There are times when it’s all I can do to keep from screaming at my computer screen. Today, thanks to the rampant idiocy of the “let’s suspend the gasoline tax” crowd and this gem from the President of Shell Oil has been a particularly vigorous stress test of my will power.
Shell Oil president: To cut price, produce more gasoline in U.S.:
John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., the U.S. division of Royal Dutch Shell, addressed rising gasoline prices during an interview Wednesday with John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning.”
ROBERTS: The president is advocating more drilling on U.S. territory. Isn’t it true that globally we’re starting to reach a peak in production and that within maybe a decade or two oil production will begin to decrease?
HOFMEISTER: Well, I think there is some argument [that] with convenient, easy oil we will peak sometime in the next decade. I think Shell sees that coming, but in terms of total oil supply to the world, we’re a long way from reaching peak oil because it doesn’t take into account unconventional oil.
I think the president brings up a good point in that we could, we have the available domestic supplies off the coast of Alaska as well as [the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge]. Shell has won $2 billion worth of high bids for the Chukchi Sea — that’s a few years off before we could begin production.
But let’s remember there’s more than 100 billion barrels of untouched oil and gas in this country that is subject to a 30-year moratorium. Now, there’s only one body in this country that can set a 30-year moratorium, and that’s the U.S. government.
I think you can see why I flirted with projectile cranium detachment syndrome (hereafter PCDS) and/or vascular geyserhood over this one. In case it’s not insultingly clear to you regular readers, and for the sake of the newbies I see out there in today’s audience, let me run through the details:
Excuse me, I have to go to my happy place for a while before I read much more energy and environmental news.
About two weeks ago I commented here on the whole issue of John McCain proposing a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax. In that post I pointed out the market and economic realities of cutting the gasoline tax, and how it would send exactly the wrong signal.
Judging by the editorial in my local paper this morning, it seems my work here isn’t done.
The missive in question, Suspend gas taxes is a textbook example of myopia and good intentions leading to a train wreck of a policy.
I will quote the entire editorial here, and insert my comments like this.
The current spike in gas prices is like the first nudge of the rain-swollen creek over its banks. It tells us something is happening and gives us time to react sensibly.
OK, poor choice of imagery aside, yes, we should react, and sensibly to this situation.
First, deal with the nudge. Congress and the state Legislature should move immediately to suspend all or some portion of current gas taxes. State Sen. Joe Robach says a summer-long hold on state tax collection would save consumers 33 cents per gallon.
If Congress dropped the 18.4-cents-a-gallon excise tax, again for the summer traveling season, consumers at least would have something to balance the rising costs and demand.
Tax suspension is a risky Band-Aid if it gives consumers license to guzzle again without conscience. But high gas prices, along with rising food costs and credit woes, are hitting poor and middle-class families hard, upstate ones especially.
Sadly, the author reaches for the obvious, easy, and wrong solution. As I pointed out in my post about McCain, sending the wrong market signal is never a good idea. And cutting prices, just when people are moving in the right direction (finally!) in terms of the types of vehicles they’re buying and how they’re making transportation decisions, is about the purest example of the Bush mindset–run up immense deficits now and let someone else deal with the problem down the road–that one can imagine. Note that I’m not talking about fiscal deficits here, but the burden placed on all of us by having the wrong mix of vehicles on the road in just a few years when oil and gasoline prices get truly “interesting”.
The claim here that it’s worth the “risk” of higher consumption now to ease the (real) financial burden on drivers is laughable. Current consumption is only part of the issue; we should be worried about the changes in behavior and the rolling stock of vehicles. But make no mistake–lower prices will result in higher consumption.
Yes, lower tax receipts, even for a summer, would depress state and federal treasuries in a time of rising debt and budget deficits. But the answer there is spending discipline. The recession could worsen for families in coming weeks unless the state and federal governments provide relief.
Here we have one of my all-time favorite talking points, and a staple of editorial writers everywhere: Spend money the way I want, but never talk about where that money will come from. If pressed, wave the magic “spending restraint” wand. What, exactly, would the author or anyone who makes such a proposal suggest we cut? Cancer research? School funding? Road and bridge inspection and repair? Military spending? Or what should we do to raise money to offset that lack of revenue from gasoline taxes? Impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies, perhaps?
The OPEC oil-producing nations historically have curtailed production to keep prices high. Additionally, non-OPEC producers such as Russia aren’t putting more in the pipeline.
President Bush must use his leverage as a military supplier and global economic engine to push these countries to increase production.
Yes, this is the point where I involuntarily turned a mouthful of Cheerios into cerealnauts. What leverage does the author possibly think that George W. Bush has with oil producers? Seriously. The man responsible for all but destroying an oil- and natural gas-rich country of 28 million people, based on fabricated claims about weapons of mass destruction is to be believed… why exactly? What good will or even threat does he have left to get oil exporters, even assuming they have sufficient spare capacity, to pump more oil and intentionally lower world prices? At this point in his presidency, why should any country in the Persian Gulf or Russia or Venezuela or Nigeria want to do anything but get the most for every barrel of their non-renewable oil supplies and put as much economic restraint on the US as possible? There comes a time when even the biggest bully in the playground gives the other kids enough incentive to act as a group and take him down; the world oil situation looks increasingly like that day has arrived.
Demand for gas must decline and investment in alternative fuels and energy independence mustn’t flag.
And how does one reduce the demand for a good or service? By raising the price relative to alternatives. And reducing or eliminating the tax on gasoline does that… how, exactly?
Of course, the author reaches for the “energy independence” canard. When will that inane notion die? I know–never. It will be with us as long as it’s useful to politicians and editorialists who don’t want to talk about the realities of the oil market and That Which Must Not Be Spoken, peak oil.
Government finally is pushing higher vehicle fuel efficiency standards. But efforts to create a new generation of cars and trucks that run on biomass energy or fuel cells are moving too slowly. Attention to the immediate crisis ought not remove focus from long-term solutions, many of which could be found by Rochester area researchers.
Those efforts are moving “too slowly”? Fine: Show us how to make them happen much faster. And while you’re at it, magic wand-waving-editorial writer, please tell us how we’ll solve the numerous hydrogen fuel cell issues, which I’ve written about here until my fingers bled.
Don’t mistake my snark for complete disagreement. Yes, we need a focus on long-term solutions, but they have to be the right long-term solutions. Hydrogen is a bust, starch ethanol is train wreck of visible-from-space proportions, and cellulosic ethanol technology is so close to being ready for prime time that it will be “finished” on its own, leaving public policy little to do there except to provide incentives to accelerate its spread once the technology has scaled up sufficiently. Our federal and state government should be looking for more creative (compared to their current pathetic efforts) ways to speed our transition away from oil. A car feebate system, to strongly encourage the purchase of more efficient vehicle, a higher gasoline tax with a payroll tax reduction to offset it, incentives to help the electrification of private transportation, better public transportation and bike paths, would all be worthwhile efforts.
