Shell Withdrawal Not a Victory

After Shell recently announced that they were ceasing all exploratory work in the Arctic, I received a flood of emails declaring “victory” from the various organizations who had been trying to pressure the Obama administration to not let Shell drill.  This was as deceptive as Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” fiasco in the early days of the Iraq war.

While I am relieved that Shell has left the Arctic … for now … it is not a victory in any sense of the word because the efforts of those organizations to convince the government to not allow any drilling were unseccessful.  

Shell made its decision for two reasons.  First, after spending a reported $7 billion over several years trying to find oil in the Arctic, it had come up dry.  Second, given the current downturn in the oil market and the assessment by many that the market will not recover for some time, it was not economically prudent to continue drilling.

So this “victory” is a false one.  Shell just made a pragmatic economic decision.  It was not the result of a government resolve to not endorse further oil exploration, at least in environmentally sensitive areas, and certainly not a decision on the part of Shell that public opinion was so against the project that they best withdraw.

The power of big oil in governmental energy policy decision-making remains as before … great.  Nothing has changed other than the economics.  And one can be assured that within a few years the price of oil will be sky high again, leading the companies to dust off their plans for exploration of more expensive extraction locations.

So what to do now?  One thing is clear.  The American public will not support any effort to either cut production or decrease use of oil.  They are totally addicted to it.  They will not wean themselves from oil until they are forced to by ever-increasing prices caused by the diminished supply after peak oil.  

Although we were at or almost at that point, the fracking venture has turned the tables so that now there is a glut of oil and it will be some time till we are there again.  In the meantime, climate change will continue on its deadly path.

Obama has been able to move against coal through executive orders only because nobody really cares about coal anymore outside of those states that produce coal.  The power companies don’t need coal because they now have cheap natural gas thanks to fracking.  And the public will feel no pinch from the reduced use of coal.

One should not take heart from polls showing that more people now believe in climate change, even a majority of Republican voters.  It is one thing to believe in climate change, that what man is doing is causing this change.  It is another to believe that the possible future consequences are so dire that it warrants a major change in energy policy and in how we live.  It’s far more likely that these voters will support various efforts to adapt to future climate change, which efforts are already underway in many cities and countries.

So even assuming the public “revolution” that I have argued for in several recent posts occurred and the political power of major corporations and the wealthy was thus greatly reduced, on this  particular issue, where the public attitude and corporate interest are one, it is hard to see how any real progress would be made, absent a catastrophe of truly epic proportion.  And by then it would be too late.

I can see only one practical opportunity.  If fracking were banned, the oil glut would disappear and the price of oil would rise quickly and substantially, even with the global economy in its current state.  That sharp and quick increase in price, at least to the point where it was previously, would bring about renewed pressures both to develop alternative sources of energy and transport as well as to conserve.  Of course big oil would see it as an opportunity to explore more expensive extraction and return to the Arctic.

But how to achieve that aim?  For some reason, which I don’t understand, the evidence that fracking is an environmental disaster has not come together in a compelling way.  Some organization needs to gather all the facts about the actual environmental damage caused by fracking and put it together in a compelling way and convey that information to the public

Also, Congress must be pressured to reverse its position, pushed through by then Vice-President Cheney, that oil companies are exempt from the Clean Water Act requirement of disclosing what chemicals they are putting into the ground when they frack.  That that exemption still stands is a disgrace to our political system, and makes it harder to arouse the public.

With both those pieces of information in hand, the public would need to be mightily aroused and hopefully would then strongly support a ban on fracking.  That is the only hope of countering both the corporate and local business forces that gain from this dreadful practice.

This would not be an answer to the problem, but it would be a major step forward.

Peak OIl or No, The Answer is Back to the Future

I have been a firm believer in the peak oil theory.  A recent article in the Atlantic, however, “What If We Never Run Out of Oil?” provided updated facts and changed my perspective.  If one believes in peak oil, then one believes in an oncoming economic disaster since the world’s economy is based on oil.  But the proponents of peak oil provide no answer to that scenario.  If one believes that there is no end to obtainable oil reserves, and we keep on living as we have been, perhaps even more so, then the disaster comes from climate change which will also reek economic disaster.  And we have no answer for that either.

In addressing these issues, people either seem focused on how to keep living as we have been, or they throw up their hands in despair.  Even climate change proponents don’t argue for a radical change in lifestyle but base their proposals on the smarter use of fossils fuels together with alternative energy sources because of the economic implications of doing otherwise.  No one is really moving us closer to an answer to the riddle.

This is one of those moments that screams for thinking outside the box.  Whether peak oil  is or comes to be, or whether we have an endless supply of it, the bottom line is the same ... we must find a way to wean the world off of oil so that we avoid economic and social disaster, whether it comes from the lack of oil or climate change.

The answer I propose is in one sense surprisingly simple.  We go back to the future.  We for the most part go back to a system and structure that is not dependent on oil or other fossil fuels.  We don’t have to make up a new world, we just have to look back at the world we came from to see how it would work.  

That at least is the basic rule, though in some areas of life the use of fossil fuels will continue to be necessary.  Why?  Because our population has grown so much and is more concentrated in cities.  Because, for example, the cold-water flats of the past are no longer acceptable in a modern-day scenario and heating with wood is not a viable option.

There are various ways to look at the implications of what I am proposing.

