Category Archives: big oil

Jonah Goldberg – Drill baby drill

Posted on by
Reply
Jonah Goldberg

December 3, 2010 12:00 A.M.

A ‘Never Mind’ Energy Policy
When will President Obama admit he supports energy rationing?

“Never mind.” That, in a nutshell, is the White House’s new position on domestic oil exploration. In March, President Obama announced that he would allow — or at least entertain the possibility of — some new oil development off the Atlantic Coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. This week he reversed himself, saying such exploration is now off the table for at least five years.

Only the most black-hearted cynics among us would even contemplate the notion that Obama had his reelection prospects in, say, Florida in mind when he made his decision. Then again, some believed that Obama’s initial decision to consider expanded oil exploration was a political pander, too. So let’s assume sincerity all the way down the decision tree.

The real problem with the White House’s attitude toward oil, and energy generally, is how deeply ideological it is. Few presidents have talked a bigger game about pragmatism while pursuing a dogmatic agenda.

To be fair, the White House is hardly as radical as many of the greens descending on Cancun this week for the next round of fruitless climate-change talks. For instance, Kevin Anderson, director of Britain’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, recently authored a paper in which he argued that Western nations should use WWII-style rationing to simply halt economic growth for the next 20 years in order to curb greenhouse-gas production. There’s a winning political agenda!

Obama doesn’t advocate anything so stark, but that’s not necessarily a point in his favor. Radicals like Anderson are honest about the trade-offs between climate-change policies and economic growth. To listen to Obama, however, dismantling our fossil-fuel industries would be an unalloyed economic boon, generating countless lavish, rewarding green jobs that would replace those dirty, icky carbon-intensive jobs. It’s not just an argument for a free lunch; it’s an argument for a magic free lunch.

Obama admits he has no idea how to get to this Brigadoon-like green economy, and his energy secretary has conceded it will take quite a few Nobel Prize–worthy scientific breakthroughs to even get close. Details, details

:}

More Next week

:}

Thomas Sowell On Energy Policy – The conservative illiteracy continues

Posted on by
Reply

This  continues the meditation on conservative (read: right wing) public statements about Energy Policy.  According to Thomas Sowell global warming isn’t happening. For conservatives who don’t like facts they either make up their own or claim others are making them up.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022808.php3

Jewish World Review Feb. 28, 2008 / 22 Adar I 5768

Cold Water on ‘Global Warming’

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

It has almost become something of a joke when some “global warming” conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.


But stampedes and hysteria are no joke — and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming “crisis.”


They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global warming crisis.


Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.


A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.


Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?


A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th — weather permitting.


It is called an “International Conference on Climate Change.” Its subtitle is “Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?” Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.


They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.


There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.


The theme of the conference is that “there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming.”

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

More Top Stories From The Energy World From 2010

Posted on by
Reply

This one gets it pretty much right I think. I think the BP oil spew was maybe the story of the Decade. I also think that the third world led by China as an ever thirstier consumer of liquid carbon fuels has been over played. But first I found them at Peak Oil, that ever depressing, in a rogue sort of way, website. So have a Happy New Year folks:

http://peakoil.com/generalideas/robert-rapier-top-10-energy-related-stories-of-2010/

But it is a repost from this Blog so Happy New Year to you too.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/12/28/my-top-10-energy-related-stories-of-2010/

My Top 10 Energy Related Stories of 2010

Posted by Robert Rapier on Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Here are my choices for the Top 10 energy related stories of 2010. I can’t remember having such a difficult time squeezing this list down to 10 stories, because there were many important energy stories for 2010. It was hard to cut some of them from the Top 10; so hard that I almost did a Top 15. But I made some difficult choices, and offer my views on the 10 most important energy stories of 2010. Previously I listed a link to Platt’s survey of the Top 10 oil stories of 2010, but my list covers more than just oil.

