You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Friday, November 28, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Michael T. Klare
Tom Dispatch / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 28 November 2012
“North America is at the forefront of a sweeping transformation in oil and gas production that will affect all regions of the world.”

World Energy Report 2012

Article image

Rarely does the release of a data-driven report on energy trends trigger front-page headlines around the world.  That, however, is exactly what happened on November 12th when the prestigious Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) released this year’s edition of its World Energy Outlook.  In the process, just about everyone missed its real news, which should have set off alarm bells across the planet.

Claiming that advances in drilling technology were producing an upsurge in North American energy output, World Energy Outlook predicted that the United States would overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the planet’s leading oil producer by 2020.  “North America is at the forefront of a sweeping transformation in oil and gas production that will affect all regions of the world,” declared IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven in a widely quoted statement.

In the U.S.,the prediction of imminent supremacy in the oil-output sweepstakes was generally greeted with unabashed jubilation.  “This is a remarkable change,” said John Larson of IHS, a corporate research firm.  “It’s truly transformative.  It’s fundamentally changing the energy outlook for this country.”  Not only will this result in a diminished reliance on imported oil, he indicated, but also generate vast numbers of new jobs.  “This is about jobs.  You know, it's about blue-collar jobs.  These are good jobs.”

The editors of the Wall Street Journal were no less ecstatic.  In an editorial with the eye-catching headline “Saudi America,” they lauded U.S. energy companies for bringing about a technological revolution, largely based on the utilization of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to extract oil and gas from shale rock.  That, they claimed, was what made a new mega-energy boom possible.  “This is a real energy revolution,” the Journal noted, “even if it's far from the renewable energy dreamland of so many government subsidies and mandates.”

Other commentaries were similarly focused on the U.S. outpacing Saudi Arabia and Russia, even if some questioned whether the benefits would be as great as advertised or obtainable at an acceptable cost to the environment. 

While agreeing that the expected spurt in U.S. production is mostly “good news,” Michael A. Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations warned that gas prices will not drop significantly because oil is a global commodity and those prices are largely set by international market forces.  “[T]he U.S. may be slightly more protected, but it doesn’t give you the energy independence some people claim,” he told the New York Times.

Some observers focused on whether increased output and job creation could possibly outweigh the harm that the exploitation of extreme energy resources like fracked oil or Canadian tar sands was sure to do to the environment. Daniel J. Weiss of the Center for American Progress, for example, warned of a growing threat to America’s water supply from poorly regulated fracking operations.  “In addition, oil companies want to open up areas off the northern coast of Alaska in the Arctic Ocean, where they are not prepared to address a major oil blowout or spill like we had in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Such a focus certainly offered a timely reminder of how important oil remains to the American economy (and political culture), but it stole attention away from other aspects of the World Energy Report that were, in some cases, downright scary.  Its portrait of our global energy future should have dampened enthusiasm everywhere, focusing as it did on an uncertain future energy supply, excessive reliance on fossil fuels, inadequate investment in renewables, and an increasingly hot, erratic, and dangerous climate.  Here are some of the most worrisome takeaways from the report.

Shrinking World Oil Supply

Given the hullabaloo about rising energy production in the U.S., you would think that the IEA report was loaded with good news about the world’s future oil supply.  No such luck.  In fact, on a close reading anyone who has the slightest familiarity with world oil dynamics should shudder, as its overall emphasis is on decline and uncertainty.

Take U.S. oil production surpassing Saudi Arabia’s and Russia’s.  Sounds great, doesn’t it?  Here’s the catch: previous editions of the IEA report and theInternational Energy Outlook, its equivalent from the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), rested their claims about a growing future global oil supply on the assumption that those two countries would far surpass U.S. output.  Yet the U.S. will pull ahead of them in the 2020s only because, the IEA now asserts, their output is going to fall, not rise as previously assumed. 

This is one hidden surprise in the report that’s gone unnoticed.  According to the DoE’s 2011 projections, Saudi production was expected to rise to 13.9 million barrels per day in 2025, and Russian output to 12.2 million barrels, jointly providing much of the world’s added petroleum supply; the United States, in this calculation, would reach the 11.7 million barrel mark. 

