What I want to do is come back to one of your earlier suggestions for a discussion topic - one I am quite passionate about - global warming. Is global warming a hoax? I don't know, but it seems to me there is something fishy going on there - but the reason I (the perceived liberal in the Kroeker clan - you may be surprised how un-liberal I am) think that, may surprise you.
In the early 70s a book came out called Limits to Growth. It created a bit of a stir then, but then seemed to fade away. It had a profound effect on me, one that has stayed with me to this day. A recognition that there are limits to growth has affected all of the major decisions I have made in my life. What the authors said is that although growth is good in many situations, there are always limits, beyond which growth is not good.
Many examples could be given, I will use mine from agriculture. It is something I know something about. We have a pasture, one square mile. The farmer puts 5 cows into it, and they start multiplying. This is good. There is lots of grass. When the cow number increases to 15, the grass is becoming scarce, so the farmer begins to fertilize. The grass grows better, and he is able to increase his cow number to 30. He may still want to increase his cow number, and he introduces other innovations - rotational grazing, and low and behold he can increase his cow numbers to 50. But no matter how many innovations he introduces, at some point he will need to recognize that he simply cannot add any more cows to his pasture. The pasture has reached its limit. It now becomes his task to manage his herd so the pasture can continue to produce grass and his herd remains healthy.
This is the crisis we are facing in this world, and climate change is one manifestation of it. A much more serious manifestation is the concept of peak oil. What blows me away is that the media has totally picked up on climate change, and we don't hear about the oil situation. 18 months ago when oil prices were hitting record price levels, the media carried oil stories all the time. Now nichts.
The climate change debate is unwinable. I dare say all would concede that given the level of fossil fuel use by humans, the possibility is there that humans could remit so much CO2 that it could affect the climate. The question is do they. No matter how much the climate does change in the next decade or three, there will always be those who will say that the climate change is not the result of human induced carbon emissions, rather it is the result of sun spots or other factors humans have absolutely no control over. And they may be right. More could be said, but let's leave that.
So given that the climate change debate is unwinable, and the peak oil phenomena is absolutely inevitable, why the media focus on climate change and virtual silence on peak oil?
Enough for now. What do you think?
I find your response refreshing in agreeing that the science is unclear. For now, we live in a world where most prominent speakers on global warming (world leaders from the UN, Obama and Al Gore) claim "the science has spoken" on global warming, and bow at the alter of 3 beliefs; that global warming is happening, its human caused, and its a disaster unless we drastically change our capitalist system. Yet, they ignore many important facts, never mind that the world has gotten cooler for 10 years and running. So the fact that scientists appear to be quickly moving away from human caused global warming, while the politicians are getting increasingly hysterical and are mocking any discent, cause me to be in the hoax category. But yes, lets move to your second point, probably more productive.
ReplyDeleteAre there limits to growth and are we close to it? I dont know, but does the evidence so far not suggest that we are not at that limit. If you look at oil (or other commodity prices) adjusted for inflation, the prices are flat to down vs 30, 50, and 100 years ago (although we are up across the board vs 10-years ago). I dont have data going back farther at this time, but it does appear that technology has so far kept pace or increased faster than human consumption. When we add the fact that wealth levels have increased in the world, as a percentage of income, commodities like oil and food continue to decline.
So is there evidence in a macro sense, that the world is consuming too fast? I only see evidence to the contrary.
The next 100 years wont look like the past 100 years, and obviously with India and China rapidely expanding their middle class and therefore consumption, there are many theories that commodity prices will skyrocket. Beyond theory, i am not sure i see any concerns, but perhaps there are better signals I am unaware of.
Several points:
ReplyDelete1) You may be entirely right. Then again you may be wrong. So we are in the middle of a massive experiment, and the experiment has never been done before. This leaves me nervous. What if you are wrong? If you are right, we have a reasonably clear idea of where we will be. If you are wrong, well ... Have you visited the peak oil sites?
2) Suppose you are correct, at least on the short run. Then what are the limits to growth, and what will be the signs that we are approaching that limit? Once those signs are evident, will there be enough time to move toward market driven options?
3) The only real source of energy we have is the sun (and nuclear)- manifest as solar, wind, waves, biomass. We also have sequestered solar energy - oil, natural gas, coal. So we are permitted our current lifestyle because we are able to consume the sequestered solar energy of the past. How can this be justified by any logic, scientific or business? I think it could be justified, were we to say: "We know we can't live on sequestered energy on the long run, we know we need to shift to solar energy, so we will use that sequestered energy to facilitate that shift." But I don't see anyone effectively saying that. I also do not have enough faith in nuclear technology to assume that nuclear derived energy is going to replace fossil fuel derived energy within any kind of planning horizon.
4) If we are using a non-renewable resource, by what logic do we say that the appropriate price for that resource is the cost of extracting it. If we want to be fair to our children, isn't it necessary that the cost of replacing that resource, or the projected cost of future extraction be factored in?
So what's the answer to my stated question (I agree that the questions you addressed were implied)? Why the media focus on Global Warming and virtual silence on Peak Oil? It could be manipulation on the part of Al Gore and a few others who have made millions, but that's only one person. I don't see how it could have been the scientists, because if they could not have gotten money for this research, they could have gotten money for other research. In other words, scientists, are as a bunch pretty honest - not so people who write popular books and go on speaking tours. My vote is for the oil lobby. It is definitely to their advantage to keep the peak oil discussion out of the public consciousness.
I've also got a comment for your feminization blog.
If i read the above correctly, I think all of your points, are routed in the premise that we have an oil crisis. I disagree with the entire premise, and i think the evidence is that oil prices continue to come down over time (adjusted for inflation) particularly relative to peoples wealth. The environmentalists of the late 1970s were so convinced we were running out of resources, that they made a $10k bet with Julian Simons (one with the belief that productivity/technology advances faster) that commodity prices would be much higher in 10-years. Prices were not only flat, but down materially despite the 1980s seeing stronger economic and population growth, than is forecast going forward. We remain below the 1970s today in pricing (adjusted for inflation) but more importantly, the 100-year trend continues flat to down. So i think i am right in the data, and i believe the burden of proof is on those that feel a crisis is coming, to explain why the next 20 years will be different than the dynamic of the past 100 years. World population growth is slowing, and technological advancements don't appear to be slowing.
ReplyDeleteWhat is my confidence that the 100-year trend will broadly continue? Right now, solar technology has advanced to the point that without government subsidies, it is cheaper than oil/natural gas in much of the world (anywhere with at least 1400 Sun Hours per year, like California which has 1600). Importantly, the cost curve of solar, is to decline roughly 10% per year, so in 10 years, it will be vastly cheaper than $70 oil/$4 natural gas in most of the world. Given we have barely tapped the oil sands, and substitutes like solar are quickly becoming a cheaper alternative, i fail to see where the longer term evidence of an oil crisis is coming from. It appears, that over the next 20 years, the world will rapidly move to solar (and other alternative energies), simply based on economics stemming from private sector technological advancements, and little the oil lobby can do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have removed my two posts because a) they were too long, so they merit a new post which will appear shortly, and b) the discussion on feminism has become quite interesting. I, for one do not want to carry on two discussions at the same time because it becomes too hard to follow, and can easily get to the point where it takes too much time.
ReplyDeleteSo we will come back to the question of oil crisis or no.