This is a global conundrum. Gas prices in Germany are at $8 a gallon. At the least, in America, taxes should be suspended and pressure applied to producing countries. And plans for a future free of oil enslavement must proceed.
Alert the non sequitur police, we have a felony in progress. Someone please tell me what in the world Germany’s gasoline prices have to do with the suspension of gasoline taxes in the US or the appropriateness of the US applying pressure to producing countries. Anyone. I’m begging you.
And finally we have the breathtaking “enslavement” line. I imagine the author starting at his or her keyboard for minutes on end, trying to one-up Bush’s “addicted to oil” line, and coming up with an even more startling and borderline offensive piece of imagery. Too bad the most immediate remedy the author proposes would only prolong the enslavement of us and our children.
Let me make something so clear that even the people who read this site looking for things they can intentionally misunderstand (and then e-mail me about, as they wallow in false indignation): I really do understand that gasoline prices are a very significant burden on many US drivers. I’m not one of those mythical economists who see the world solely in terms of statistics and lines on graphs, and ignore the impact of policies and prices on real people. But I also recognize that the most effective way, by far, to get a significant portion of the consumers in any country to move in a given direction, even if they don’t realize that it’s in their own best interest and that of their children to do so, is to push them with higher prices. In other words, the economic equivalent of pain avoidance not only works, but it’s one of the very few things that will ever work. (One notable success not induced by price is the way the US turned its production capacity on a dime and made genuine sacrifices out of patriotism to fight Word War II. Until we have another leader of FDR’s stature, we’re stuck with the pain of higher prices as our primary, and some would say only, lever that can move a sufficient people quickly enough.)
So, yes, we must respond “sensibly” to our current situation. That requires us to see the breadth and depth and, most important of all, the time component of the challenges we face, and then be adult enough to accept more pain than we’d like in the short run to avoid a far worse situation five or ten years from now.
Update: It seems that Thomas Friedman has a similar view of this evolving nonsense.
Hop on over to YouTube and watch this video showing various graphical depictions of US airline flights.
It’s almost like watching a new-age jazzy version of Koyaanisqatsi.
All the overwhelming immensity of modern life, now with 80% less guilt!
Come to think of it, if you haven’t seen Koyaanisqatsi in a while (and yes, I’m assuming you’ve all seen it at least once), go rent or borrow or dig out your own DVD and watch it.
One of the toughest battles is not convincing the hard core deniers of global warming or peak oil that We Have A Problem, but reaching the indifferent among us. You know them, and I’m willing to bet a good portion of you reading this once fell into that category. They’re the people so consumed by real-world issues of jobs and family and hobbies that they don’t have the time or mental bandwidth left over to dissect all the arguments about global warming or peak oil and make an informed decision. These are the people who implicitly find comfort in the “debate” and the cowardly faux balance we’re fed constantly by TV news–if they see experts on both sides of the issue, then surely they can’t be faulted for just doing what they’ve always done and not getting involved until the matter is settled, right?
There is no real debate about these issues. Global warming is real and largely caused by man’s emissions of greenhouse gases, and peak oil is real and imminent. But how do you reach out to the mass numbers of people in the indifferent middle of the bell curve, those in between the believers and the deniers?
One way is to talk directly to them, and treat them like the adults they are (or believe themselves to be, when talking to early teens). Don’t sugar coat the issue, don’t lie, just give it to them straight, and provide them with references to guide them in their own research once you spark their interest. This seems to be the approach of James Hansen in Tipping Point: Perspective of a Climatologist (PDF), a 12-page, painless (except for its implications) introduction to our global warming mess.
I can’t do this entire work justice with quotations, so let me cheat and resort to quoting just a couple of paragraphs from the last page:
It is worth imagining how our grandchildren will look back on us. The picture that I fear has the polluters, the utilities, and automakers standing in court demanding the right to continue to emit carbon dioxide for the sake of short-term profits. The disturbing part is that we, through our national government, are standing alongside the polluters, officially as a hulking amicus curiae (friend of the court), arguing against limitations on emissions. Is this the picture of our generation that we want to be remembered by?
We live in a democracy, and policies represent our collective will. If we allow the planet to pass tipping points, it will be hard to defend our role. The state of the wild is in our hands, and we can still preserve creation and serve humanity worldwide. A drive for energy efficiency and clean energy sources will produce high-tech jobs. Restoration of clean air will be universally beneficial. Rural life and the planet can benefit from intelligent development of biofuels and renewable energy.
As I often say, it’s time we act as compassionately as we like to think we are, and recognize that all the children of the world are ours, whether they share our DNA or not.
So what’s the point of blogging about this, you ask? If you read this site you don’t need convincing that global warming is a very serious threat. But you probably need a little help here and there with relatives, friends, and co-workers who wish they knew more about global warming but can’t find the time to read an entire book or do research on their own. They’re the people to whom you should send this; think of it as building them a mental on-ramp to the topic and encouraging them (gently, please) to join the conversation. Once they educate themselves, as we all had to do on these topics, then they’ll make that critical transition to being an informed consumer and voter. And each activated citizen brings us one step closer to taking the steps needed to deal with these looming challenges.
See also Joe Romm’s take on this
Michael T. Klare, author of the books Blood and Oil and Resource Wars, writes frequently about the geopolitical aspects of oil, and he has a particularly good piece in the Los Angeles Times, The U.S. and China are over a barrel, which concludes:
A far wiser course, I believe, would be to promote energy cooperation with China, rather than competition. Given that the United States and China are the world’s two biggest users of petroleum — a fuel whose worldwide availability is likely to peak at 100 million barrels or so per day in the next five years or so and then commence an irreversible decline — it makes great sense for us to collaborate in the development of oil alternatives and energy-saving technologies.
Such collaboration could take the form of joint ventures to develop advanced biofuels (not derived from food crops) and transportation fuels extracted from coal (without releasing heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere). It could also include the development of super-light vehicles, advanced hybrid engines and other energy-saving systems. Such endeavors have been discussed on a preliminary basis by U.S. and Chinese officials, so it is hardly utopian to envision a more elaborate and constructive undertaking of this sort.
