of power.
Finally, “peak oil” is hard for many to understand because oil is such an exotic item far removed from daily life. But the story of “peak caviar” hits home for the everyman, especially now that there’s none left, at The Oil Drum.
The McCain drilling strategy is a win for the Republicans, maybe just in time for the November elections.
More drilling will the lower the rate at which the U.S. is increasingly dependent on imported oil in the future.
Drilling for oil in ecologically sensitive areas is a partisan political issue.
The impacts of Peak Oil, however, will soon shift the focus of debate toward how to survive high oil prices, maybe as soon as an attack on Iran.
Increasingly, average Americans will not be able to afford both fuel oil for heating and gasoline for commuting to work (starting in to be felt more in November). When unemployment increases in the ever worsening global recession, a larger and larger percentage of people will not be able to pay for fuel oil to heat their homes. These realities will shock the nation with big increases in home heating bills this winter (starting in November). Oil prices will be higher for the winter of 2009.
In such an environment, the Democrats are making a mistake with their “no drilling” position on this issue. As Peak Oil becomes more widely known as the cause of economic malaise, public attitudes will shift away from environmental concerns and toward more drilling.
According to energy investment banker Matthew Simmons and other independent forecasters, global crude oil production is now declining, from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 14%.
This is equivalent to a 33% drop in 7 years. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production; thus the depletion rate will continue until all recoverable oil is extracted.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from “outside,” and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
I used to live in NH, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil?
clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number.
603-668-4207
The eco-Marxists and their Democrat water carriers would have us do absolutely nothing to solve our energy shortage. Their pie in the sky rhetoric about alternative energy won’t fill the gas tanks of the 100 million plus automobile on the road. Their policies also put us at a tremendous disadvantage against other countries who are much more pragmatic with their energy strategies. Why would any US manufacturer remain in the US for example if they can move halfway around the world and cut their energy bill in half. The eco-extremists are no longer rational and threaten our economic well being for the long term.
I agree with Eric completely, except he is a bit low on the number of cars; there are 250 million cars on the road in the US.
Oooh, cat fight!
Eric, you need to stop using sloppy language, and unresearched idea.
First, environmentalism and business are not mutually exclusive. For example, in Japan, there is strong government cooperation with companies, and strong regulation. In the car industry, this has HELPED the auto makers of Japan. They were required to invest in fuel-efficiency because of stringent regulations. Now that the companies have been forced to invest in technology in a difficult regulatory environment, they are destroying the American auto makers.
Second, business requires energy. Without regulations on energy, the free market dictates that energy resources will be used without regard to ‘back-end’ costs such as pollution. Also, because profits are paramount, sustainable energy practices must be forced onto industries, unless we want catastrophic ‘market corrections.’ We are fast approaching a resource crunch on Earth. Water. Oil. Uranium. Etc. Without strong regulations, and a sensible transition plan to renewables, we will be in lots of trouble.
Third, the US needs to lead the world. If we are to be a leader, we need to put forth dramatic energy and resource management plans for industry and the rest of the world to follow. US manufacturers are going to feel the pinch, but this is inevitable anyway.
If we do not lead on sustainable technology and regulations, Japan, China, or Europe will. This is going to be the fundamental problem of our time. We either lead or follow. Eric, your uninformed ideas will lead us to either disaster or irrelevancy. Think about it please.
Peace, Freeman
Joe, Japanese automakers were heavily subsidized by Japanese government. Is this what you propose for American car companies? And to say that Japanese auto companies have been succeeding over American auto companies solely because of Japanese regulatory requirements in technology is, with all due respect, naive and/or misleading. Union healthcare overhead on a Toyota is about $100/car. On a GM product, it’s about $1,800/car. Gee, think that might be a mitigating factor over the course of 100million autos? (by the way, I blame American auto industry management (60%) for most of American auto industry’s woes vs 40% blame to the unions).
Regarding energy renewables and green technologies, I say YES! But I also say drill, drill, drill. ANWR is a speck on the map, but can be drilled (as can offshore drilling and shale formations in the continental US) and billions of oil extracted to help Americans transition and develop to new forms of energy. To deny Americans their own natural resources is criminal, and just plain dumb. Pelosi and her posse would demand that we run full tilt to a destination 10 miles away, but simultaneously deny us the oxygen needed to breathe while we run. A rational two-pronged effort is needed (fat chance of that in the current hysteria that passes for political discourse today)- drill and extract ALL the oil and natural gas we possible can (Alaska, intercontinental shelves, and shale) while at the same time implementing a cohesive coordinated energy plan of attack to develop and make technically and economically feasible new and emerging forms of clean energy. We have to do the second prong eventually, but we can’t do it (we can’t afford it, and we won’t have the time necessary to do it) without also doing the first prong. And don’t tell me that more oil is not the answer - it IS the immediate answer (the same way that the answer to not having enough wheat is to grow/find more wheat), and buys us the time and money to come up with the next answer/combination of answers.
Just too much either/or thinking in today’s world. In the immortal words of Coleman the butler in Trading Places, “Why not both?”