Reviewing my list of Top 10 Energy Related Stories of 2009, I see that I made three predictions. Those predictions were:

  • China’s moves are going to continue to make waves
  • There will be more delays (and excuses) from those attempting to produce fuel from algae and cellulose
  • There will be little relief from oil prices.

Given that total energy demand from China surpassed that of the U.S. in 2010 (five years earlier than expected), the EPA twice rolled back cellulosic ethanol mandates (and there are still no functioning commercial plants), and we are closing the year with oil above $90 per barrel, I would say I nailed all of those.

For this year’s list, don’t get too hung up on the relative rankings. They are mostly subjective, but I think we would have fairly broad agreement on the top story.

1. Deepwater Horizon Accident

On April 20, 2010 the BP-owned Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 men working on the rig and injuring 17 others. Because of the depth of the rig, there was no easy way to cap it and it gushed oil until it was finally capped three months later on July 15th. In the interim, the leak released almost 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. In fact, not only was this my top energy story of the year, according to a poll of AP writers and editors it was the top news story period.

2. The Deepwater Horizon Fallout

While the accident itself was the biggest story, there was much fallout from the incident that will continue to be felt for years. Just three weeks before the incident, President Obama had proposed to open up vast new areas off the Atlantic coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska. Governor Schwarzeneggar was pushing for offshore oil drilling near Santa Barbara County. There was a great deal of momentum that promised to greatly expand the areas available for offshore production. In the wake of the disaster, the debate shifted sharply. President Obama canceled a planned August offshore drilling lease sale in the Western Gulf and off the coast of Virginia, citing that his “eyes had been opened” to the risks of offshore drilling. The administration also put a temporary deepwater drilling ban in place until additional safety reviews could take place. Governor Schwarzeneggar dropped his plans, citing the spill as evidence that offshore drilling still poses too great a risk.

But there were far-reaching impacts in other areas. BP began to sell off assets, raising $10 billion to pay claims of those impacted by the spill. BP CEO Tony Hayward — after a series of gaffes — stepped down from the helm of BP. Around the area affected by the spill, people lost jobs, particularly in the fishing and tourism industries. The long-term environmental impact remains uncertain, with some groups claiming the area has recovered, and others stating that it will be years before the full environmental impact can be determined.

3. China Becomes World’s Top Energy Consumer

For more than a century, the United States has been the world’s top consumer of energy. In 2010, China surpassed the U.S. in total energy consumption. If not for the Deepwater Horizon accident, this would have easily been my #1 story. As I said last year, I believe that China will be the single-biggest driver of oil prices over at least the next 5-10 years.

:}

Personally I do not see Matt Simmons’ death as a huge energy story, but this guy knew him so I can understand the inclusion. More next week.

:}

The Big Energy Issues Of 2010 – And the commenters from the oil industry

Posted on by
1

This may not seem to be related BUT…When my wife and I went to California on the Zypher I was looking on the net for cheap hotel rooms. I picked a couple of places in Berkley and Oakland because the intent was to a) avoid high San Fransisco prices, and b) to be close to my cousin in south Oakland. I checked a bunch of “review sites” and the reviews were nasty. There were complaints about bed bugs and filth, noise, and crime. You name it. So eventually I went with the La Quinta in Berkley because it was cheap and the car rental place was in the same building. Well when we got there, I decided to check the other places out since they were on the way to my cousins.

They were all FINE. They were in a trendy little area where Cate and I had lunch. The rooms were great and clean. Yes the Metra line went by one of the hotels but you could get a place in back if that really bothered you. So who were all those “reviewers”. Well they were probably the competition, or a marketing company paid to carry out disinformation campaigns.

