Joe mentioned this the other day, but I want add my voice to the chorus. George Monbiot is in the midst of a kick-ass interview series. This week he met with Fatih Birol, chief economist for the International Energy Agency. The IEA’s new report is substantially more pessimistic about future energy supply than its previous reports, upon which many world governments have based their energy planning. It also addresses peak oil for the first time.
What explains the change? And what does it mean? Watch as Monbiot presses Birol mercilessly to acknowledge the radical implications of his own report and the lie it puts to IEA’s stated belief that the shortfall in conventional oil can be made up from GHG-intensive alternative sources like oil shale:
Oh, wait, I can’t embed the video. WTF, Guardian?
Anyway, it has become a rare thing to see a deeply knowledgeable journalist really pushing a public figure. Where is America’s Monbiot?
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Flat
cjwirth Posted 3:46 am
17 Dec 2008
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
by Clifford J. Wirth) conclude that Peak Oil production will occur (or has occurred) between 2005 to 2010 (projected year for peak in parentheses), as follows:
Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)
Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of "Oil Watch Monthly" (2008 to 2010)
Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst (2008)
Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)
T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)
Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell Geologist (2005)
Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)
Chris Skrebowski, Editor of "Petroleum Review" (2010)
Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)
Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)
Independent studies conclude that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. represents one fourth of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The independent scientists of the Energy Watch Group conclude in a 2007 report titled: "Peak Oil Could Trigger Meltdown of Society:"
"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_ ...
With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won't be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207. http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
cjwirth http://www.peakoilassociates.com
Permalink
tidal Posted 4:30 am
17 Dec 2008
Andy Revkin has all the knowledge and credibility and profile to play this role, but opts not to. Studiously takes a more "balanced" approach. He makes an enormously valuable contribution as it is, but it could be so much, much more. Sad.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:01 am
17 Dec 2008
tidal, in the U.S. some good journalists/writers like Greg Palast and Alexander Cockburn for some reason think Peak Oil is a conspiracy. Richard Heinberg might be closest to Monbiot, but he doesn't have the exposure. Other "names" that I can think of, like David Sirota, are very focused on "mainstream" progressive problems, and don't even mention climate change most of the time. Then there's this guy at Grist....oh yeah, Dave Roberts! Our Monbiot!
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 7:32 am
17 Dec 2008
"We are asking for a global energy revolution to prepare everybody for difficult days and times. We should be very careful that we make our... efficiency and R&D policies so that we get the new technologies in place in a timely manner. Or we will have much more difficult days than we did last summer... and a huge transfer of wealth to just a few countries, that could destablilize global geopolitics."
The last bit I have slightly paraphrased for succinctness.
I like how they called out and agreed that tar sands and coal (without sequestration of emissions), are not sustainable sources of new energy.
The Monbiot piece was presented in a somewhat sensationalistic way, portraying his trip to see the IEA economist as like Daniel going into the lion's den... when he's just a journalist seeking truth and accuracy, which science (even 'dismal' economics) should be naturally allied to help us ascertain.
Hearing the IEA official call this a necessary "revolution" drove home for me the point that we all need to take this very seriously indeed. And we need to get started soon if the future is to be sustainable and inhabitable for all of life's diversity.
Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 4:05 pm
18 Dec 2008
Monbiot is extremely well-known among enviros/enviro media people in the 'rest of the world'. We follow his work closely. It's a sad mark on US enviros that they seem almost as parochial and self-referential as the US in general -- even someone like Monbiot has a hard time getting noticed in the US, but in many ways he's streets ahead of the so-called 'best' over Stateside.
As tidal pointed out, people like Revkin are unfortunately shackled by a bizarre and intellectually-unjustifiable swerving towards 'balance'. Monbiot lays out his arguments and then references as much as possible -- what a difference!
Whiskerfish
BTW: Full disclosure: I've interacted w Monbiot informally in the recent past and enjoyed his company. I happen to think that he's one of the brightest people I've met in this field, and am as a result totally biased in his favour.
Permalink