A couple of thoughts on oil

John, I think you have a valid point, but I have a problem with the premise of the article.

I believe the jury is still out on how much anthropogenic global warming is going on. From the horse’s mouth, I give you the IPCC’s 2001 report on Global Warming:

“There are some indications that solar irradiance fluctuations have indirect effects in addition to direct radiative heating, for example due to the substantially stronger variation in the UV band and its effect on ozone, or hypothesised changes in cloud cover (see Chapter 6). These mechanisms remain particularly uncertain[my emphasis] and currently are not incorporated[again my emphasis] in most efforts to simulate the climate effect of solar irradiance variations, as no quantitative estimates of their magnitude are currently available[again].”
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/466.htm

And The American Association of State Climatologists doesn’t agree there is a “consensus”.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/aascclimatepolicy.pdf

On the other hand, now that oil prices have doubled (and if we expect them to continue), is there any reason to impose extra carbon taxes to affect global warming?

Ian,

I’ve done most all I can to heat-proof the place- it’s just old. And I live in Philadelphia- not a very cold place. But, we have some of the highest natural gas prices in the country, for reasons that I don’t really understand but probably have to do w/ local monopolies and distribution and the like. If the homes are old, have cheap windows, little insulation, etc., there’s only so much that weather-striping and the like will do, and moving to a better apartment isn’t really an answer. (Unless there’s a strong renter’s market, there isn’t much incentive for landlords to do the sort of work that’s really necessary for heatproofing, since they can much more easily shift the cost to tenants, who can’t make the changes even if they wanted to.)

Wbb-
Try telling my wife that our consumption of gas for heating is “excessive”!
(When you factor in that I don’t drive, and that it was rarely above the low 60’s in my apartment in the winter, if that, by western standards my consumption is hardly excessive. My only point is that to not really hurt lots of people such taxes will have to be mixed with some sorts of help to people for heating and the like, and that this makes it even more unlikely to happen.)

I’m intrigued by people who seem to know my local rental market better than I do, despite my having been renting here for several years now, or those who suggest I should move to a warmer climate (can I take my grad program with me?) or that I should solve a collective action problem on my own (if only enough people did it… Yes, if only…) I mean really. And all I wanted to do was to point out that this sort of tax is likely to be regressive, and that those putting them forward should factor that in. (Maybe John has- I don’t know.) But, if such a tax is going to gather much support from those who have trouble making their rent and bills as it is (I’m not that bad, but could be easily enough) people will have to say something better than that we should demand better insulation or move. It strikes me a bit like saying we should solve the poverty problem by telling those poor folks to just get a better job.

The question of whether we’ve reached the peak of oil production is less crucial than it might have been had we not simultaneously reached the ramping of Chinese and Indian consumption. From now on the course of energy prices will be monotonically increasing.

It would be prudent for countries with cheap energy like the U.S. to move towards conservation with pre-emptive pricing, but it wouldn’t be popular. The prevailing logic hereabouts is that “if 25¢ a gallon was good enough for grandpa, it’s good enough for me.”

Rather, the response so far seems to be a textbook case of orderly adjustment, as people gradually shift away from gas-guzzling vehicles, look again at energy saving options and so on. So far the response has been small, but over time (if supply declines and prices stay high) more substantial responses can be expected.

Damn, it is refreshing to read something that reasonable about oil on a leftish site. Normally the prediction is that we’re all just going to keep driving our SUVs until the day that, suddenly, we awake to find the oil is gone to the last drop (at which point we’ll all be attacked by packs of starving feral dogs. Or possibly flying monkeys).

Ah John, could you delete these last two posts ;)

Hey Jet:

I’m not clear on exactly what your background is (so all this night just be stuff you already know) but there is a strong consensus in the peer reviewed literature on the reality of anthropogenic induced global warming.

But what do you mean consensus (you might ask)? Within the past year or so there was a study that showed up in thr journal Science which surveyed papers which studied modern climate over the last 5-6 years. The authors found that over the several hundred papers in the literature literally ALL concluded that anthropogenic warming was real (I’m traveling and don’t have this paper in front of me now but I think you can probably track the reference through http://www.realclimate.org if you’re interested.)