The IEA’s latest revision of those figures suggests that U.S. production will indeed rise, as expected, to about 11 million barrels per day in 2025, but that Saudi output will unexpectedly fall to about 10.6 million barrels and Russian to 9.7 million barrels.  The U.S., that is, will essentially become number one by default.  At best, then, the global oil supply is not going to grow appreciably -- despite the IEA’s projection of a significant upswing in international demand.

But wait, suggests the IEA, there’s still one wild card hope out there: Iraq.  Yes, Iraq.  In the belief that the Iraqis will somehow overcome their sectarian differences, attain a high level of internal stability, establish a legal framework for oil production, and secure the necessary investment and technical support, the IEA predicts that its output will jump from 3.4 million barrels per day this year to 8 million barrels in 2035, adding an extra 4.6 million barrels to the global supply.  In fact, claims the IEA, this gain would represent half the total increase in world oil production over the next 25 years.  Certainly, stranger things have happened, but for the obvious reasons, it remains an implausible scenario. 

Add all this together -- declining output from Russia and Saudi Arabia, continuing strife in Iraq, uncertain results elsewhere -- and you get insufficient oil in the 2020s and 2030s to meet anticipated world demand.  From a global warming perspective that may be good news, but economically, without a massive increase in investment in alternate energy sources, the outlook is grim.  You don’t know what bad times are until you don’t have enough energy to run the machinery of civilization.  As suggested by the IEA, “Much is riding on Iraq’s success... Without this supply growth from Iraq, oil markets would be set for difficult times.”

Continuing Reliance on Fossil Fuels

For all the talk of the need to increase reliance on renewable sources of energy, fossil fuels -- coal, oil, and natural gas -- will continue to provide most of the additional energy supplies needed to satisfy soaring world demand.  “Taking all new developments and policies into account,” the IEA reported, “the world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path.”  In fact, recent developments seem to favor greater fossil-fuel reliance. 

In the United States, for instance, the increased extraction of oil and gas from shale formations has largely silenced calls for government investment in renewable technology.  In its editorial on the IEA report, for example, the Wall Street Journal ridiculed such investment.  It had, the Journal’s writers suggested, now become unnecessary due to the Saudi Arabian-style oil and gas boom to come.  “Historians will one day marvel that so much political and financial capital was invested in a [failed] green-energy revolution at the very moment a fossil fuel revolution was aborning,” they declared.

One aspect of this energy “revolution” deserves special attention. The growing availability of cheap natural gas, thanks to hydro-fracking, has already reduced the use of coal as a fuel for electrical power plants in the United States.  This would seem to be an obvious environmental plus, since gas produces less climate-altering carbon dioxide than does coal.  Unfortunately, coal output and its use haven’t diminished: American producers have simply increased their coal exports to Asia and Europe.  In fact, U.S. coal exports are expected to reach as high as 133 million tons in 2012, overtaking an export record set in 1981.

Despite its deleterious effects on the environment, coal remains popular in countries seeking to increase their electricity output and promote economic development.  Shockingly, according to the IEA, it supplied nearly half of the increase in global energy consumption over the last decade, growing faster than renewables.  And the agency predicts that coal will continue its rise in the decades ahead.  The world’s top coal consumer, China, will burn ever more of it until 2020, when demand is finally expected to level off.  India’s usage will rise without cessation, with that country overtaking the U.S. as the number two consumer around 2025.

In many regions, notes the IEA report, the continued dominance of fossil fuels is sustained by government policies.  In the developing world, countries commonly subsidize energy consumption, selling transportation, cooking, and heating fuels at below-market rates.  In this way, they hope to buffer their populations from rising commodity costs, and so protect their regimes from popular unrest.  Cutting back on such subsidies can prove dangerous, as in Jordan where a recent government decision to raise fuel prices led to widespread riots and calls for the monarchy’s abolition.  In 2011, such subsidies amounted to $523 billion globally, says the IEA, up almost 30% from 2010 and six times greater than subsidies for renewable energy.