Make no mistake: Intensified competition between the United States and China for access to the world’s remaining supplies of oil (and other sources of energy) will inevitably add to the forces pushing gasoline prices skyward and will generate an increased risk of regional instability. Trying to fight China over oil is the wrong approach; we’d both be better off by cooperating in the search for petroleum alternatives.
Please go read the whole thing, as Klare provides a concise and accurate summary of the US vs. China oil situation.
We should never forget that we can divide all contests into finite and infinite games. A finite game is one that reaches a definitive conclusion and ends–you beat your brother-in-law at chess, the game is over, and then you site around and talk about politics. An infinite game has no clear cut ending, which has sweeping implications for one’s strategy and tactics. (Many people take the view that fighting a “war on terrorism” primarily through shooting and blowing up things–which tends to create many more terrorists–amounts to fighting an infinite game by finite rules. I agree wholeheartedly.)
The US and China (and every other country on the planet) should focus on peaceful co-existence, to resurrect a term from the cold war era, and energy and environmental cooperation would be a perfect way to achieve and maintain that peace. If either side views this competition as a zero-sum, finite game, then we’re all in for a rude shock when we “discover” that the game doesn’t end; oil becomes too rare and expensive to be a mainstream energy source, and we’re still here and still living with the people we fought with and antagonized for decades over those dwindling supplies.
Years ago I read a too-cute-by-half description of three of the “great -isms” humanity has created:
This was meant to be humorous, of course, but I think it does accurately characterize capitalism and international relations, at least as some “play it”. As humanity continues to both fill the earth with more human beings and our waste and simultaneously empty it of certain critical resources, we need a much more worldly view, one based on enlightened self-interest and compassion and not petty myopia. First, we must cooperate with as many countries as possible to our mutual long-term benefit, and second, we must define “winning” as maximizing the welfare of humanity while minimizing the environmental impact we have on nature, and therefore, ourselves.
Saudi Output Growth Can Help Forestall Peak Oil, Bernstein Says (numbers in brackets refer to my comments following the quote box):
Saudi Arabian oil output has the potential to rise, helping avoid a peak in world crude production [1], according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
Oil prices may fall toward the end of this year as worsening economic conditions reduce demand [2], analysts Neil McMahon and Ben Dell forecast in a report today. Prices will probably rise later, beyond 2010, and reach $114 a barrel by 2015 as spare capacity declines [3], they wrote.
“Saudi and global oil production has the potential to grow slowly going forward,” the authors wrote. “We do not believe world oil production supply is peaking today.” [4]
Proponents of peak-oil, the theory that global production has or is about to reach its zenith [5], say booming demand and dwindling supply are responsible for the rising price of oil. Analysts debate the extent and timing of a drop in crude production in Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter. Some argue Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Saudi Aramco, is downplaying reservoir declines and that the country may be forced to reduce output.
Sanford Bernstein commissioned a survey by GeoVille Information Systems to use satellites to monitor drilling at Ghawar, Saudi Arabia’s biggest oil field. The analysis “concludes that the Saudi peak oil production conspiracy theories, based on little or incomplete current field data, do not fit with our findings.” [6]
The study processed field data from recent years to try to detect subsidence, or sinking, in the reservoir. Rapidly depleting reservoirs tend to collapse slowly in small “micro-earthquakes” if oil and gas are extracted too rapidly for water or other substances to fill the gaps, McMahon told Bloomberg News in December. [7]
Taking the details according to the numbers…
[1] Huh? We will not “avoid a peak in world crude production”. It has to happen simply because oil is a non-renewable resource. Period.
[2] Something I agree with–the possibility that oil prices could retreat in the short term. No one knows how much the US recession will reduce world oil demand, or how far the recession could spread. If the US consumers spend significantly much less money, Chinese manufacturers will be hit pretty hard. Is that enough to tip them into a recession, or at least greatly slow down their economic growth? I doubt anyone knows; we’re in uncharted waters thanks to globalization and the housing sector bubble continuing to deflate in the US.
[3] Spare capacity “declines” by 2015, leading to $114 oil? This sounds wildly optimistic to me, or wildly pessimistic, if you consider the economic conditions that would have to prevail to keep oil that low. (Yes, I’m assuming that neither a significant strengthening of the US dollar nor a major shift away from oil use will happen in that time frame, so it would take a drastic slowdown of the economy to restrain demand enough to keep prices in check.)
[4] It’s kind of hard to argue with anyone who talks about “world oil production supply” peaking.
[5] Wrong. Peak oil proponents do not believe that oil production has or will very soon peak. For a complete discussion of this issue, see my prior post, The peak oil infowar continues.
[6] Conspiracy theories? Calling something like Matt Simmons’ book, Twilight in the Desert, a “conspiracy theory” (eve if only by implication) is the rhetorical equivalent of a cowboy in a gun fight running out of bullets and throwing his empty pistol.
[7] Seriously–we’re going to rely on satellite observations to detect subsidence and micro-earthquakes as a way to determine the state of the Saudi oil fields, and then reach conclusions about production years from now based on that data? Our friends in Saudi Arabia must be laughing themselves hoarse over this one.
The larger issue here, of course, is the thing that Matt Simmons has been on his soap box and yelling about for years, the utter lack of data transparency regarding oil reserves and production in various exporting countries, most notably Saudi Arabia. As I like to say, the easiest prediction in the entire energy field is what Saudi oil reserves will be next year: Roughly 260 billion barrels, the same figure they’ve reported for years, even though they’ve pumped millions of barrels per day, every day, during that entire time.
North Pole could be ice free in 2008 (emphasis added):
You know when climate change is biting hard when instead of a vast expanse of snow the North Pole is a vast expanse of water. This year, for the first time, Arctic scientists are preparing for that possibility.
“The set-up for this summer is disturbing,” says Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). A number of factors have this year led to most of the Arctic ice being thin and vulnerable as it enters its summer melting season.
In September 2007, Arctic sea ice reached a record low, opening up the fabled North-West passage that runs from Greenland to Alaska.
The ice expanded again over the winter and in March 2008 covered a greater area than it had in March 2007. Although this was billed as good news in many media sources, the trend since 1978 is on the decline.
Arctic ice at its maximum in March, but that maximum is declining by 44,000 km2 per year on average, the NSIDC has calculated (see graph, top right). That corresponds to an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey.
What is more, the extent of the ice is only half the picture. Satellite images show that most of the Arctic ice at the moment is thin, young ice that has only been around since last autumn (see picture, right [click for jpg in new window]).
Thin ice is far more vulnerable than thick ice that has piled up over several years.
…
“Even if you lost only half of the first-year ice this year – which would be average – you are still in for a very low ice extent this summer,” says Serreze.