Well, I have noticed this same trend in commenters on energy issues. So called “people” write comments like – those lying global warming tree huggers or they want our gas prices to go to $5 or even – how could they possibly think that the human population can change the weather on the planet. Just all kinds of garbage with facts that are lies. So I am betting that the commenters to this piece are either directly employed by the energy business. Or they work for one of the multimillion dollar marketing firms the energy companies employ. Though knowing the Koch Brothers, I am sure they hire their own.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/135031-five-energy-issues-to-watch-next-year

From greenhouse gases to green agenda: 5 energy issues to watch

By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman – 12/27/10 06:00 AM ET

It’s been a dynamic past 12 months on the energy front. The massive Gulf oil spill dominated much of the news cycle. And while Democratic efforts to pass comprehensive climate change legislation in the Senate failed, the Obama administration is moving ahead with plans to use its existing powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

With the end of the year drawing close — the 111th Congress is over and President Obama is in Hawaii with his family for the holidays — it seems only fitting to turn our attention to next year.

Without further ado, here are five things to watch out for in 2011:

Attempts to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate regulations:

On Thursday, just hours before most people in Washington left town for the holidays, the EPA made two major announcements in its efforts to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The agency laid out a timetable for phasing in emissions standards for power plants and refineries, and announced it would issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas, where the governor had refused to align with federal rules. On top of that, beginning in January the EPA will, on a case-by-case basis, begin phasing in rules that require large new industrial plants and sites that perform major upgrades to curb emissions.

The move is certain to fuel the fire of opposition against the Obama EPA’s efforts. Republicans, emboldened by their majority in the House and swollen numbers in the Senate come next year, have promised to fight the EPA. While Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-W.Va.) effort to delay the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by two years failed, he’s promised to try again next year. Other Republicans have promised to get in on the action.

All eyes are on the new Republican House and energy and enivornment committee chairmen: Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.) will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Doc Hastings (Wash.) will chair the Natural Resources Committee and Rep. Ralph Hall (Texas) will chair the Science and Technology Committee. All three lawmakers are planning to turn a critical eye toward the Obama administration’s climate change policies.

The continuing fallout from the Gulf oil spill:

For the many months that oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, the oil spill stayed on the front pages of the country’s newspapers and at the fore of lawmakers’ minds. But almost as soon as the well was capped, lawmakers’ priorities shifted, and talk of passing an oil spill response bill in the Senate died down.

However, the spill is still very much a part of daily life in the Gulf. Spill victims continue to work to receive adequate compensation for the losses they suffered. Next year, Kenneth Feinberg, the administrator of BP’s $20 billion oil spill compensation fund, will continue to determine how best to dole out money to victims.

At the same time, the Department of Justice will advance both its criminal and civil investigations into those companies responsible for the spill. DoJ announced earlier this month that it is suing BP and eight other companies involved in the spill. The department also reserved the right to expand the lawsuit and add new defendants. And DoJ’s criminal investigation continues apace.

On the congressional front, it’s likely that lawmakers will address a few oil-spill related issues

:}

Check out the comments for yourself and finish the article. It is pretty good and much better than the top ten lists we shall see soon. More tomorrow.

:}

This Is Probably A Huge Exaggeration – But

Posted on by
Reply

But sometimes the Peak Oil people get all wound up and I want to put their stuff up in a timely fashion. So without further adieu (god I have always wanted to say that ) here it is:

http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/

The Gulf of Mexico is Dying

A Special Report on the BP Gulf Oil Spill

It is with deep regret that we publish this report.  We do not take this responsibility lightly, as the consequences of the following observations are of such great import and have such far-reaching ramifications for the entire planet.  Truly, the fate of the oceans of the world hangs in the balance, as does the future of humankind.

The Gulf of Mexico (GOM) does not exist in isolation and is, in fact, connected to the Seven Seas.  Hence, we publish these findings in order that the world community will come together to further contemplate this dire and demanding predicament.  We also do so with the hope that an appropriate global response will be formulated, and acted upon, for the sake of future generations.  It is the most basic responsibility for every civilization to leave their world in a better condition than that which they inherited from their forbears.

