{"id":264,"date":"2012-12-02T12:32:22","date_gmt":"2012-12-02T17:32:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/?p=264"},"modified":"2012-12-02T12:34:23","modified_gmt":"2012-12-02T17:34:23","slug":"the-world-energy-reports-scariest-findings-salon-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/?p=264","title":{"rendered":"The World Energy Report\u2019s scariest findings – Salon.com"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\tTweet<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div>

Editor’s Note: Buried deep in this Salon.com article is this very disturbing point:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Even if governments take vigorous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, the continuing increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in \u201ca long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C.\u201d 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This article was originally posted on Salon.com.<\/em><\/p>\n

The World Energy Report\u2019s scariest findings – Salon.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The U.S. may surpass Saudi Arabia as the planet’s leading oil producer — and the cost could be catastrophic<\/span><\/h1>\n

BY\u00a0MICHAEL KLARE<\/a>, TOMDISPATCH.COM<\/span><\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>This image provided by NASA shows Hurricane Earl. (AP Photo\/NASA)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
This piece originally appeared on\u00a0TomDispatch<\/a>.<\/div>\n

Rarely does the release of a data-driven report on energy trends trigger front-page headlines around the world.\u00a0 That, however, is exactly what happened on November 12th when the prestigious Paris-based\u00a0International Energy Agency<\/a>\u00a0(IEA) released this year\u2019s edition of its\u00a0World Energy Outlook<\/em>.\u00a0 In the process, just about everyone missed its real news, which should have set off alarm bells across the planet.<\/p>\n

Claiming that advances in drilling technology were producing an upsurge in North American energy output,\u00a0World Energy Outlook<\/em>\u00a0predicted that the United States would overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the planet\u2019s leading oil producer by 2020.\u00a0 \u201cNorth America is at the forefront of a sweeping transformation in oil and gas production that will affect all regions of the world,\u201d\u00a0declared<\/a>\u00a0IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven in a widely quoted statement.<\/p>\n

In the U.S.,\u00a0<\/strong>the prediction of imminent supremacy in the oil-output sweepstakes was generally greeted with unabashed jubilation.\u00a0 \u201cThis is a remarkable change,\u201d\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0John Larson of\u00a0IHS<\/a>, a corporate research firm.\u00a0 \u201cIt\u2019s truly transformative. \u00a0It\u2019s fundamentally changing the energy outlook for this country.\u201d\u00a0 Not only will this result in a diminished reliance on imported oil, he indicated, but also generate vast numbers of new jobs.\u00a0 \u201cThis is about jobs.\u00a0 You know, it\u2019s about blue-collar jobs.\u00a0 These are good jobs.\u201d<\/p>\n

The editors of the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u00a0were no less ecstatic.\u00a0 In an editorial with the eye-catching headline \u201cSaudi America<\/a>,\u201d they lauded U.S. energy companies for bringing about a technological revolution, largely based on the utilization of hydraulic fracturing (\u201cfracking\u201d) to extract oil and gas from shale rock.\u00a0 That, they claimed, was what made a new mega-energy boom possible.\u00a0 \u201cThis is a real energy revolution,\u201d the\u00a0Journal<\/em>\u00a0noted, \u201ceven if it\u2019s far from the renewable energy dreamland of so many government subsidies and mandates.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

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.<\/p>\n

While agreeing that the expected spurt in U.S. production is mostly \u201cgood news,\u201d\u00a0Michael A. Levi<\/a>\u00a0of the Council on Foreign Relations\u00a0warned<\/a>\u00a0that gas prices will not drop significantly because oil is a global commodity and those prices are largely set by international market forces.\u00a0 \u201c[T]he U.S. may be slightly more protected, but it doesn\u2019t give you the energy independence some people claim,\u201d he told the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0Daniel J. Weiss<\/a>\u00a0of the Center for American Progress, for example,\u00a0warned<\/a>\u00a0of a growing threat to America\u2019s water supply from poorly regulated fracking operations.\u00a0 \u201cIn 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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\u00a0World Energy Report<\/em>\u00a0that were, in some cases, downright scary.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Here are some of the most worrisome takeaways from the report.<\/p>\n