Some factors could still save the day, though. In summer 2007, warm winds favoured melting. “If we have an atmospheric pattern like we had last year, we are going to lose a whole bunch of ice this summer, but if we have a cooler, more cyclonic pattern, that might preserve some of that ice,” says Serreze. Watch this space…
Assume for just a moment that the thin ice (talk about a freakin’ planet-size metaphor) and the weather patterns conspire to give us a nearly ice-free Arctic in just a few months. What will be the most likely mix of reactions to this stunning event?
On the positive side:
But it won’t be nearly enough:
Anyone who cares to convince me otherwise is more than welcome to give it a shot, either here or over on the discussion board where I posted an item about this same article. I would dearly love to be wrong, and see this level of Arctic melting prove to be the undeniable, undelayable clarion call we need. But I think our ability to stumble over the truth and then pick ourselves up and hurry on as if nothing had happened is even more developed now than it was when Churchill first made that famous observation.
Bill McKibben, one of Those Whom You Must Always Read, has an article in the current issue of Mother Jones, The Greenback Effect (emphasis added):
Markets are impotent in fighting the greatest challenge our planet has ever faced because we’ve given them absolutely nothing to work with. They exist in childlike innocence about the crisis because carbon carries no required cost. And in fact almost everything that environmental campaigners are doing at the national and the international level is an effort to fix that problem—to feed information into markets so they can help slow the rise of carbon. That’s right: If there are true believers (or at least true hopers) about markets right now, they tend to be green.
…
The point is, markets are powerful precisely because they allow information to filter down quickly and thoroughly, creating new realities—a new medium in the economic petri dish. Given that solving global warming will require huge systemic change over a very short period, that’s a useful mechanism.
…
There’s a deeper flaw to my argument: Continuing to rely on a growth economy for change keeps us locked into the wider damage an ever-more market-centered civilization causes—the constant “creative destruction” beloved by economists and hated by those of us who would like to, say, live in the same community for a long time.
Which is why, in my ideal world, we’d use the power of democracy to add even more pieces of information to a market system. Tariffs that encourage local economies, for instance, because the data now show that more self-reliant societies are also more durable and more satisfying. Perhaps we should work for some totally different economic system—I hear pretty regularly from a different breed of skeptic who insists we’ll never solve our problems until we go “beyond capitalism.” But that debate is going to take a while—for the atmospherically relevant time frame, we’re not going to change our basic economic framework any more than we’re going to sign on to some new nature religion that would turn protecting the planet into some kind of Eleventh Commandment. Given how fast the ice caps are melting, speed is of the essence. And markets are quick. Given some direction, they’ll help.
Go read the whole thing. I’ll wait here until you’re done.
McKibben has the rare combination of untouchable green credentials, a deep understanding of how markets work, and a wicked knack for writing about both. Which is precisely why I put him on the Those Whom You Must Always Read list, and, more to the point, it’s why you should pay attention to what he says.
McKibben addresses “the” key notion that humanity, and especially Americans must accept, right down to our DNA: The market isn’t a god to be worshiped or great beast to be left unregulated while we cower under our beds, it’s a tool that we can, must, and (hopefully) will use to save ourselves and our loved ones from the worst impacts of global warming and peak oil. We interact passively with the market as consumers, but we command it to serve our needs via another tool–good, effective public policy.
I’m not a starry-eyed utopian; I know that we have and very likely will screw up some parts of our energy policy beyond all belief. McKibben mentions the almost boundless train wreck of our current ethanol policy, and I’d be hard pressed to top that example without stepping outside the energy realm (unless you assume that the Iraq war was part of our energy policy, in which case all bets are off).
Above all else, I have faith. Not in free markets, despite the astonishing feats they accomplish daily, and certainly not in governments, despite their often stunning ability to rise above their own idiocy and pettiness. I have faith in you. Yes, the American public can be infuriating in their adamant resistance to hard, unpleasant facts–how many SUV’s and pickup trucks do you think were sold in the US today, bought by people who didn’t really need and can’t afford to run such a vehicle?–but ultimately we stop shielding our eyes, we allow ourselves to see the evidence, and enough of us take action. I just hope we do so quickly enough this time around. for our own sake.
Nearly everyone wants to know where oil and gasoline prices are headed, and nearly everyone has at least one opinion on the matter. (I myself have secretly harbored at least four or five opinions on this topic within the last two weeks.) While I’ve made no secret of my distaste for faux precise prognostications, I have to point out and agree with one in particular, as detailed with brutal clarity in the article Oil prices, gasoline costs to double: CIBC report (emphasis added):
Crude oil prices will soar to more than $200 (U.S.) per barrel over the next five year[s] – driving Canadian pump prices to $2.25 a litre and forcing a fundamental transformation in the North American economy, says Jeff Rubin, chief economist with CIBC World Markets Inc.
In a new report, Mr. Rubin forecast a continued run-up in crude prices, despite a slowing world economy and slumping petroleum demand in United States, the world’s leading oil consumer.
He said he expects crude prices – now trading at above $116 (U.S.) a barrel - to average $150 by 2010, and more than $200 by 2012. That would translate into pump prices of $7 (U.S.) per gallon in the United States, and $2.25 per litre in Canada, double the current levels.
“Whether we are already at the peak of world oil production remains to be seen, but it increasingly clear that the outlook for oil supply signals a period of unprecedented scarcity,” the economist said.
World oil production has essentially stagnated at about 85-million barrels per day over the last two years, with growing demand met by increases in natural gas liquids, a fuel source that is used by the petrochemical industry but is of little use for transportation.
Mr. Rubin said he expects crude oil production to grow by about 1-million barrels per day over the next several years.
Meanwhile, growing demand in China, India, Russia and the Middle East will more than offset declines in the industrialized world.
The report is here (4 page, 200KB PDF)
As for what this will be like, let me point out a few things, for those of you who didn’t already injure yourself by ricocheting off the ceiling just now.
Why would I take this “extreme” prediction so seriously, even if it’s from an analyst I trust? Look at his reasoning: The growing demand from countries outside the US will keep the market tight, and there won’t be any significant new supply coming online.
The demand part of that formula is a new phenomenon. Typically, a US recession meant a dip in oil prices, no matter what. But seriously, dude, that is so twentieth century. Today it means that we have a less-than-robust economy at a time of rising oil prices, putting all the more pressure on oil consumers at all levels of the economy, from individuals to organizations to businesses to schools to government.
The supply part of Rubin’s reasoning you can argue about, but only in terms of semantics. If oil exporters have the additional production capacity, but they choose not to use it, as has become abundantly, redundantly clear in recent weeks is their new inclination, then it’s a classic example of a distinction without a difference. No more oil is no more oil, regardless of the underlying reason.