But what about solar irradiance variability (you might ask again)? The quote you pulled is true on it’s face: no one really understands the details of solar irradiance varaibility and its interaction with earth’s climate. What is true is that the direct radiative impact of solar varaibility (i.e. change in the amount of energy reaching the top of the earth’s atmosphere) is orders of magnitude too small to directly explain observed recent changes in temperature). There may be some sort of upper atmosphere chemical feedback which serves to greatly amplify these changes at the earth’s surface. If there is, though, no ones found even a remotely plausible candidate.

the myth that oil is eternal will itself finally end..

The website to consult is that of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).

You’ll find it here.

I can’t tell whether Jet is illiterate or disingenuous. When Tim Lambert links to climatechangeissues, he pretty clearly implies that the group is outside the scientific consensus, that it is in fact an astroturf organization of the sort sponsored by oil companies to muddy the waters concerning global warming.

So which is it, Jet?

But China’s demand is probably quite price sensitive, and a reduction in the price could keep demand higher, even in the face of a slowdown in exports to the US.

Why? Isn’t that the opposite of the prevailing wisdom about every other country in the world?

The cheap and easy oil’s fifty years gone.

What we’ve got now is deep, interesting, in interesting places, sulfer-tainted, heavy or some combination of the above.

Deal with it.

You misunderstand. I’m not saying we’re not at or near ‘peak oil’. What I’m agreeing with in Quiggin’s post is that the process of adapting to that reality has only begun and that alternatives sources and other changes in the economy and society that made no sense with $30 oil will emerge rather quickly with $50 (or especially $75 or $100) oil.

So, the end of peak oil–yes, but a ‘Long Emergency’ featuring panic, dispair, and generally the end of the world as we know it (but on the bright side–praise the Lord!–the end of suburbia and Walmart)? Sorry I’m not buying that vision.

The easy response to oil price rises–driving less, buying more efficient automobiles, keeping a cooler house–only goes so far. Then we start to get into things like redesigning and rennovating buildings, building more efficient transit systems, altering our industrial processes to use less energy and petrochemicals, and so on. This second round of changes is going to demand large capital investment and many changes in our ways of life. Those changes are going to bring out people’s stubbornness, and one may expect a dramatic public response of some sort.

The ease or difficulty of the greater response–the long term shift to sustainability–is going to be enormously complex economically. In China and India, it probably would mean infrastructure built around different technology than is now used in the USA and Europe. In the USA, more pressure on the middle-class, as their long-term investments in real estate drastically change value. Europe, I don’t know; I have rather the impression that Europe is in a good position to make a shift to sustainable practices. South America, Africa, Central Asia–?

John, the other thing that’s happening is that in May, supposedly, China is going to liberalizes gasoline prices (they’re currently subsidized).

I’m thankful that the condo I bought a couple of years ago is not only recent, well-insulated construction, but has a geothermal heat pump for heating and A/C, which is definitely saving me a significant amount of money. I shudder to think of the heating bills these days in the drafty 1910-vintage bungalow in upstate NY that I used to own. I actually used to think about that when I lived there, realizing that energy prices were going to head inexorably upward and wondering if such massively energy-inefficient old houses would be habitable for anybody but polar bears 10 or 20 years down the line without a large investment in modernization that few owners of such houses could afford.

“You’d want to start with conservation measures that enabled US households to get by with energy use more comparable to that in Europe.”

Well, “more comparable”, hm.

Geography has been kind to Europe in this regard; the North American climate is simply a lot more extreme. No large city in the current EU has a climate with annual variations as large as Chicago. In fact, even New York City’s climate — relatively mild and equable by USAn standards — is more extreme than that of any large European city except for Warsaw.

We won’t even discuss places like Minneapolis/St. Paul. Shudder.

Cheap fossil fuels have made the US profligate, no question. But you could raise prices to European levels, and per capita consumption would still be quite a lot higher.

Doug M.

Hello to all – long time lurker of the neighborhood advocate sort here. From the point of view of my community work (rational long term urban planning and transportation concurrency), these concepts are very important to me. The observations on the follow up infrasture re-fit details (re-build closer to _everything_ than I had dared to consider) are particularly pointy.
I was having a conversation in the backyard with the neighbors last night about these very issues – peak oil, current gas prices, and the new 9.5 cent gas tax increase over the next 4 years that just passed the Washington state legislature… One of us is from an oil/energy industry family in Alaska, one from Texas, all long time Puget Sound residents and relatively energy thrifty, none of us economics experts.
I would be grateful for your thoughts on a question that flat-out stumped us:
– If the taxing of oil/gasoline/carbon is such a big economic no-no, how can the European economy stand the impact of something like $6/gallon at the pump?

