Climate Climate & Energy

Cornucopian thinking about oil

There seems to be a disturbing tendency in the progressive community to blame speculators for most, if not all, of the increase in oil prices. In its most extreme form, the implication seems to be that the supply of oil is virtually limitless, and that only financial manipulation is to blame. Ironically, this mirrors the views of many mainstream economists, who have what is sometimes called a cornucopian view of the world. Julian Simon was the ultimate spokesperson for the idea that technological innovation and unlimited resources would allow for virtually any level of population and consumption.

For instance, writing in Counterpunch, Mike Whitney, who has been one of the best researchers explaining what is really going on in the financial meltdown, declares:

There is no oil shortage, not yet at least. The reason oil has skyrocketed to nearly $140 per barrel is because of rampant speculation. The peak oil doom-sayers are simply confusing the issue. This is not about shortages or scarcity; it's about gaming the system to fatten the bottom line.

(The progressive talk show host Randi Rhodes has been making similar arguments).

Whitney quotes various ministers of oil who echo his argument; meanwhile, oil company spokespersons have been giving mixed messages, and Bush's Secretary of Energy blames supply and demand. Whom to listen to? None of them. Like a group of vultures circling the carcass of the global economy, they each have their own nefarious reasons for saying what they are saying. The next time you hear something about how the increase in the price of oil is caused by speculation, consider several counter-arguments:

Technophile mag spouts climate-tech nonsense

Wired magazine used to be the place to go for the latest in technology. But now it covers any sexy techy idea, no matter how impractical.

Given that we all have limited time, Wired should be off every technophile's must-read list and replaced by Technology Review, which has revamped its stodgy old self and become what once Wired aspired to be.

For me, this started with the absurd cover story by Peter Schwartz 5 years ago, "How Hydrogen Can Save America," which claimed "What we need is a massive, Apollo-scale effort [$100 billion over ten years] to unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power." Uhh, no. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source -- except for the sun, of course, and if we really want to harness its power we should be placing big bets on solar energy. Try instead my Technology Review piece "Some clarity on the Clarity."

Recently Wired published their most misinformed piece, "Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green." RealClimate beat me to the punch debunking Wired's bizarre analyses in favor of using air-conditioning and against protecting old-growth forests or buying a Prius. They didn't debunk Wired's claim, "Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy," perhaps because it is so obviously absurd (see Nukes of hazard).

California announces specifics of greenhouse-gas reduction plans

On Thursday, California state regulators released specific plans to reduce California’s greenhouse-gas emissions 10 percent from today’s levels by 2020, the first phase of a scheme to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050. The bulk of the outlined reductions are designed to come from programs the state has already begun work on, but have been […]

Climate change means worse droughts for American Southwest, Australia

Part one presented the synopsis of the remarkable new U.S. Climate Change Science Program (a.k.a. the Bush Administration) report, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. One central point in the synopsis is

Droughts are becoming more severe in some regions, though there are no clear trends for North America as a whole ... Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity.

Seems pretty clear, no? Dry areas will see more evaporation, hence less soil moisture (defined as precipitation minus evaporation), hence more drought. Further, many dry areas will see less precipitation under climate change (due to the expansion of the Hadley Cell and subtropics, see "Australia faces the 'permanent dry,' as do we").

Big Coal’s new video

A shill from everyone’s favorite Big Coal front group ABEC wanders the streets of D.C. asking totally unbiased questions: Next up: Do random passers-by prefer ponies and puppy dogs, or will they side with the environmentalists’ effort to kick the nation’s little old ladies in the shins?

Why indeed

“We have been talking about energy independence since Americans were waiting in gas lines during the 1970s. We’ve heard promises about it in every State of the Union for the last three decades. But each and every year, we become more, not less, addicted to oil — a 19th century fossil fuel that is dirty, […]

Global energy demand will grow 50 percent by 2030, says EIA

The world isn’t going to kick its energy-sucking habits anytime soon, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted Wednesday. By 2030, global energy demand will grow 50 percent, says the EIA report, mostly in China and other developing countries. Some 124 new nuclear plants will be built worldwide by 2030, and natural gas will be in […]

Hansen’s message to the planet

Maybe it was the thought of two decades of climate-crisis exhortation, little more heeded than words shouted at a hurricane.

Maybe it was the temporizing of the Democrats and the obstructionism of the GOP. Or it might have been the images of cities, houses and farmland of his native Iowa drowned by the latest "500-year" floods.

Perhaps it was all three. Whatever the reasons, the climate crisis' Paul Revere turned it up a few more notches in a speech yesterday (PDF) at a Congressional staff briefing in Washington D.C.

Yet James Hansen's headline-grabbing broadside against Big Oil and Big Coal CEOs may prove less significant than his full-throated advocacy of carbon tax-and-dividend as the highest priority for reducing carbon emissions and abating global warming:

A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax.

Climate change may force California endemic plants to migrate or die

Climate change is expected to significantly affect California’s endemic plants over the next century as temperatures rise and rainfall patterns change, according to a new study published in the journal PLoS One. Up to two-thirds of the state’s unique plants could be wiped out in their current ranges by century’s end and will have to […]

Offshore drilling has an ‘insignificant’ effect on oil prices

I am glad that so many in the energy debate have picked up on one of the two messages from my previous post (see "EIA to McCain: Drop offshore [drilling]").

But in listening to the radio and TV debates, I realize that some people have the impression that U.S. Energy Information Administration said offshore drilling might eventually lower oil prices. It did not. It found that allowing offshore drilling would have no significant effect on prices as far out into the future as the analysis projected.