No Hope for Averting Catastrophic Climate Change

Of all the findings in the 2012 edition of the World Energy Outlook, the one that merits the greatest international attention is the one that received the least.  Even if governments take vigorous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, the continuing increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in “a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C.”

This should stop everyone in their tracks.  Most scientists believe that an increase of 2 degrees Celsius is about all the planet can accommodate without unimaginably catastrophic consequences: sea-level increases that will wipe out many coastal cities, persistent droughts that will destroy farmland on which hundreds of millions of people depend for their survival, the collapse of vital ecosystems, and far more.  An increase of 3.6 degrees C essentially suggests the end of human civilization as we know it.

To put this in context, human activity has already warmed the planet by about 0.8 degrees C -- enough to produce severe droughts around the world, trigger or intensify intense storms like Hurricane Sandy, and drastically reduce the Arctic ice cap.  “Given those impacts,” writes noted environmental author and activist Bill McKibben, “many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target.”  Among those cited by McKibben is Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes. “Any number much above one degree involves a gamble,” Emanuel writes, “and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up.” Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it this way: “If we’re seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.” 

At this point, it’s hard even to imagine what a planet that's 3.6 degrees C hotter would be like, though some climate-change scholars and prophets -- like former Vice President Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth -- have tried.  In all likelihood, the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets would melt entirely, raising sea levels by several dozen feet and completely inundating coastal cities like New York and Shanghai.  Large parts of Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the American Southwest would be rendered uninhabitable thanks to lack of water and desertification, while wildfires of a sort that we can’t imagine today would consume the parched forests of the temperate latitudes.

In a report that leads with the “good news” of impending U.S. oil supremacy, to calmly suggest that the world is headed for that 3.6 degree C mark is like placing a thermonuclear bomb in a gaudily-wrapped Christmas present.  In fact, the “good news” is really the bad news: the energy industry’s ability to boost production of oil, coal, and natural gas in North America is feeding a global surge in demand for these commodities, ensuring ever higher levels of carbon emissions.  As long as these trends persist -- and the IEA report provides no evidence that they will be reversed in the coming years -- we are all in a race to see who gets to the Apocalypse first.

See Tom Engelhardt's response here.



ABOUT Michael T. Klare

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author, most recently, ofRising Powers, Shrinking Planet. A documentary movie version of his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available from the Media Education Foundation.

Let's hope Ms. Stevens' kids

Let's hope Ms. Stevens' kids pick up wisdom somewhere besides home. It doesn't matter much what one's other responses are "plugging away" when one stokes the Malthusian inferno by selfishly plugging away at popping out three more consumption machines. C'mon, we have known better than that since Paul Erlich in 1967. People like Ms. Stevens are the problem, not part of the solution.

How do we get people to see

How do we get people to see that we must change our energy usuage?

Thank you Professor

Thank you Professor Schwartzman, James Bailey and Jeff Lewis,

I like it that you all used names, thus giving the impression of real people with family, friends and community. It will only be through ending the epidemic of isolation that we can reclaim our collective power and give the feedback that we are all starved of. This feedback is the fuel of evolution.

I am happy that there are no climate change deniers in this comment string, but please don't replace this drivel with hopelessness, fear and doom. This only causes paralysis.

True. The house is burning, and the children are inside. Now is not the time to tell the watching crowd that there is no hope. As a mother of three and community activist I and all my fellow peaceful warriors don't make national news, but know that we wake every morning and keep plugging away. And most of us will continue to do so until our breathing stops.

As we define what we don't want, let us simultaneously create what we do want. Like an inclusive local food system grown by a new generation of farmers who provide for a market that you can ride your bike to. So you can peddle home to cook and wash up afterwards using energy collected from the sun.

I am positively an optimist. Positive that we are heading for disaster (partial collapse) and optimistic that something good will come from it.

I have a responsibility to my children to be honest about the current situation, but they must also be given a model for how to appropriately respond. Otherwise, they will not be able to function. Daily I teach my children healthy limits, and I continue to hope that the rest of Earth's citizens learn to do the same.