What part of that basic formula can you dispute? I can’t find a flaw in it, and trust me, I would love to tear it to shreds.
Will this scenario really result in $200 oil and $7 gasoline in the US in only four years? To be honest, I have no bloody idea, and we could well see a fairly significant price dip in the short run before things get excessively interesting again. A lot could happen between now and 2012, including things that could make the situation far worse, like a new war in the Persian Gulf region, or things that could ease the situation, like Americans getting serious about conservation and reducing our exposure to the inevitable, much higher oil prices.
I am sure of one thing: The longer many of us sit around and do nothing, the worse it will be for everyone, because unlike the “double your gasoline cost” experiment I suggested above, when it happens in real life we’ll be stuck with high and rising prices for far longer than two or three months.
One of the points I mention frequently on this site is how the rate of climate change is so much quicker than even our best models predict, and what that implies (or should imply) about an appropriate level of urgency and response. I think it’s virtually impossible to overemphasize this issue because the steps needed to reduce CO2 emissions “enough” require a huge change in how humans do almost everything, plus the cost, as measured in impact to human beings and the natural world, of an insufficient response are so astonishingly high. This all came to mind yet again when I saw new report from the WWF, which I will return to shortly.
Imagine that some group of climate modelers came up with the perfect computer simulation. It takes into account natural and man-made emissions, water cycles, feedbacks on various time scales, CO2 absorption by the oceans and plants, etc. and lets us answer with extreme precision two key questions:
First, what is the “magic” CO2 content number for the atmosphere? The latest NOAA numbers say that we’re at 385ppm, which includes a noticeable up tick in 2007. (That same report also points out a surprise jump in atmospheric methane, a topic I’ll come back to soon in another post.) At one time the consensus was that we had to keep this concentration below 550ppm, and now it’s generally agreed that 450ppm is the right target, although James Hansen is convinced the value really should be only 350ppm. Note that at the rate we saw CO2 rise in 2007 (+2.4ppm), we go from 385 to 450 in a scant 27 years; the thought of nature’s line in the atmosphere being drawn at only 350ppm should be terrifying beyond words.
(Yes, I’m intentionally glossing over the uncomfortable issue of what cost the US or China or the EU or India should place on human and nature impacts from global warming caused by various levels of CO2 concentration, when those impacts happen in other parts of the world. The costs for our actions are not a binary function–stay below Xppm and nothing happens, but hit that threshold and the entire planet instantly becomes uninhabitable.)
Second, what are the various emissions levels we can allow in the coming years and still reach our CO2 concentration target? We could emit a little more CO2 for the next ten years, say, and then reduce emissions aggressively, or start a somewhat more gradual reduction immediately, and still get the same result. It’s not a simple queuing theory problem–so much CO2 is in the air at the beginning of a year, we add X units, Y% (implying W units) falls out on its own, so we end the year with Z units–because of the changing rate of absorption by the oceans and plants. (Hence the need for the super duper climate model.) As we measure the results of our CO2 emissions year by year, we could consult the model and see just how much more or less urgent the problem had become.
The problem, of course, is that this all-seeing, all-knowing climate model doesn’t exist and won’t for the foreseeable future. Our best understanding of the planet’s plumbing, to use too pedestrian a word, is still far short of what we need to create such a simulation. As a result, we’re forced to guess about whether the magic CO2 number is 450ppm, 350ppm, or somewhere in between, as well as how quickly we must respond. We’re playing Russian roulette with our environment, and we don’t even know exactly how many bullets are in the gun–but the evidence is piling up that it’s more than we thought.
All of which brings me to the document I mentioned above, described in a posting to the WWF site, Climate change hitting Arctic faster, harder - Polar bears may be at even greater risk:
Climate change is having a greater and faster impact on the Arctic than previously thought, according to a new study by the global conservation organization WWF.
The new report, called Arctic Climate Impact Science – An Update Since ACIA, represents the most wide-ranging reviews of arctic climate impact science since the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) was published in 2005.
The new study found that change was occurring in all arctic systems, impacting on the atmosphere and oceans, sea ice and ice sheets, snow and permafrost, as well as species and populations, food webs, ecosystems and human societies.
Melting of arctic sea ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet was found to be severely accelerated, now even prompting the expert scientists to discuss whether both may be close to their “tipping point” (the point where, because of climate change, natural systems may experience sudden, rapid and possibly irreversible change).
“The magnitude of the physical and ecological changes in the Arctic creates an unprecedented challenge for governments, the corporate sector, community leaders and conservationists to create the conditions under which arctic natural systems have the best chance to adapt,” said Dr Martin Sommerkorn, one of the report’s authors and Senior Climate Change Adviser at WWF International’s Arctic Programme.
“The debate can no longer focus only on creating protected areas and allowing arctic ecosystems to find their balance.”
“At the same time, we need to simultaneously reduce the vulnerability of social and environmental systems of the Arctic by reducing threats from human activity and building ecosystem resilience — the ability of ecosystems to remain stable when under a lot of pressure.”
WWF will launch this report at a meeting of the Arctic Council, the intergovernmental forum of arctic nations on Thursday.
“It is now in the hands of the Arctic nations to act upon this evidence for climate impacts,” said Sommerkorn. “They can make a difference if they act strongly, and fast. It is just way too late for business as usual.”
“This new report further emphasises the need for strong and effective Canadian leadership now in order to save polar bears,” said Dr. Peter Ewins, Director, Species Conservation, WWF-Canada.”
Previous models had predicted that melting sea-ice would mean some polar bear populations could be come extinct by 2050. The new evidence points to even earlier regional extinctions, unless Prime Minister Harper makes a firm commitment to halt over-hunting, reduce industrial development pressures and institute measures designed to drastically reduce Canada’s CO2 emissions.”
According to last year’s reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if the entire Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise 7.3 metres, making its status a global concern. While it is currently impossible to accurately predict how much of the ice sheet will be melting, and over which time, the new report shows there has been a far greater loss of ice mass in the past few years, much more than had been predicted by scientific models.
Likewise, the loss of summer arctic sea ice has increased dramatically, with record lows reached in 2005 and — way more dramatic — in 2007. In September 2007, the sea ice shrank to 39 per cent below its 1979-2000 mean, the lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1979 and also the lowest for the entire 20th century based on monitoring from ships and aircraft.