After conducting the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference for over seven months, we can now disseminate the following information with the authority and confidence of those who have thoroughly investigated a crime scene.  There are many research articles, investigative reports and penetrating exposes archived at the following website.  Particularly those posted from August through November provide a unique body of evidence, many with compelling photo-documentaries, which portray the true state of affairs at the Macondo Prospect in the GOM.

:}

dot dot dot as they say
:}

As the diagrams clearly indicate, the geology around the well bore has been blown.  This occurred because of drilling contiguous to a salt dome(1), as well as because of the gas explosions which did much damage to the integrity of the well casing, cementing, well bore, well head, and foundation around the well head.  Eighty-seven straight days of gushing hydrocarbon effluent under great pressure only served to further undermine the entire well system.  Finally, when it was capped, putting the system back under pressure forced the upsurging hydrocarbons to find weaknesses throughout the greater system, which revealed all sorts of compromised, fractured and unsettled geology through which the hydrocarbons could travel all the way to the seafloor and into the GOM.

:}

This is a really long post and a really long blog space so I can not really do it justice. Please go there and read it all. Is it truth. I don’t know but there is a lot of destruction in the Gulf with or with out some kind of continuing seepage. More tomorrow.

:}

The Oil, Gas And Coal Shills Never Give Up – Of course they are paid not to

Posted on by
Reply

I was going to go on a residential energy tear, but then I saw this by another of the Frontmen for everything carbon. I always suggest they suck up on the tailpipe of a car for a couple of minutes to get their priorities straight. Our planet is drowning and they want to lalalalalala all around as the water splish splashes around their feet. AND it is about the housing market…so what the heck.

http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/1912-chris-huhne-in-deep-trouble-as-guardian-turns-against-green-deal.html

Chris Huhne In Trouble As Guardian Turns Against Green Deal

Wednesday, 24 November 2010 13:08 Juliette Jowit, The Guardian

While it slashes budgets, shuts itself off from advice and prioritises economic returns, the supposedly “greenest government ever” is clinging to one of its headline promises: the soon-to-be-unveiled Green Deal. This seemingly simple policy, announced by the Labour government and continued by the coalition, promises to lend the money for an “energy efficiency makeover” to millions of homes in the next decade, to save money on their gas and electric bills and cut greenhouse gas emissions. The energy secretary, Chris Huhne, this month announced the plan would create 100,000 jobs.

Less pollution, lower bills, more jobs: who could argue with that? Except that bills probably won’t be lower. And when customers realise that, will they want to pay for the work that would lower pollution and create the jobs? Perhaps even more damaging, then, is the risk of a public backlash when energy users realise they are paying hundreds of pounds each for a plethora of “government” initiatives to improve energy security and cut global warming emissions.

The problem with the economics of the Green Deal is two-fold. In advance of a government bill before Christmas, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) will only confirm that up to 14m homes could be treated by 2020, and customers will have 20-25 years to repay the costs, though it is hoped many will do so much sooner. It is also expected that spending per household will be capped at about £6,500, and energy and retail companies asked to deliver the programme are said to be modelling interest rates of 6-8% to cover their borrowing of the capital plus the risk of non-payment.

Meanwhile, a recently published Decc leaflet suggests what different measures will cost and save. According to this, customers with cavity walls (usually in homes built from 1930) could spend just £500 getting their walls and loft insulated, and expect to save £160 a year – recouping what the work cost in less than four years, or a little longer accounting for the loan interest.

However, a mid-range quote for insulating solid walls (internally) and the loft would be £6,250, and the predicted saving £425 a year. Taking a middling interest rate (see above) of 7%, a customer borrowing £6,250 would pay back approximately £875 a year over 10 years, or £530 over 25 years.

What immediately stands out in this example is that the repayments are higher than the government’s estimated saving – implying those customers’ bills would not fall. Decc also assumes a relatively low 15% “rebound effect” – when customers chose to use some of the saved money for extra heating, cooling or more appliances – despite acknowledging by email that it is in reality 15-40%, and a separate estimate by the EU environment directorate of 20-80%.

