Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/../photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg Some estimate global energy demand will triple by 2050 - yes we can? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/195233)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Refueling_at_the_pump.jpgRobert J Samuelson - Newsweek - April 27, 2009

Yes, it's going to cost, but what's the alternative? --Ed.

Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global-warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here's a typical claim, from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Environmental+Defense+Fund):

"For about a dime a day [per person], we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil."

This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world's and America's energy comes from fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The goal is to eliminate fossil fuels or suppress their CO2. The bill now being considered in the House would mandate a 42 percent decline in greenhouse emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent drop by 2050.... http://www.newsweek.com/id/195233

Just consider America's energy needs in 2030, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Compared with 2007, the United States is projected to have almost 25 percent more people (375 million), an economy about 70 percent larger ($20 trillion) and 27 percent more light-duty vehicles (294 million). Energy demand will be strong.

One constant in our national dialogue about energy is a demand-side marriage between extremist doomsday peak oil types and climate change denying "nothing replaces fossil fuels" types like Samuelson.

Both sides assume continued demand growth as a given, and move on to supply. They do this for different reasons. For the extremist Peak Oil types, it is to make the coming collapse even more stark. For Samuelson climate change deniers, it is to show the futility of climate change legislation.

But of course, it's silly to think that demand will be dramatically larger in 2030. The finiteness of oil (and later coal & natgas) and their future price increases (either through diminished supply, climate change taxation, or both), ensures that energy demand will remain somewhat stagnant.

We waste tremendous amounts of energy. We waste energy because it has essentially been free for decades. Assuming continued demand growth assumes continued free energy. But we know that will not be the case because of the finiteness of the sources.

We've reached peak demand. Somebody tell Samuelson to stop writing about energy & the environment, and stick to the other topics he gets frequently wrong.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/10/377-why-robert-hirsch-is-dead-wrong.html

I was not aware Samuelson was a GW skeptic.

Getting off fossil fuels will not be cheap, but the alternative is worse.

Of course it is underestimated, because the estimates are done by the supporters.

If the report comes from the opponents, it will be overestimated.

It's still something that needs to be done.

I was not aware Samuelson was a GW skeptic.


He was for 24 hours, but no longer. ;) A byline error.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/27/samuelson-warming-denier/

Of course it is underestimated, because the estimates are done by the supporters.

If the report comes from the opponents, it will be overestimated.

It's still something that needs to be done.

You can close the thread after this statement.:)

Just to add one thing, then disappear from this thread: there have been estimates (http://www.cfr.org/publication/18738/cap_and_trades_economic_impact.html) about cost from those who think the economic costs are too large and from those who think they will be small. One problem, though, is that it's nearly impossible to predict what those costs would be. Over the past few years, the costs of alternative energy sources have come down, but slowly. So companies that produce and install alternative energy sources are finding ways to cut down on the consumer cost (see the article DF posted a few days ago about SolarLease).

Sad to say, but I think the answer to the thread's main question is: who knows?

For the extremist Peak Oil types, it is to make the coming collapse even more stark.

Who you calling an extremist? Huh, huh? :rolleyes:

Here's the suggestion in the article, for reducing fuel usage:

Employer trip reduction
Area-wide ridesharing
Public transit improvements
HOV lanes
Park and ride lots
Bike and walk facilities
Parking pricing at work
Parking pricing: non-work
Congestion pricing
Compressed work weak
Telecommuting
Land use planning
Smog/VMT(Vehicle Miles Traveled) tax
Public appeals to reduce consumption without price effects
Public appeals to reduce consumption with price effects
Ban on motor sports events
Ban on driving by car to large scale events
Speed restrictions
Ban on driving every second Sunday
Ban on driving every second Weekend
General ban on Sunday driving
Restriction on use by administrative degree (public authorities set days on which drivers are banned)
Restriction on use by registration number (on each weekday two final registration numbers banned)
Implementation of fuel supply ordinance (rationing) (P. 27)

Like those things are really going to happen. Politicians don't even have the nerve to raise gasoline taxes.

I look around on the road, and look upon a sea of FSP hulks roaring by, in a contest to see who can consume the most, and who can have the honors of having drained the last drop from the Ghawar.

And as far as Peak Oil being a myth, have a look at the historic records of Texas oil production, and US oil production, and then tell me Peak Oil is a fantasy.

Harry

It's hard to say what going green will cost, but again can we afford not to?

Sometimes, going green will cost less.

Right-sizing vehicle, even if it's not hybrid, walking, biking, using the bus more.