The report does not mention

The report does not mention the pseudo-plans to "save energy" by instituting a profitable coal-based set of technologies called "smart-grid". Using global warming as the excuse, the dangerous and insecure smart grid that relies primarily on coal was developed and supported by federal Recovery Act funds. Smart meters are causing millions to become sickened, the grid to be insecure, and our home privacy invaded as never before. In addition, there is not one indication that the new "smart" grid (very dumb, actually) will save any energy - and in fact, it consumes more. To read a recent report explaining the above go to www.electrosmogprevention.org.

I am at least glad for the

I am at least glad for the astute comments made so far. There isn't a lot else to be glad about, given the Obama administration's enthusiasm for worldwide fossil fuel dominance. Why else the wars? But, to the point: it will take a surge of grass roots level pressure on all levels of government to get us over the hump into real renewable energy investment. This is the plan ===>> http://www.daveworld.biz/ekson-exhilaration.html.

Well, Muratftasar, as was

Well, Muratftasar, as was said while the Apollo 13 disaster was unfolding, FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. We have our species in a pickle right now (and the other species are along for the death-ride), but we have to do all we can to fix it.

The idea of commercially viable carbon sequestration technologies on a scale to correct for our rampant over-consumption (so we can drive to the redbox DVD machines and stop off at McDonald's for 'coronary infusions') is flat-out ridiculous. Ain't gonna happen. The untamed cedar forest where I live is a great carbon trap, as is the Amazon rainforest (and as was an earlier and wilder North America),. So why is it that in our great country, we do nothing to discourage people from clearing out natural carbon traps and replacing them with asphalt and energy-intensive lawns? Why is fracking even considered on any list of options, when it clearly will add far more carbon to our already overloaded atmosphere and oceans, while also compromising our groundwater supplies? Makes no sense...

We need real leaders to lift us away from the climate change denialism. We need revamped tax laws that put a solid and substantial disincentive on excess energy consumption. We who are old enough and wise enough to understand this need to act responsively, forcefully, to right this mess. And, our descendants need us to do this. Now.

Failure is not an Option. Let's fix this mess.

JEFF, "Makes no sense,"

JEFF, "Makes no sense," you say! Of course it does...dollars and "cents."
That's all that matters to the wheeler dealer's of this profligate world. You're right; "we need" a lot of things. But as the report makes quite clear; we're not going to get them. We're going to get 3.6C instead. And "failure" definitely "is" an option. Mankind has been failing the planet since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And you'll pardon me if I don't see the rationale in stating "our great country." What, exactly, is so goddamned great about a "red state/blue state, powerballing, gas guzzling, myopic bunch of semi-neanderthals who stand accused and convicted of being gun happy yahoos who pray at the alter of the almighty dollar." Like the Titanic, we'll address "messes" after the fact. The new U.S. energy jingle
should be a take on an old one. "It's shake and bake...and I helped." Have a good day...they're numbered.

While I respect Dr

While I respect Dr Schwartzman's opinion, I tend to agree with Dr. Klare's conclusion that the planet is doomed. The push for carbon emission reduction is doomed because there is not enough awareness on the part of the populace in developed countries, and the underdeveloped/developing ones maintain that they have as much right to pollute as the advanced industrial nations to improve their economic situation. At the same time, oil and gas industry and coal mining giants back pseudo-science to deny climate change and fill the airwaves with brain washing, coma inducing platitudes, using their multi billion dollar profits.

So, this old man does not have much hope that catastrophic change that redefines the parameters of human existence on this planet is avoidable. I won't be around to see it (if actuarials are right) but my children will be and that is an unpleasant thought, to put it mildly

I would far prefer to see the

I would far prefer to see the US be the world leader in renewable energy. Fossil fuels are an addiction we must kick. The future will depend on our ability to harness sustainable energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, and small-scale hydro.

Michael Klare claims here

Michael Klare claims here that there is " No Hope for Averting Catastrophic Climate Change". I disagree with this claim which is not even consistent with what the 2012 World Energy Outlook report says.