Making people feel that driving big gas-sucking trucks disguised as station wagons will help them surmount the wreckage of social disintegration is what I mean by demonic.

Oh, brother. How about a more prosaic explanation? Say $2.50 a gallon is still not all that high on an inflation-adjusted, historical basis? And as for motivation, why do we need anything other than fashion–or do you also hypothesize that short skirts and belly shirts help teenage girls “surmount the wreckage of social disintegration” and that when long skirts come back into fashion those, in their turn, will help tomorrow’s teenageers “surmount the wreckage of social disintegration”?

The house next door is for sale and some people just came to look at it. The realtor drove a Cadillac SUV, one of the potential buyers drove a Jeep SUV, and the other drove a Chevrolet full-size pickup with a hard shell camper on it. Each vehicle sole-occupied by its driver.
Gas around here costs $2.50 a gallon.
That’s a quintuple, no? – I have unlimited respect for rational minds, but this is demon-time evil, not economic waywardness.

As for the ‘demonic’ character of those drivers, do me a favor, will you–calculate the carbon footprint of the two following choices:

1. Ferrying your family of 4 around for 12,000 miles in year in an 17MPG Ford Explorer rather than a 25MPG Honda Accord.

2. Taking your family of 4 on a 12,000 mile round-trip transatlantic summer vacation.

Who are the evil, planet-destroying pigs here–the knuckle-dragging Explorer drivers or the sophisticated European vacationers? Let’s do the math. 12,000 miles at 25MPG is 480 gallons vs 706 gallons at 17MPG or an additional 226 gallons. Now what about our jet-setting family? 12,000 miles at 40 seat-miles-per-gallon is 300 gallons of jet fuel…EACH! 1200 gallons total for the four. An 8-day vacation with more than FIVE TIMES the impact of the decision to drive the Explorer instead of the Accord for a year.

And, no, I don’t own and SUV–but I do get tired of the sanctimonious SUV-drivers-are-demon-spawn attitude from people who don’t give a second thought to hopping on a fuel-sucking monster and flying halfway around the world to schmooze, or get a nice tan in the winter, or wander through a few old castles and museums.

Well MW, you’re so tired of it (“sanctimonious SUV-drivers-are-demon-spawn attitude from people who don’t give a second thought”) that you’re seeing it everywhere, even where it isn’t.
“guiltlessly responsible…”
“the more scared people get…”
“the real villains, the only villains…”
Tricking people into doing world-destroying things for short-term gain, or worse, is bad, evil.
Being tricked into it is sad, pathetic.
Somewhere in the murk of vestigial conscience the individual drivers may be complicit, more or less, but most of them are just cut loose from their ethical moorings. They “know not what they do”, and have legions of double-talking sycophants to grease their decisions.
The trope of “choice” doesn’t pertain. No “choice” – no evil.
Behind the scenes there is choice. Behind the scenes there is evil.
The beauty, from a Luciferan standpoint, of tricking people into destroying their own world, is it won’t be an accusable act until it’s too late to do anything but scream.
It helps to believe in other worlds, other lives. It helps greatly, when it comes to sanctioning the devastation of this one.

You’re correct of course that $2.50 a gallon is a little hyperbolic unless it’s adjusted for inflation, except of course that the price of gas and its rise is one of the main engines driving that inflation.
And I’m correct, I believe, in pointing out that well-intentioned price raising won’t defer the consequences of petroleum-damnage as long as the automobile industry is the largest in the world, and especially as long as it’s the largest industry in the US. And oil its consort.
Your skewering of fuel-hypocrisy is fine with me – my last car was a 3 cylinder Geo, my current transport is a 21-speed bicycle.
And for what it’s worth – it’s important to remember that evil isn’t its symptoms – evil is selfishness, pure and simple; degree and effect make it more or less visible, that’s all.

So we’d expect GTL to happen in a big way, because GTL needs USD30 oil to be viable, right ? It’s Fischer-Tropsch, and the Germans pioneered that one in WW2.

Nope, everyone is goanna wait 5 years to see how the plant in Oman goes.

This is a game-theory problem. All consumers want someone else to lose the money proving up the alternates to cheap, easy liquids – this applies as much to countries as it does to companies or consumers.