Shrinking World Oil Supply<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019s future oil supply.\u00a0 No such luck.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Take U.S. oil production surpassing Saudi Arabia\u2019s and Russia\u2019s.\u00a0 Sounds great, doesn\u2019t it?\u00a0 Here\u2019s the catch: previous editions of the IEA report and the\u00a0International Energy Outlook<\/em>, 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.\u00a0 Yet the U.S. will pull ahead of them in the 2020s only because, the IEA now asserts, their output is going to\u00a0fall<\/em>, not rise as previously assumed.<\/p>\n

This is one hidden surprise in the report that\u2019s gone unnoticed.\u00a0 According to the DoE\u2019s\u00a02011 projections<\/a>, 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\u2019s added petroleum supply; the United States, in this calculation, would reach the 11.7 million barrel mark.<\/p>\n

The IEA\u2019s\u00a0latest revision<\/a>\u00a0of 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.\u00a0 The U.S., that is, will essentially become number one by default.\u00a0 At best, then, the global oil supply is not going to grow appreciably \u2014 despite the IEA\u2019s projection of a significant upswing in international demand.<\/p>\n

But wait, suggests the IEA, there\u2019s still one wild card hope out there: Iraq.\u00a0 Yes, Iraq.\u00a0 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\u00a0predicts<\/a>\u00a0that 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.\u00a0 In fact, claims the IEA, this gain would represent half the total increase in world oil production over the next 25 years.\u00a0 Certainly, stranger things have happened, but for the obvious reasons, it remains an implausible scenario.<\/p>\n

Add all this together \u2014 declining output from Russia and Saudi Arabia, continuing strife in Iraq, uncertain results elsewhere \u2014 and you get insufficient oil in the 2020s and 2030s to meet anticipated world demand.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 You don\u2019t know what bad times are until you don\u2019t have enough energy to run the machinery of civilization. \u00a0As\u00a0suggested<\/a>\u00a0by the IEA, \u201cMuch is riding on Iraq\u2019s success\u2026 Without this supply growth from Iraq, oil markets would be set for difficult times.\u201d<\/p>\n

Continuing Reliance on Fossil Fuels<\/strong><\/p>\n

For all the talk of the need to increase reliance on renewable sources of energy, fossil fuels \u2014 coal, oil, and natural gas \u2014 will continue to provide most of the additional energy supplies needed to satisfy soaring world demand.\u00a0 \u201cTaking all new developments and policies into account,\u201d the IEA reported, \u201cthe world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, recent developments seem to favor greater fossil-fuel reliance.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0In its editorial on the IEA report, for example, the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u00a0ridiculed such investment.\u00a0 It had, the\u00a0Journal\u2019s<\/em>\u00a0writerssuggested<\/a>, now become unnecessary due to the Saudi Arabian-style oil and gas boom to come. \u00a0\u201cHistorians 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,\u201d they declared.<\/p>\n

One aspect of this energy \u201crevolution\u201d 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.\u00a0 This would seem to be an obvious environmental plus, since gas produces less climate-altering carbon dioxide than does coal.\u00a0 Unfortunately, coal output and its use haven\u2019t diminished: American producers have simply increased their coal exports to Asia and Europe. \u00a0In fact, U.S. coal exports are\u00a0expected to reach<\/a>\u00a0as high as 133 million tons in 2012, overtaking an export record set in 1981.<\/p>\n