“When you look in detail at the science behind the recent Arctic changes it becomes painfully clear how our understanding of climate impacts lags behind the changes that we are already seeing in the Arctic,” said Sommerkorn. “This is extremely dangerous, as some of these Arctic changes have the potential to substantially warm the Earth beyond what models currently forecast. That is because climate models don’t currently adequately incorporate important underlying drivers of the Arctic changes we are already observing, such as the interaction between sea ice thickness and water temperature.”
The Arctic is not only one of the places on Earth most vulnerable to climate change, but also a place where vulnerability is of urgent global relevance.
“We need to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases to levels that will avoid the continued warming of the Arctic and the anticipated resulting disruption of the global climate system,” said Sommerkorn.
For further information
Dr. Peter Ewins, Director, Species Conservation, WWF-Canada Telephone 647-400-9576; email pewins@wwfcanada.org
Julia Langer, Director, Global Threats, WWF-Canada Telephone 647-400-9579; email jlanger@wwfcanada.org
Dr Martin Sommerkorn, Senior Climate Change Adviser, WWF International’s Arctic Programme. Telephone +47 222 05 309; email msommerkorn@wwf.no
Moira O’Brien-Malone, Head of Media Relations, WWF International. Telephone +41 79 377 7958, email mobrien@wwfint.org
The report is online: Arctic Climate Impact Science – An Update Since ACIA (128 page, 2.2MB PDF)
For those who simply cannot help but wonder what I do in those spare moments when I’m not chained to the keyboard, here are three photo galleries of my Rochester Greywolves lacrosse photos.
The best shots, in my opinion, are in the 4/20/2008 collection from the scrimmage against Onondaga, which is the first of the three galleries in the set. But what do I know–photography is like writing in that the creator is the last person who can judge it accurately.
An interesting confluence of oil news this Wednesday morning, which highlights the emerging paradigm, at least according to the public proclamations of the concerned parties:
Oil must stay high if world to have enough supply:
Energy producers cannot halt a rally that has driven oil to nearly $120 a barrel and the world might have to live with even higher prices if it wants supplies for the future, exporters said on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENTThree days of talks in Rome between producers and their customers drew broad agreement a weak dollar has pushed oil prices higher and that the cost of extracting more from the ground has soared.
One thing the 60 or so energy ministers and dozens of industry executives struggled to agree was that the price, which hit a record of $119.74 a barrel on Tuesday, was too high.
“The oil market is in a state of fear, if not panic,” said Shokri Ghanem, head of Libya’s National Oil Corporation, but he also said expensive oil was necessary.
“Prices will have to stay high in the long term to encourage exploration and production.”
Producers and consumers alike were worried, but for different reasons. Producers were nervous about falling demand and consumers dreaded economic collapse.
Capacity warning for oil producers:
The International Monetary Fund warned oil ministers on Monday that their expansion in capacity was failing to keep up with surging demand, leading to instability in the market.
John Lipsky, the IMF’s deputy director, told a meeting in Rome: “While oil demand has remained robust, the supply side response to rising prices has been disappointing.
“As buffers have dwindled, the oil market has become highly sensitive to news of supply disruptions or geopolitical events.”
Mr Lipsky said the spare capacity held by Opec, the oil producers’ cartel, was about half of its 1996-2007 average, or one quarter of its 2002 level, and was expected to remain limited for some time.
“Against this background, increased investment in the oil sector has a crucial role to play in improving the supply-demand balance and bringing greater stability to the market,” he told the International Energy Forum, comprising energy ministers and delegates of the world’s biggest oil producing and consuming nations.
U.S. says high oil prices risky to economy:
Oil prices that hit a record on Tuesday are clearly too high and not beneficial for the U.S. economy, a top U.S. energy official said.
The United States has been remarkably resilient in the face of expensive energy, but a rally on oil to more than $118 a barrel is an economic threat, U.S. Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Kupfer told a news briefing.
“Oil prices are clearly too high. We are not happy with the prices or the direction they’re going in,” Kupfer said.
Echoing remarks last week by U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, he said the United States would not delay its plan to buy more oil for its Strategic Petroleum Reserves, in spite of the oil price.
Producer countries have blamed the weakness of the U.S. dollar for the strength of the oil market and have said supplies for now are more than adequate.
By contrast, Kupfer said fundamentals of supply and demand were a major factor.
“Fundamentals are tight right now … Our message is take a look at fundamentals,” he said on the sidelines of the International Energy Forum in Rome, which brings together producers and consumers
OPEC Lays It on the Line at IEF: ‘Increase Security for Demand’:
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Secretary General HE Abdalla Salem El-Badri addressed an audience at the 11th International Energy Forum (IEF), held in Rome April 21, where he spoke earnestly about the need for demand security in an “increasingly interdependent energy world.”
The oil is there, said Badri, particularly in OPEC’s Member Countries, but “minimizing uncertainty” by ensuring “appropriate demand conditions” is necessary to alleviate the investment fears of operators.
OPEC estimates the annual average rate increase of world energy demand to be 1.7%. Fossil fuels will constitute more than 85% of the world’s energy needs, because so-called alternative fuels do not have the wherewithal to maintain energy needs of this magnitude.
“There are no viable substitutes in such quantities on even the most distant horizons,” said Badri. Badri added that oil and gas will make up more than 60% of the energy needs of the world as the increase persists. The aforementioned annual average growth rate will bring worldwide production to 118 million bbl/d by the year 2030.
“Scenarios we have prepared, based on plausible higher and lower world economic growth assumptions, show that, even by 2020, there is an estimated range of uncertainty for required investment upstream by OPEC producers of around $270 billion,” said Badri. ” Without the confidence that additional demand for oil will emerge, and without the market signals that long-run prices are supportive, the incentive to invest can be affected.
U.S. oil firms want Libya exempted from terrorism compensation law:
One by one, top executives of American oil companies met privately over the past year with the Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi - often in his trademark Bedouin tent - as they lined up contracts allowing them to tap into the country’s oil reserves.
But now, thanks to a law that threatens those deals, the new allies are working Capitol Hill. The American oil industry and the Libyan government, once a pariah in Washington, have hired high-profile lobbyists, buttonholed lawmakers and enlisted help from the Bush administration, all in an effort to win an exemption from a law that Congress passed in January that is intended to ensure that victims of terrorist attacks are compensated.
The provision allows victims of state-sponsored terrorism to collect court judgments by seizing foreign assets in the United States or money from those governments held by American companies doing business with them. If Libya loses a half-dozen court cases still pending, $3 billion to $6 billion could be at stake, according to lawyers’ estimates.
Let me see if I can sort this all into neat little conceptual bins.