Moderate our consumption, building homes that rely more on natural lighting, use less lawn fertilizer.

And as far as Peak Oil being a myth, have a look at the historic records of Texas oil production, and US oil production, and then tell me Peak Oil is a fantasy.
Harry

I may have been unclear. Peak Oil is very real. Oil demand continuing to rise as Samuelson and LATOC claim is not.

That's all I'm doing. Disputing the claim that I will want the same amount of gas even as supply falls and prices rise. That's basically what the Hirsch & Samuelson claim, and it is silly.

Ban on driving every second Sunday
Ban on driving every second Weekend
General ban on Sunday driving


These types of regulations are in effect in Mexico City, where gas is even cheaper. The motivation is air quality and not energy depletion (they are currently self sufficient in that department, but not for long), but it is politically acceptable.

Tell the Chinese and Indians that WORLD energy demand has peaked.

Nothing further from the truth, their demand has just begun.

Tell the Chinese and Indians that WORLD energy demand has peaked.

Nothing further from the truth, their demand has just begun.But they won't get it as cheap. ;)

These types of regulations are in effect in Mexico City, where gas is even cheaper. The motivation is air quality and not energy depletion (they are currently self sufficient in that department, but not for long), but it is politically acceptable.


Yeah, but...it hasn't even been politically acceptable in the US to put CAFE standards on SUV's until very recently. For years there was no requirement to post mileage standards on FSP vehicles because they were exempt.

All you have to do is look around you on the road and see what vehicles are being driven. The problem with Peak Oil is that by the time people realize what's going on, it's way too late. Even now I see people driving around in brand-new FSP Dodge Rams and other full-size pickups and SUV's.

The mob mentality is still to go buy a FSP hulk, that you deserve one, that it doesn't matter where the oil is supposed to come from, or that the glaciers and polar ice caps are melting. You're an American, so man up and buy that gas hog. It's your God-given right.

Harry

The problem with Peak Oil is that by the time people realize what's going on, it's way too late. Even now I see people driving around in brand-new FSP Dodge Rams and other full-size pickups and SUV's.One of my themes here on "let the marketplace sort this out". I support the maximum amount of democracy and free market as the people will can handle. Read: having common sense and a value system to avoid buying too much home on sub-prime loans, too much car, let the AIGs get greedy. Then we don't have bailouts. ;)

The more people think and behave ethically, the less government we can have.

It is not the cost of going green that has been underestimated.

It is the cost of not going green that has been underestimated.

One of my themes here on "let the marketplace sort this out". I support the maximum amount of democracy and free market as the people will can handle. Read: having common sense and a value system to avoid buying too much home on sub-prime loans, too much car, let the AIGs get greedy. Then we don't have bailouts. ;)


To add to this theme Chuck..........

There is a strong correllation between efficient markets and widespread information. FSPs are prominent today because (1) gas is cheap, and (2) gas may indeed be cheap in the future what the hell do I know I'm just your average Joe. ;)

Most Americans are unaware of this:

http://www.exitmundi.nl/oilproblem_2004Scenariovan_deaspoassociation_for_the_study_of_peak_oil.jpg

Heck, I was too last decade. With widespread information contained in the chart above, we would have better market decisions.

But we don't. What we have is market failure due to asymetric information.

Update: I'm trying to find evidence (polls, etc.) that attempts to answer the question........."What does the US public think about the future price of gas?" I suspect that the answer in July 2008 probably differs from April 2009 or April 2000. No luck yet.

For those who believe that the price spike and collapse was all speculation, consider this article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=afI_GXXfhCdU&refer=energy

A few interesting quotes (cherry pick the quotes and you can make an emergency out of losing single hull ships!):

"Supertanker Rates to Jump on Losing Single-Hull Ships"
"The worst market for supertankers since the 1973 Arab oil embargo is setting the stage for prices to double by the fourth quarter as ship owners scrap aging vessels and delay orders for new ones."
"The collapse in shipping prices from a peak of $177,036 a day in July, to this year’s low of $7,173 on April 16"
"Tanker rates more than quadrupled in 2007 as the supply of ships failed to keep pace with what BP Plc said was the 14th consecutive annual increase in oil demand."
"On voyages from the Middle East to Europe, shipowners are in effect paying to carry oil, seeking to maintain relationships with clients, position vessels in more profitable regions or cover whatever fuel costs they can."

Note: the tie to speculation vs supply and demand is that the tankers were all in use, and now are idle -- therefore a significant worldwide drop in demand.

It is not the cost of going green that has been underestimated.

It is the cost of not going green that has been underestimated.