Despite its deleterious effects on the environment, coal remains\u00a0popular<\/a>\u00a0in countries seeking to increase their electricity output and promote economic development.\u00a0 Shockingly, according to the IEA, it supplied nearly half of the increase in global energy consumption over the last decade, growing faster than renewables.\u00a0 And the agency predicts that coal will continue its rise in the decades ahead.\u00a0 The world\u2019s top coal consumer, China, will burn ever more of it until 2020, when demand is finally expected to level off. \u00a0India\u2019s usage will rise without cessation, with that country overtaking the U.S. as the number two consumer around 2025.<\/p>\n

In many regions, notes the IEA report, the continued dominance of fossil fuels is sustained by government policies.\u00a0 In the developing world, countries commonly subsidize energy consumption, selling transportation, cooking, and heating fuels at below-market rates.\u00a0 In this way, they hope to\u00a0buffer<\/a>\u00a0their populations from rising commodity costs, and so protect their regimes from popular unrest.\u00a0 Cutting back on such subsidies can prove dangerous, as in Jordan where a recent government decision to raise fuel prices led to\u00a0widespread riots<\/a>\u00a0and calls for the monarchy\u2019s abolition.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

No Hope for Averting Catastrophic Climate Change<\/strong><\/p>\n

Of all the findings in the 2012 edition of the\u00a0World Energy Outlook<\/em>, the one that merits the greatest international attention is the one that received the least.\u00a0 Even if governments take vigorous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, the continuing increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in \u201ca long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C.\u201d<\/p>\n

This should stop everyone in their tracks.\u00a0 Most scientists believe that an increase of\u00a02 degrees Celsius<\/a>\u00a0is 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.\u00a0 An increase of 3.6 degrees C essentially suggests the end of human civilization as we know it.<\/p>\n

To put this in context, human activity has already warmed the planet by about 0.8 degrees C \u2014 enough to produce severe droughts around the world, trigger or intensify intense storms like Hurricane Sandy, and drastically reduce the Arctic ice cap.\u00a0 \u201cGiven those impacts,\u201d\u00a0writes<\/a>\u00a0noted environmental author and\u00a0activist<\/a>\u00a0Bill McKibben, \u201cmany scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target.\u201d \u00a0Among those cited by McKibben is\u00a0Kerry Emanuel<\/a>\u00a0of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes. \u201cAny number much above one degree involves a gamble,\u201d Emanuel writes, \u201cand the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up.\u201d\u00a0Thomas Lovejoy<\/a>, once the World Bank\u2019s chief biodiversity adviser, puts it this way: \u201cIf we\u2019re seeing what we\u2019re seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.\u201d<\/p>\n

At this point, it\u2019s hard even to imagine what a planet that\u2019s 3.6 degrees C hotter would be like, though some climate-change scholars and prophets \u2014 like former Vice President Al Gore in\u00a0An Inconvenient Truth<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 have tried.\u00a0 In all likelihood, the\u00a0Greenland<\/a>\u00a0and Antarctica ice sheets would melt entirely, raising sea levels by several dozen feet and completely inundating coastal cities like New York and Shanghai.\u00a0 Large parts of Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the American Southwest would be rendered uninhabitable thanks to\u00a0lack of water<\/a>\u00a0and desertification, while\u00a0wildfires<\/a>\u00a0of a sort that we can\u2019t imagine today would consume the parched forests of the temperate latitudes.<\/p>\n

In a report that leads with the \u201cgood news\u201d 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.\u00a0 In fact, the \u201cgood news\u201d is really the bad news: the energy industry\u2019s 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.\u00a0 As long as these trends persist \u2014 and the IEA report provides no evidence that they will be reversed in the coming years \u2014 we are all in a race to see who gets to the Apocalypse first.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Close<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author of “Resource Wars,” “Blood and Oil,” and “Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.”<\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Editor’s Note: Buried deep in this Salon.com article is this very disturbing point:\u00a0 Even if governments take vigorous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, the continuing increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in \u201ca long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C.\u201d 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 \u2026 Continue reading this post → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-energy_policy_economics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/264","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=264"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/264\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":266,"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/264\/revisions\/266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.themodestproposal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}