Tag Archive: resource depletion


A World Bank study has projected that the global financial crisis and resulting recession will plunge some 53 million people across “emerging markets” —like China and India— into absolute poverty, in 2009 alone. In China, tens of millions of people have lost jobs related to the export-dependent manufacturing sector.

Such a collapse in private fortunes for millions in the developing world could lead to major political instability, so China and other nations are on the lookout, ramping up security operations and domestic crackdowns on dissent or public gatherings. Unrest in China’s western Xinjiang province tied to repression of the Uighur muslim minority also has a socio-economic component, as Beijing steers Han Chinese merchants into Xinjiang with subsidies, while Uighurs remain poor.

It is thought the upheaval in response to Iran’s apparently manipulated vote, indeed the manipulations themselves, may be rooted in failing economic fortunes, as foreign wealth to invest in commodities like petroleum shrinks and jobs and wealth across the Islamic Republic are threatened.

View full article »

The book Plan C: Community Survival Strategies for Peak Oil and Climate Change addresses the problem of resource depletion and the degradation of our environmental base by illustrating how community erosion due to a culture of excess leaves human society without adequate means of planning for a world in which exponential growth is not the norm. Resource depletion already means the endless expansion of resource consumption is not possible, so author Pat Murphy proposes a localized community-oriented approach to overhauling the prevailing economic paradigm.

Questioning the political culture in which pollution-intensive industrial infrastructure dictates what we take to be quality of life, cast as standard of living, the book provides insight, tracing statistical evidence, into how human life is undermined by the very system put in place to support and sustain it. The logic of infinite growth has meant that humanity broadly has reached far beyond its fair share of natures resources, now imposing on the life-sustaining ecosystems on which we depend for our habitable world and natural resource base a demand beyond replacement capacity.

Plan C takes on key myths in the “hype” surrounding the potential of hydrogen fuel cells. Although electric vehicles (EV) are cheaper to produce, do in fact work and can be operated in a zero-emissions manner (with clean electric energy), hydrogen requires an extraction process that may involve combustion and emissions, and the use of costly technologies that have never been perfected. The book’s focus is on finding ways to understand how close we are to reaching an across-the-board peak in nature’s capacity to supply for our expanding consumption, and implement innovative strategies for consumption “curtailment”, i.e. conservation, in order to make the world work more sustainably.

View full article »

The converging crises of carbon-induced climate destabilization and unsustainable transport-related costs and land-use are pushing global society toward a moment of major change, in which “fuel” as we know it will be less a matter of resourced-fuel combustion and more a matter of renewable clean electric power storage and delivery. The petroleum industry needs to adjust its business model to operate in a world where burning its prime resource is not the goal.

Until now, and even in the midst of the current ongoing energy debate, we are accustomed to viewing the onset of renewable energy sources and the interests of petroleum companies as diametrically opposed and politically incompatible. That idea is now easily seen as what it is: an ideological assumption based on a world-view informed by too few facts and too little understanding of complex interrelationships among resources, natural systems, and economic activity.

Petroleum derivatives are a necessary part of human society, as we have adapted to having plastics and other derivatives serve fundamental needs (medicine is just one example) that go far beyond the luxury use of automotive fueling. And so, we need to consider as a matter of public policy and of the long-term viability of petroleum-based businesses, that this resource cannot be allowed to be exhausted by burning, whether or not there are environmental considerations.

We need to get beyond the unjustified and adolescent way of thinking that tells us that the most profitable companies on the planet need a helping hand via taxes, or kid-glove regulatory treatment, in order to find a way to operate. They are vital for society’s functioning as we now know it, but so are the public transit systems, the postal services, the social programs, the educational facilities and the civil engineering projects that we routinely starve of funds out of a misplaced sense of imposed responsibility.

View full article »

Special report on Food SecurityA long-running bellwether legal case in Canada’s farming industry, which has left at least one farmer unable to farm any crop variety of rapeseed (canola) —for fear of having to pay accidental royalties to bio-chemical giant Monsanto—, highlights the need for comprehensive reform of international seed regulation standards. The Canadian courts ruled that the individual farmer had to shoulder the burden of ferreting out any instance of “contamination” of his crop by pollen from nearby genetically-modified (GM) planting, as Monsanto held a patent on the seeds. The farmer, and those who support his claims, argue that there is no means by which anyone can prevent cross-pollination from GM plants.

In These Times reported in 2001 on the initial lower-court ruling that fined the farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for not reporting the invasion of his cropland to Monsanto and failing to compensate them for using their patented rapeseed DNA:

In a landmark victory for corporations heavily invested in genetically engineered foods, on March 29 a Canadian judge ruled that farmer Percy Schmeiser of Bruno, Saskatchewan must pay $105,000 to Monsanto for illegally growing the company’s genetically engineered rapeseed, from which canola oil is made. But Schmeiser says he never planted Monsanto’s seeds. “How can somebody put anything on someone else’s land, then claim it’s theirs and say, ‘We’ll take it. We’ll sue him. We’ll fine him’?” he asks.