The oil exporters claim:
The importers claim:
My take on all this:
Update: See Where the Oil Rally Goes: Facts and Speculation for Jim Kingsdale’s take on the current oil situation. As always, I find myself agreeing almost completely with Jim.
Sometimes, you see things online that explain why the peak oil and global warming deniers and delayers find it so easy to fight us.
Case in point, It’s Earth Day: “Go *!$# Yourself” (emphasis added):
Like personal carbon-offsets, a consumer’s purchase of “green” products is doing nothing to halt the accumulation of green-house gasses in the atmosphere, and arguably, many consumers in this country and other developed nations, with their preference for such things as fresh, if organic, vegetables in the winter and bigger, if “greener” houses, are inadvertently adding to the problem with their well-meaning purchasing.
…
Instead, if anything is to go viral starting today, I would suggest that it be to get really, really pissed. If we as a species are ever to address before it is too late our climatic self-destruction, we are going to have to get very angry at the short-sightedness of everyone from the suburban housewife who drives an over-size vehicle that gets 5 miles to the gallon because she can, to political leaders who blithely predict that technology will solve our problems at some point in some vague way. The only way for us to reduce significantly our continued over-consumption of fossil fuels is for them to become either actually or artificially (through taxation) so expensive that we are willing to assess risks, like women in a refugee camp, in a wholly different way. It will have to become scary to continue in our current state and that fear will have to translate into global, political action – where leaders will be just as concerned with telling their people that they are robbing the earth of cheap energy as they are of increasing food prices. So here’s something that you as an individual can do for a day: decide to become scary yourself.
For a day, even if for a day only because like most of you I don’t think continual anger is psychologically “sustainable,” get good and cranky when confronted with any reminder that this is Earth Day. Expletives could escape your mouths. Perhaps commit a mild act an act of vandalism or two. Be civilly disobedient or not, but register your anger and not your complacency. Be like Moses when the Israelites were worshipping their Baals after he brought them out of Egypt. Because green happy-talk just ain’t cutting it.
Excuse me? Purchasing greener products “is doing nothing to halt the accumulation of green-house gasses [sic] in the atmosphere”? Really? And the evidence to support that sweeping claim is… what, exactly?
When I was car shopping in 2006, I easily could have bought some monstrosity like a full-size SUV that gets 15 MPG and then driven it like the lead-footed morons I see on the roads every day. Instead I bought my oft-mentioned Scion xA, which, with a little help from hypermiling techniques, consistently delivers 40 MPG. That reduction in gasoline consumed and CO2 emissions of over 62% didn’t contribute to halting greenhouse gas accumulations?
And my use of CFL bulbs in every socket in the house, plus my greatly reduced use of air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter (partially via zone cooling and heating)? No progress there? What about the fact that my wife and I pay more for our electricity to get 100% green electrons–all pushed down the wire to our home from wind farms and small hydroelectric facilities? I suppose all those steps somehow fail to reduce CO2 emissions, as well.
The author mentions organic vegetables out of season and larger, greener homes. Where is the evidence that such produce bought out of season are any worse for the environment than non-organics bought at the same time? I didn’t know before I read this posting that they were, and I still don’t know that–there was no proof offered, just a flat assertion. And how can anyone make sweeping generalizations about the environmental impact of larger but more efficient homes? Compared to what? A smaller home of the same efficiency? A home of the same size that’s not as efficient? Pick your assumptions and you get the answer you want. But without data to back it up, it’s just hot air and the kind of posturing that our shared enemies in this political fight love to use against us.
Five MPG SUV’s? Really? I yield ground to no one in my dislike of the use of unnecessarily oversize vehicles, but there’s no way I would make that ridiculous claim.
As for the contention that we should “get good and cranky when confronted with any reminder that this is Earth Day. Expletives could escape your mouths. Perhaps commit a mild act an act of vandalism or two,” I almost don’t know where to begin. Get upset with the deniers and the delayers? Damn right. I do that almost every day, and I desperately wish that more people would pay some bloody attention and get worked up to the point of uttering a few choice expletives. But “perhaps” resort to vandalism? Someone please tell me this is a very, very bad joke. That would be about the most counter-productive thing anyone who cares about energy and environmental issues could do. And oh, by the way, it’s not just dumb, it’s illegal.
The worst part of this post is the false dichotomy–we either get mad and force change or we engage in “green happy-talk”. What a Lutzian crock. What those of us on the right side of this issue must do is find as many ways as possible to reach out to others and educate them. You can’t elevate someone’s awareness regarding such large and genuinely scary issues from “blissful ignorance” to “educated, activated consumer and voter” (the mission of this site since day one, I might add) in one gigantic step. You have to build ramps and find ways to coax them along. For the frustrated and impatient true believers (and those of you who read this site know how often I fall into that category), it can be agony explaining to newcomers over and over again sunspots don’t cause global warming and the price of oil isn’t rising because “the oil companies are screwing us”.
We have to find ways to internalize that razor-edged emotional response and turn it into positive energy so we can continue fighting the good fight. We write, we give public presentations to environmental groups and schools, we proselytize until our friends avoid us at social gatherings, and we argue publicly with other enlightened individuals about strategy and tactics. It doesn’t feel like it at times, but that’s the path to victory in an inherently political process. First we get them on our side in sufficient numbers to generate the needed popular support for a cap-and-trade system or car feebates or a carbon tax or whatever policy measures are appropriate. Then we collectively force the politicians to do the right thing. (If you’re still carrying a grudge at that point, you can wallow in the fact that the people who don’t support you will be mad as hell that you found a way to make both the government and them do the right thing. Success truly is the best form of revenge.) That’s how Democracy works, not by swearing or making some sort of perverse and wildly counter-productive “statement” via vandalism.
Some people, even a few of those most dedicated to the cause (which I assume includes the author quoted above), might be tempted to dismiss Earth Day as a content-free exercise in “green happy-talk”, but I see it as a perfect chance to focus mainstream consumers and voters on our looming energy and environmental issues. Is Earth Day the one lever that we can use to move (or save) the world? Probably not. But given the urgency of the situation, I’d rather use (and re-use) that opportunity as fully as possible instead of throwing it away.
“Efficiency”? You know, the thing we used to call (gasp!) conservation, before that became so last energy crisis.
(As far as I’m concerned, there is only the slimmest sliver of difference between efficiency and conservation, and it has to do with intent. If you buy a more fuel efficient car because you like it, that’s (unintended) efficiency, but if you do it at least in part to reduce your gasoline consumption, then that’s conservation. To be honest, I use the terms interchangeably, except when I’m hanging out with the rest of the energy geeks at our favorite bar, Watt’s Up?. But I digress.)