:}

See they don’t talk about how much coal costs really. I mean if you factor in the costs of the damage done to all of us, and the subsidies all energy companies get…coal is very expensive. More tomorrow. More turkey that is.

:}

I Just Had An Unexpected Experience With An Astro Turf Group

Posted on by
Reply

You won’t believe this, what with Google’s image as Mr. Clean and Green. BUT when you type in the simple phrase “household energy usage” into their search engine, the first hit you get is Energy Citizen. This is the astroturf  nonprofit front group sponsored by the Koch Brothers, Don Blankenship and Peabody Coal that wants the Federal Government out of the mining business. They want safety laws repealed and they detest global warming and Cap and Trade policies. Massey Energy is up for sale by the way so Blankenship may not be able to play with the big boys much longer…Ahhh poor baby.

http://energycitizens.org/jobs-red/default.aspx?utm_campaign=Q4_2010&utm_source=EyeTraffic&utm_medium=SEM&utm_content=ENERGY&utm_term=Domestic-Energy&gclid=CIWdkNbLt6UCFcms7QodoA00Gw

:}

Not only that but they land you write on the “To Join” page without even a chance to be repelled. How repelling is that?

Help Keep Our Recovery Going … Join Energy Citizens.

Businesses can thrive and create new jobs when energy is affordable and available. But when lawmakers hinder energy development, we all lose.

We need YOU to help Washington hear our message: American families and communities need sensible energy policies that power our economy and create jobs. Become part of our movement today — join Energy Citizens and let Congress hear your concerns about American energy and American jobs.

We need solutions that increase access to all reliable domestic energy: wind, solar, nuclear, and — yes — oil and natural gas. Our nation has ample energy reserves that can contribute to our economy for decades to come.

The tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico underscores the risks involved in energy development — and the need for improved safety. But this tragedy should not make us forget that our economy and way of life depend on affordable energy. We must not allow opponents to use the tragedy to stop domestic oil and natural gas development. Even with increased conservation, our nation’s energy needs are growing.

You can make a difference by joining our citizens’ movement for sensible energy policies. Help us win a national energy plan that creates jobs, promotes economic growth, and increases our security. Please join us TODAY — and tell Congress where you stand

:}

Instead of here, where at least you can reject the party line if you want to.

http://energycitizens.org/ec/advocacy/default.aspx

:}

Google should be ashamed of themselves. More tomorrow.

:}

The Atlantic Energy Article – Why are both of these articles so bad

Posted on by
Reply

What is up with these major news sources. Both the Christian Science Monitor and the Atlantic ditch alternative energies and go for coal or something more esoteric. They make it sound like alternative energies will be a failure.

:}

Dirty Coal, Clean Future

To environmentalists, “clean coal” is an insulting oxymoron. But for now, the only way to meet the world’s energy needs, and to arrest climate change before it produces irreversible cataclysm, is to use coal—dirty, sooty, toxic coal—in more-sustainable ways. The good news is that new technologies are making this possible. China is now the leader in this area, the Google and Intel of the energy world. If we are serious about global warming, America needs to work with China to build a greener future on a foundation of coal. Otherwise, the clean-energy revolution will leave us behind, with grave costs for the world’s climate and our economy.

By James Fallows

Image credit: Bryan Christie

Through the past four years I’ve often suggested that China’s vaunted achievements are less impressive, or at least more complicated, seen up close. Yes, Chinese factories make nearly all of the world’s consumer electronic equipment. But the brand names, designs, and most of the profits usually belong to companies and people outside China. Yes, China’s accumulated trade surpluses have made it the creditor for America and much of the world. But the huge share of its own wealth that China has sunk into foreign economies ties its fate to theirs. Yes, more and more Chinese people are very rich. But hundreds of millions of Chinese people are still very poor. Yes, Chinese factories lead the world in output of windmills and solar-power panels. But China’s environmental situation is still so dire as to pose the main threat not just to the country’s public health and political stability but also to its own economic expansion.