Net result is nobody does nothing.

If oil stays high long enough to convince everybody that $50+ oil is here to stay, then everybody isn’t going to do nothing, because big profits (not losses) are going to be there for those who take some risks and develop new capacities first.

Uh… what world do you live in? Car companies are the ones that MADE those images, through years of television advertising campaigns. That association doesn’t come around because of the inherent ruggedness of an SUV.

Pffft. What planet do you live on? Jeeps have been around since WWII. And how long have Land Rovers have been roving about the African Savanna and the Australian Outback? And what do all the NGOs drive around the 3rd world–white Toytota Priuses? Or white Toyota Land Cruisers?

No, the car companies didn’t create the association between SUVs, exotic locales, and adventure. It’s certainly true that they have used (and, in doing so, reinforced) those themes in their advertising, but they did not create them. And they certainly don’t have the power to arbitrarily replace them by redefining what people find cool and what they find uncool.

mw asserts: “No, the car companies didn’t create the association between SUVs, exotic locales, and adventure.”

But they did. The SUV is distinct from an actual useful 4WD like the old Landrovers or Land Cruisers. Had you ever ridden in one of those, you’d know the difference..

Advertising IS a magic wand, and the car companies continue to wave it furiously.

What the hell does that have to do with the fact that over the last 10 years they’ve suddenly been marketed as the ideal vehicle for cruising the streets of Manhattan?

What’s the ratio of SUV ads featuring mountains, deserts, jungles (or all of the above) to those featuring the streets of Manhattan? Funny, I don’t see much in the way of downtown city streets here, for example:

http://www.jeep.com/jeep_life/index.html

Now it may well be that plenty of drivers in Manhattan want to think of themselves (and be thought of) as people who live the ‘jeep life’ on weekends, but that’s a different issue.

When looking to the future, there’s really no need to even discuss the SUV culture. When the price of gas approaches $10 per gallon, a new kind of culture will emerge.

John is suggesting that we move ahead more quickly by taxing up the price of fossil fuels. We should have done that long ago before the market moved in. I think that time has passed. Now we will need to figure out how to survive the winter.

Artificial life imitates itself.
David Soucher reframes the argument to an either/or – with Big Capital either causing or having nothing to do with making people feel they’re going to have a better shot at surviving whatever comes inside a big tough vehicle.
The smirking b.s. that the zeitgeist arises spontaneously outside the dome of commercial propaganda is still a potent weapon, evidently. Even though most Americans spend their entire lives inside that dome.
This same sidestep of culpability has been used to shield the perps who’ve driven the American public consciousness back into the third grade. A demonic rationalization of demonic seduction.
We’re not talking about aesthetic differences – we’re talking about poisoning the well and then laughing about it. The alternatives are scary, but then so’s maintaining the status quo ante now, so everything’s scary.
So here’s a bulwark for the frightened to cower behind. Two tons of steel and 300 horses, with backseat video and onboard GPS.
That the barrage of advertising TV’s saturated in shows pristine natural landscapes dominated by shiny SUV’s – hey, it’s the zeitgeist! expressing itself!
The devil speaks in his own defense to the galactic tribunal – “They asked for it! I just gave them what they asked for! It was what they wanted!”
Seduction played no part in that, hmmm? Oh no. Not at all.
The average American relies on merchants for an accurate picture of the world. Cars are the most important mercantile commodity in the US. No connection there, how could there be?
Others may accuse Big Capital of something, not me. I don’t believe there’s any such thing, just a shape-shifting aggregate of amalgamated greed-heads who could as easily run slaves in a barter economy, though it’s quite possible there’s something behind them far more sinister. Maybe not, it’s hard to tell from here.
But for sure the simplistic notion that current demand for SUV’s is just sui generis spontaneous desire, rising out of some inchoate striving after “cool”, is nonsense. Naive or cynical, but nonsense either way.-Cigarette smoking was pandemic in the US; then in the span of a few years it became socially repugnant.
The same tools were employed to both generate and eradicate that particular expression of the zeitgeist’s appetite for “cool”. And it’s still taboo to look behind the curtain to see how it was done.
There is a curtain, though. A big one.
–
MW – I haven’t been on an airplane since 1991, when I flew into Seattle from Europe – and man, I tell ya, my arms are still tired!