Back on topic, the issue at hand is US views of efficiency/conservation measures. Specifically, I think we’re finally reaching the point where energy prices are inflicting enough pain on enough people–from individual consumers to business people to those managing budgets for almost any organization, like schools and religious institutions–that Americans are (finally!) willing to think explicitly about efficiency and how they can trim their energy expenses.
My initial reaction: It’s about freakin’ time, people.
My secondary reaction: I find it extremely sad that years of information, even in the truly pathetic US mainstream press, about the evils of our energy-profligate ways, from global warming to an insane level of oil dependence (often relying on countries that don’t like us), to a ballooning trade deficit (we buy about 1.4 billion dollars of oil every day from other countries, at current prices) weren’t enough to get people to budge a micron. It took $3.50/gallon, the latest mule kick to the forehead, to wake them up and start herding them, however slowly and halfheartedly, in the right direction.
All of this came to mind when I (and a few bazillion others, I suspect) received an e-mail from Marianne Lavelle at US News and World Report about a series of efficiency-themed articles they’ve published online:
Good articles, even if there’s not too much there that regular TCOE readers don’t know already.
The real value of these articles is that they’ll help spread the efficiency meme to all those US consumers who claim to be “too busy” to make even the slightest change to become more energy efficient, or who think it will be “too much of a hassle”.
And that’s where you can play a role, via a simple experiment. Tell your friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives about these articles. Tell them you’re tired of throwing away money and you’re making some changes to your home or workplace. Provide details, if possible–”I saved $5/month on my electricity bill and $15 on gasoline without really trying”. Ask them if they have any tips for spending less on energy, even if you’re sure they’re the last people on the planet who will conserve; if nothing else, the question might jump-start their own budget assessment process. Don’t mention Al Gore, global warming, peak oil, polar bears, or any of that. Just stick to the money angle, and see if you can get them to pay attention to the market’s latest mule kick and take some evasive action before the next one happens.
The fact that it will help them and everyone else on the planet can remain our little secret.
ecogeek has an article up, Five Ways to turn CO2 into CASH:
These days, many experts are saying that we’re not going to be able to stop climate change just by decreasing emissions. To dig our way out of this hole, they say, we’re actually going to need to take carbon dioxide out of the air.
The first instinct has been to bury the CO2. Just pump it into the Earth and try and forget how ashamed we are of these massive quantities of CO2. But a new breed of entrepreneur has sprung up, saying “If we have this CO2, why don’t we do something useful with it!?”
Obviously, we’ve got to get rid of all that carbon, but if folks can make some money and lower the cost of sequestration while they’re doing it…then that’s just icing on the cake. So here are five of the ways in which people are hoping to make bank with the millions of tons of CO2 that are pumped out of coal plants and into the atmosphere every day.
The five ways, as you might guess, are:
See the article for details on these five paths.
The author is right–we do need to find ways to get a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere, and it’s looking less and less like we will find the political will to cut emissions enough to let the CO2 level drop on its own, thanks to that gas’ notoriously long lifetime.
But let us take a step back and look at the number involved. (Yes, this is the part where Lou whips out his energy and environmental cheat sheet and attempts to scare everyone spitless. Actually, these numbers come from Table 11.19 of the current US Dept. of Energy’s Annual Energy Review.)
The US alone emits nearly 6 billion metric tons of CO2 per year from energy consumption. In units of Empire State Buildings (about 365,000 tons each), that’s over 16,400 ESB’s.
The world emits over 27 billion metric tons of CO2 per year from energy consumption, or about 74,000 ESB’s.
The total world CO2 production, just from energy consumption, during the years 1995-2004 was over 238 billion metric tons, or about 652,000 ESB’s. Even accounting for the roughly 40% of CO2 emissions that get absorbed by plant life and the oceans, that still leaves us with a net addition to the atmosphere of about 391,000 ESB’s of CO2. With a footprint of roughly 2 acres per ESB, that’s about 1,221 square miles. And don’t forget that a very high percentage of all that CO2 is still “up there” in the atmosphere thanks to its long lifetime.
(Yes, I would quote the number for the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now compared to pre-industrial times, but I can’t seem to find the number. Anyone want to earn a Junior Energy Geek Badge by finding it, measured in metric tons and/or ESB’s?)
So, what’s the point? I’m not at all optimistic that any plan to pull CO2 out of the air can have a meaningful impact in the time frame needed, given the sheer magnitude of the problem. As for the paths mentioned in the ecogeek article:
Turning some CO2 into algae and then into fuel doesn’t reduce the level of CO2 already in the atmosphere. It might recycle it and obviate the burning of some fossil fuel, a decidedly good thing, but it won’t represent a net loss of airborne CO2. Ditto for making fuel directly from the CO2.
Capturing it in the form of plastic, sodium bicarb, or calcium carbonate all sound nice, but how high will such things scale?
I have no doubt that we’ll do the things mentioned in the article. Once we put a market price on CO2, the entrepreneurs of the world will find incredibly creative things to do with it, and no doubt some of them will make Big Money in the process. (Personally, I’m guessing the algae fuel people will become BFF’s with the owners of coal-fired electricity plants and get filthy rich.) But until I see a detailed analysis that says some combination of such schemes will make a significant reduction in the CO2 in the atmosphere, I will consider them to be a very minor, albeit positive, contributor.
The Environmental Defense Fund has a new paper out, What Will it Cost to Protect Ourselves from Global Warming? (49 page, 4.7MB PDF).
From the Executive Summary (emphasis in the original):
Important parts of the world are acting to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, and the United States is now debating whether to join that process. This paper examines the potential impact of a cap on greenhouse gases on the U.S. economy as a whole and on American families.
What will it cost to protect ourselves against the potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming? Advocates of action anticipate minimal costs. Those who want to do nothing sometimes assert that carbon cuts will “bankrupt the economy.” Who is right?
This paper conducts the broadest assessment to date of the impacts on the U.S. economy of capping greenhouse gases. This report synthesizes the findings of several state-of-the-art economic models, and arrives at a strong conclusion:
The United States can enjoy robust economic growth over the next several decades while making ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If we put a cap-and-trade policy in place soon, we can achieve substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions without significant adverse consequences to the economy. And in the long run, the coming low-carbon economy can provide the foundation for sustained American economic growth and prosperity.
But for such a policy to be truly affordable, we must act now. Delay will greatly increase the economic cost of making the necessary emissions reductions, and will risk locking in irreversible climate change. And delay will put the United States further behind the rest of the world in the race to invent and produce the next generation of energy technologies.
I will likely have much more to say about this report once I’ve had a chance to read it.
