The Ethics of Peak Oil

The cover article of the June '08 Scientific American is entitled The Ethics of Climate Change. The article has two basic flaws, as far as I can see. It ignores 'peak oil', which is the much more pressing danger, and (2) it ignores the thesis of an earlier Sciam article about ecological economics, Economics in a Full World. This is not the first time a Sciam author has ignored highly relevant earlier Sciam articles. See these posts of mine.

I also wonder who, if anyone, edits these articles. Here are two sentences from an article inset, Measuring Catastrophe, missing from the online version:

• A population collapse will cause the premature death of billions of people.
• If humanity becomes extinct or the human population collapses, vast numbers of people who would otherwise have existed will not in fact exist.

and elsewhere:

Is their nonexistence a bad thing?

up, up and away

I began this blog in 2005 with a reference to a National Geographic article on peak oil. Here's a new article on peak oil from the current issue of that magazine.

CNN just re-visited a piece it premiered 2 years ago and was shown several times since, We Were Warned. It is now subtitled, Out of Gas, while earlier that was, Tomorrow's Oil Crisis. It appears that tomorrow has become today.

President Bush on peak oil

Here's a clip from the President's 4/29/08 press conference:

Wendell.

Q Mr. President, you just said there's not a lot of excess supply out there. Some energy experts think we may have already passed or be within a couple of years of passing the maximum oil-pumping capability. In other words, we may be close to tapping all we've got. Do you think that's the case? And if you do, why haven't you put more resources into renewable energy research, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Wendell, we've put a lot into ethanol. As a matter of fact, the solution to the issue of corn-fed ethanol is cellulosic ethanol, which is a fancy word for saying we're going to make ethanol out of switchgrasses, or wood chips. And we're spending a lot of money along those lines.

But energy policy needs to be comprehensive. And we got to understand we're in a transition period. The problem is there's been a lot of focus by the Congress in the intermediate steps and in the long-term steps -- the long-term steps being hydrogen; the intermediate steps being biofuels, for example, and researching the biofuels, and battery technology -- but not enough emphasis on the here and now.

And so you ask -- you say that people think we can't -- there's not any more reserves to be found. Well, there are reserves to be found in ANWR; that's a given. I just told you that there's about 27 million gallons of diesel and gasoline that could be -- from domestically produced crude oil that's not being utilized. And not only that, we can explore in environmentally friendly ways. New technologies enables for -- to be able to drill like we've never been able to do so before -- slant hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site, a single drill site, to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn't damage the environment. And yet this is a litmus test issue for many in Congress. Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment. Well, I'm hoping now people, when they say "ANWR," means you don't care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.

Yes, sir. Rog. ...

Q Fourteen senators, including your own Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas, are calling on you to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You've been asked that several times over the past few years. I know what your answer has been. But do you think now, with the rising prices, the record high oil prices, it's time to change course?

THE PRESIDENT: In this case, I have analyzed the issue, and I don't think it would affect price, for this reason: We're buying, at the moment, about 67,000 to 68,000 barrels of oil per day, fulfilling statutory obligations to fill up the SPR. World demand is 85 million barrels a day. So the purchases for SPR account for one-tenth of one percent of global demand. And I don't think that's going to affect price when you affect one-tenth of one percent, and I do believe it is in our national interests to get the SPR filled in case there's a major disruption of crude oil around the world.

And one of the -- for example, one of the things the -- al Qaeda would like to do is blow up oil facilities, understanding we're in a global market, a attack on an oil facility in a major oil-exporting country would affect the economies of their enemy -- that would be us, and other people who can't stand what al Qaeda stands for. And therefore, the SPR is necessary, if that's the case, to be able to deal with that kind of contingency. And if I thought it would affect the price of oil positively, I'd seriously consider it. But when you're talking about one-tenth of one percent of global demand, I think the -- if you -- on a cost-benefit analysis, I don't think you get any benefits from making the decision. I do think it costs you oil in the case of a national security risk.

About ANWR, here's what the geologist Kenneth Deffeyes has to say in his book Beyond Oil:

World oil consumption is roughly 25 billion barrels per year; 5 billion barrels [eventual total] from ANWR would postpone the world decline for two or three months.

The Prez rightly concludes that the Petroleum Reserve has only the most minimal effect on the world market. He obfuscates the similar place ANWR has in that market, our lifeblood.