This report will have a different tone. I have been learning about an area of Chinese achievement that is objectively good for the world as a whole, including the United States. Surprising enough! And China’s achievement dramatically highlights a structural advantage of its approach and a weakness of America’s. It involves the shared global effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, of which China and the United States are respectively the No. 1 and No. 2 producers, together creating more than 40 percent of the world’s total output. That shared effort is real, and important. The significant Chinese developments involve more than the “clean tech” boom that Americans have already heard so much about. Instead a different, less publicized, and much less appealing-sounding effort may matter even more in determining whether the United States and China can cooperate to reduce emissions. This involves not clean tech but the dirtiest of today’s main energy sources—coal.

:}

I know. Kinda leaves you hanging doesn’t it. Go there and read more.

More tomorrow.

:}

Cap And Trade Rises From The Ashes – It made it into the Senate

Posted on by
Reply

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ16hEpB_Sk

Conventional post election wisdom has the Cap and Trade legislation being declared dead. But, it is sitting in a Senate that the Democrats control. Will they bust it lose during the end of the year session. Who knows, but I think the issue will not go away so sooner or later something will have to be done. I mean Russia caught on fire. How much more does it take than that.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/4/clean-coal-is-as-dead-as-cap-and-trade/

MILLOY: Clean coal is as dead as ‘cap-and-trade’

Mitch McConnell had better study up on the election results

By Steve Milloy-The Washington Times

While we shouldn’t expect our left-wing elitist president to understand Tuesday’s electoral rejection of his “progressive” prescriptions for America, we should expect Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, to get it.

But Mr. McConnell seems to have missed the message, at least when it comes to “cap-and-trade” – odd for a coal-state politician. The day after the election, Mr. McConnell said, “The president says he’s for nuclear power. Most of my members are for nuclear power. The president says he’s for clean coal technology. Most of my members are for clean coal technology. There are areas that we can make progress on for the country.”

Aside from the canard of President Obama sincerely supporting nuclear power and the fact that Republicans ought to avoid the loaded and already co-opted-by-the-left word “progress,” so-called “clean coal” is a form of Obama-think – a discredited cap-and-trade concept that was more trap than sincere policy.

Some in the coal industry and some coal-burning electric utilities had been talked into supporting cap-and-trade, provided that taxpayers and ratepayers forked over billions (if not trillions) of dollars for so-called “carbon capture and sequestration” (CCS) – that is, burying utility carbon-dioxide emissions deep underground and hoping they stay there safely.

But to the extent that any so-called environmentalists paid any lip service to clean coal and CCS, it was only to lure coal and utility suckers into cap-and-trade. Does anyone really believe, after all, that the greens would allow utilities to inject underground billions of tons of highly pressurized carbon dioxide all over the nation? They fought tooth-and-nail, after all, to prevent the storage of sealed casks of spent nuclear fuel one mile underground in the Nevada desert.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm-pFqdqcZY&feature=related

Which would they prefer, a tax on carbon? This guys lists all the reasons for cap and trade mechanisms to be set up by the Federal Government and heavily policed by the Federal Government. Nonetheless he likes carbon taxes because they supply more stability. But his belief that it won’t be passed on to the customer is asinine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSJdjb6K5i4&feature=fvw

:}

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/cap-and-trade-legislation/810

Cap and Trade Legislation is Fatally Flawed

My First Ever Mea Culpa

By Nick Hodge
Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

We may never see cap and trade in this country.

Those are words I never thought I’d write.

In fact, I’ve been touting the benefits of a cap and trade market since 2007. But new ideas, unraveling facts, and recent events have changed my thinking.

So today, I’m publishing my first ever mea culpa.

Cap and Trade Legislation is Fatally Flawed

My First Ever Mea Culpa

By Nick Hodge
Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

We may never see cap and trade in this country.

Those are words I never thought I’d write.