Klare goes on to say "Of all the findings in the 2012 edition of the World Energy Outlook, the one that merits the greatest international attention is the one that received the least. Even if governments take vigorous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, the continuing increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in “a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C. ”
I don't have the full report (the cheapest full text, a pdf, costs 130 euros), but this is what the online available Executive Summary of the report says:

"Energy efficiency can keep the door to 2 °C open for just a bit longer Successive editions of this report have shown that the climate goal of limiting warming to 2 °C is becoming more difficult and more costly with each year that passes. Our 450 Scenario examines the actions necessary to achieve this goal and finds that almost four-fifths of the CO2 emissions allowable by 2035 are already locked-in by existing power plants, factories, buildings, etc. If action to reduce CO2 emissions is not taken before 2017, all the allowable CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing at that time. Rapid deployment of energy-efficient technologies – as in our Efficient World Scenario – would postpone this complete lock-in to 2022, buying time to secure a much needed global agreement to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.
No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2 °C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed. This finding is based on our assessment of global “carbon
reserves”, measured as the potential CO2 emissions from proven fossil-fuel reserves. Almost two-thirds of these carbon reserves are related to coal, 22% to oil and 15% to gas. Geographically, two-thirds are held by North America, the Middle East, China and Russia.
These findings underline the importance of CCS as a key option to mitigate CO2 emissions, but its pace of deployment remains highly uncertain, with only a handful of commercial scale projects currently in operation."

In other words, if there is any chance left to avoid catastrophic climate change (C3) reduction in global carbon emissions must start very soon, with robust substitution of fossil fuels, starting with coal (and non-conventional petroleum such as tar sands and fracked gas*) by wind and solar energy as well as carbon sequestration from the atmosphere to the soil and crust. Thus, while C3 looms ever closer, it is not inevitable as Klare claims it is, based on this report.

What is most problematic about Klare's pronouncement of inevitability is that it is disempowering to say the least. It is a huge disservice to our children and grandchildren to give up now, accepting the inevitability of C3. Our global challenge is to mount the necessary transnational political power while there is still time to act, even if our chances of success are rapidly diminishing. Readers can find more detail, including quantification of the carbon sequestration technologies mentioned (not so-called 'clean coal') at www.solarUtopia.org (homepage). A rapid phaseout of coal and non-conventional petroleum, with a maximum of 40% of conventional petroleum being consumed in a full wind/solar transition (taking 20-30 years) will be compatible with what the IEA says above, namely "No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2 °C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed. " Actually the goal should be 1.5 °C or less. Hansen recently (2011) said that the current official goal of a 2 deg C global temperature increase over pre-industrial (about 1 deg C warmer than now) roughly equivalent to 450 ppm CO2 is a “prescription for disaster”.

*Note that fracked gas may well have a similar carbon footprint to coal, because of leakage of methane to the atmosphere, so the substitution of fracked gas for coal will not likely result in a reduction in greenhouse gas warming impacts. This critical point is not mentioned in Klare's otherwise informative piece, aside from his claim for the inevitability of C3. Rather Klare states inaccurately "One aspect of this energy “revolution” deserves special attention. The growing availability of cheap natural gas, thanks to hydro-fracking, has already reduced the use of coal as a fuel for electrical power plants in the United States. This would seem to be an obvious environmental plus, since gas produces less climate-altering carbon dioxide than does coal."

David Schwartzman
Professor Emeritus (I am a biogeochemist)
Howard University
Washington DC

P.S.
Actually the goal should be 1.5 °C or less, not 2 °C. Hansen recently (2011)* argued that the current official goal of a 2 deg C global temperature increase over pre-industrial (about 1 deg C warmer than now) roughly equivalent to 450 ppm CO2 is a “prescription for disaster”. Is this technically achievable? Only with near future (within 5 years) peak in carbon emissions, followed by very aggressive reductions coupled with robust wind/solar deployment and carbon sequestration from the atmosphere. Is this politically achievable? This is the immense challenge to our national and transnational climate justice movements. But lets not accept the inevitability of catastrophic climate change yet!

* Hansen et al., 2011, The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/.

Hansen, J.E. and M.Sato, 2012, Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change. arXiv:1105.0968v3 [physics.ao-ph]

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...