Replacing oil as an energy source.  As the industrial revolution advanced, one of the main changes was the replacement of human labor by machines.  And that has increased exponentially in the digital and robotic age of manufacturing.  Modern methods of manufacturing and farming are highly energy intensive.  We will have to go back to a form of operation that is more labor intensive.  That will have the double advantage of not only freeing us from oil, but once again finding appropriate employment for masses of workers in industry and farming, thus ending the unemployment problem.  To the extent that an energy source is needed, it will have to come from cleaner sources.

This will without question make products more expensive, which will mean a drop in the standard of living for many, but that will be offset by the increased standard of living of all the millions of people who now once again have gainful employment.  We have been living too long with the illusion of cheap goods fostered by the exploitation of the poor in far away lands and the availability of cheap transport made possible by cheap oil.

Where goods are manufactured.  In a back to the future world, the modern global economy will cease to be.  Instead, the economy will be as it was before ... primarily national, and in many cases regional or local.  While again this means an increase in the cost of many items, and a corresponding lowering of the standard of living many are used to, it will mean the repatriation of millions of jobs which will, together with the increased employment of human labor noted above, result in far less income inequality than has existed in recent times as well as an increased standard of living for many.  Plus whole towns and cities will be reborn.

The products we use.  Almost everything we use today is derived at least partially from oil.  That will end.  Instead, we will go back to natural products ... whether it’s glass bottles, or cotton shirts, or wood siding for homes, and of course all food products.  Again, this will mean an increase in cost but it will have the benefit of reviving rural economies, both nationally and world-wide, that have been devastated by the modern industrial economy. 

There is at least one area, though, where limited use of oil will be required, and that is in the production of modern pharmaceuticals.  Unless a way can be found to produce them without the organic compounds that come from oil, that will remain a necessary ingredient.

Transportation.  While we won’t have to go back to the horse and buggy, major changes will be necessary.  First, all cars will have to be electric, and the electric generating plants that produce the electricity to charge them must be operated on natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear, or alternative energy, otherwise there is no energy saving.  All public transportation must be electric or alternate energy, and there must be more public transport.  The nation’s regional train system needs to be revitalized with efficient, modern high-speed trains.  Air travel would be limited to national (i.e. not regional) and international travel.

While all of this will involve a massive restructuring, given the entrepreneurial prowess of American business, there is no question in my mind that all of this can be accomplished.  If we start planning now rather than waiting for disaster to strike, our economy and people will prosper as perhaps never before and with greater equality.  

But American business and politics has operated for a long time on a short-term planning basis.  The question is whether our corporate and political leaders can face the facts and engage in the type of long-range planning that this massive restructuring of our system and lives will require.

Energy Policy Ignores the Elephant in the Room: Saving Us from Global Warming and Peak Oil

In current thinking, the issues presented by global warming concern using less fossil fuel and replacing that energy source with alternative”clean” energy.  We are all familiar with the options that are on the table: solar power, wind power, ethanol, and nuclear power. Oh and I suppose for accuracy one should add clean coal. There is also modest incremental talk of conservation.

However, there are problems with all of these “solutions.”  Clean coal, which requires the deep burial of carbon dioxide, will never be politically or economically viable.  For one, the energy companies want to be left off the hook legally if the gas should happen to escape its underground habitat and kill people.  Then there’s the problem of removing mountaintops and the resulting environmental degradation to access the coal.

Nuclear power, at least nuclear fission, has the inescapable and unsolvable problem of what to do with the nuclear waste product that will remain radioactive for thousands of years.  Nuclear fusion, which would be safer and produce less radioactive waste is still experimental; a test reactor is under construction in France.

The remaining “green” options are generally agreed not to have the capacity to provide anywhere close to our massive energy needs.  And even the green options, including electric cars, would need massive amounts of energy … generated by fossil fuels, of course … to be financially viable. Corn ethanol, which has only thrown world corn markets into a frenzy resulting in increased food costs for the poor, has been proven to be worthless as an energy saver.

If one is objective, one therefore has to say that all the talk about substantially reducing our carbon footprint through the use of alternative energy sources just is not very realistic, given our current  and future dependence on energy, which will just get worse as the world population grows and more of it experiences modern development.

And as one thinks about this issue, it is important to remember that there is another energy-related catastrophic event waiting to happen out there … it’s not just global warming. At some point in the future … whether it’s starting to happen already as some argue or will happen in 20 or 50 or 100 years … we will reach “peak oil.” The availability of oil then will be drastically reduced and the price of what oil is available will skyrocket to unimaginable heights.

So if one is trying to plan for the future, the inescapable question that must be addressed is how can modern man live, with a reasonable level of creature comfort (one must be practical), using only a fraction of the energy that is being used today. Only if that question can be realistically answered is there any hope for mankind’s future. If that question is not answered, sooner rather than later our economies will collapse, our standard of living will evaporate … the world will become a very ugly place, not all that different from the futuristic world depicted in “Mad Max.”  We will have destroyed ourselves, not by nuclear weapons, but through our insatiable greed.

I certainly do not have the answer.  What’s scary though, is that I am not aware of any great minds or think tanks that have addressed this issue and come up with various models for how we could live using only a fraction of the energy being used today. No one seems to be thinking or talking about this. This goes way beyond what could be achieved through conservation, energy-efficient appliances, green buildings, and the like. This would most likely require a massive change in the way we currently live.

To my mind, government and industry must join forces in a project even larger than the fabled Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. The future of our children, and certainly our children’s children, will depend on whether and how this issue is addressed.