In fact, I’ve been touting the benefits of a cap and trade market since 2007. But new ideas, unraveling facts, and recent events have changed my thinking.

So today, I’m publishing my first ever mea culpa.

Carbon Should Still be Priced

To be clear, I’m not saying that carbon shouldn’t have a price. By all means, it should.

What I’m saying is that cap and trade isn’t the way to implement it.

At the end of the day, carbon dioxide is a harmful waste product that needs to be handled. Companies don’t get free passes for treating and disposing of other waste streams their businesses generate. Why should carbon be any different?

Not charging companies for emitting carbon is giving them free reign over something they cannot and will not ever own: the atmosphere.

We don’t let companies freely dump waste into rivers or lakes… We don’t allow companies to dump waste in forests… So why, then, are we still letting companies dump a known pollutant into the atmosphere unchecked?

This is why everyone speaks of how cheap coal is. It’s not really that cheap, we just don’t include the price of carbon in its costs.

Carbon isn’t a business externality — meaning, companies that produce it can shift the cost to society — and it can no longer be treated as such.

The Trouble with Cap and Trade

:}

You can go to the article for the rest. I personally support a carbon tax. But I have always said that Cap and Trade is what we get because high finance wants it that way. More Monday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdAhR-c–20&feature=related

:}

The ANWR Is Nothing But One Giant Dry Hole

Posted on by
1

Oil People are nothing but proven liars. There is always “oil down there” they tell investors. But only 10 or 20 of the holes they drill actually produce any oil, so is it any wonder that they are unprepared when they come in? Especially in the case of the Gulf Spew if they come in violently.

http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/7696-the-peak-oil-crisis-the-leading-edge.html

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Leading Edge

By Tom Whipple
Wednesday, November 03 2010 01:01:22 PM

Do you remember the furor over drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge a few years back? The whole country was up in arms. At various times some 50 to 60 percent of Americans favored drilling in the area as they were told this would result in lower gas prices.

Last week the USGS lowered its estimate of the amount of oil that could be extracted from the region all the way from 10 billion barrels down to less than one billion, making drilling in the area uneconomical. By the way, the amount of crude being pumped down the Alaskan pipeline now has fallen from 2 million barrels a day (b/d) when the pipeline first opened back in the 1970’s to about 600,000 b/d in recent weeks. The trouble is that when the flow of oil falls below a quantity estimated to be 200-300,000 b/d (some say 500,000) the line will have to be closed as there will simply not be enough hot oil being sent down the pipeline to keep it from freezing in winter.

Last week an organization in California, The Post Carbon Institute, released a new book, “The Post Carbon Reader,” which draws a much broader picture of the serious issues facing mankind. With 30 authors, each specializing in some aspect of the multiple troubles we face, the scope of the book touches on nearly every aspect of our civilization that is out of balance, unsustainable, and headed for a fall. The basic proposition of the book is that the world has reached the limits of growth in terms of its population, economic activity, and the ability of the atmosphere to absorb more carbon emissions. Either the world’s peoples must transform themselves into a sustainable number living in a sustainable manner or there will be many dire consequences right up to the possibility that the human race itself could become extinct. Clearly, this is serious stuff.

As long as a problem is perceived as being decades, or even a few years away, it is not a concern.

Some hold that our sustainability problem started when we first started planting crops and domesticating animals 10,000 years ago. This thesis says if we had stuck with hunting and gathering as a race we would have been able to sustain our act indefinitely, but then we would never have had enough surplus energy to learn reading & writing, and to build cities, the Internet and space ships. Our immediate problem, however, started in earnest with the industrial revolution about 200 years ago when we first started digging up prodigious quantities of coal and feeding it into steam engines. It wasn’t long before we struck oil and the rest is history. The world’s population went from an estimated 5 or 10 million when we first started farming, to a billion when we started serious coal digging, to about 7 billion today. We also got incredibly richer in terms of material goods and could sure get around much faster.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}