In 1995, Monsanto put on the market a rapeseed that had been engineered to be immune to its Roundup Ready herbicide. This means a farmer can spray the herbicide over a planted field and kill all the weeds growing there, but not hurt the crop. The company sells the rapeseed- about half the rape planted in Saskatchewan in 1999 came from Monsanto seeds-but keeps the rights to the DNA itself. Thus, rather than save seeds from last year’s crop to use this year, as many do, and as Schmeiser traditionally has done, farmers must buy new rapeseed from Monsanto each year, and allow the company to inspect their fields.

A later Supreme Court ruling threw out the fine assessed against Schmeiser, which would have required him to pay the entire profits from his 1998 crop to the bio-chemical firm whose seeds had taken root on his land. In 2004, the BBC reported on the Canadian Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, again giving the victory to Monsanto:

Canada’s Supreme Court on Friday ruled that Percy Schmeiser, who was found to be growing the GM rapeseed in 1998, had breached Monsanto’s patent.

He had denied planting Monsanto seeds, saying they took root on his land through natural cross-pollination.

Logically incoherent as the ruling may be —many farmers not only resist using GM seed varieties, but argue they may be dangerous for the long-term sustainability of agriculture on a given plot of land, and view the “contamination” problem as just that, a wholesale invasion of natural resources like air, water and land, by a potentially harmful and unwanted pollutant—, it is instructive to note how powerful the logic of bio-tech patents has become, edging out even the logic of a clean, natural alternative.

The International Seed Federation has told the BBC World Service that once genetically modified crops are considered to be tested and safe, and have a growing and harvest history, they are treated as “conventional” crops, meaning that regulation of cross-pollination and “purity” measures used for conventional seeds can be applied. This is part of the logic that puts the burden on farmers, to be able to distinguish between seeds they have planted, and seeds produced by their own plants, but which were the result of cross-pollination from other farmers’ fields, planted with GM varieties.

View full article »

As the “perfect storm” gathers from inchoate, deceptively non-threatening winds, we can look ahead, backward and into the mirror and ask how crisis comes, or why, if it is inevitable, if we might just fall right out of it, as we fell into it. But the answer is simple: human crisis comes from excess, from inordinate ambition, from misplaced aggression, from over-exploitation of resources, each of which generates real and problematic tension across the landscape of human experience.

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s resulted from a misguided atomized over-exploitation of arable land. Ancient Sumerian civilization collapsed entirely because excesses of irrigation coupled with poor planning raised soil salinity to levels toxic to agriculture. At the end of the 20th century, global industrial activity had come to far outstrip the available resources feeding into it, and our global economy had come to depend on increasing demand and increasing output to feed unsustainable rates of increasing growth, across the planet.

Something had to give. The mathematics of the whole big picture had come to rest on the assumption that already over-stressed basic resources could expand along with economic expansion. They could not. We may now be seeing just the beginning of this realignment of economic expectations, forced by circumstance.

As major resource scarcity spreads, with China losing ever more arable land to encroaching northwestern deserts and road building in the industrial east, as China’s exploding demand for petroleum, steel, copper, water, meat and grains, put pressure on world markets and pushes the cost of basic goods like food staples ever higher across the world, as the unsustainable demand for fuel moves the US corn belt to shift to cropping for ethanol —as much as 40% of world corn exports are from Iowa, which now devotes 18% of harvest to bio-ethanol—, we are experiencing the natural results of an economy that hinges on hyper-exploitation of resources. The correction, when fully upon us, may yet be far more severe than the 2008 credit-freeze crisis.

Hyper-exploitation is a doctrine: it underpins public policy, government spending, security policy and the philosophical arguments for and against deregulation and the trickle-down theory of economic growth as related to tax policy. It requires that we believe in unstated, unproven modes of natural replenishment; it is a proposition that all things can be tapped, moved, transformed and spent, infinitely, because somehow, the market will set all the right limits and excesses will never be so severe as to ignore the laws of nature.

It is, for this reason, dangerous, because it not only is a doctrine that requires us to use more of the vital resources we require than can be replaced at sustainable levels, it moves us deeper into the vice of living on borrowed time. The result is that we must periodically learn the lesson that borrowed time cannot be financed, that we must pay the full price when it comes due, and our unprecedented resource depletion will leave us, quite simply, without the level of supply required to sustain our standard of living.

Already, wealthy governments are moving to take over cropland in poor countries in order to shore up their own food supplies, as the food security crisis spreads throughout the world, affecting even the wealthiest economies. The fear is that this over-consumption now extending to land use in poor foreign states may lead to a wave of mass starvation throughout the developing world, sparking conflicts and threatening the integrity of the international system as such.

According to the Guardian’s Julian Borger:

“In the context of arable land sales, this is unprecedented,” Atkin said. “We’re used to seeing 100,000-hectare sales. This is more than 10 times as much.”

At a food security summit in Rome, in June, there was agreement to channel more investment and development aid to African farmers to help them respond to higher prices by producing more. But governments and corporations in some cash-rich but land-poor states, mostly in the Middle East, have opted not to wait for world markets to respond and are trying to guarantee their own long-term access to food by buying up land in poorer countries.

India and Bangladesh are constantly disputing river water resources that both countries depend on for basic sustenance for tens of millions of people. Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt are gripped by a struggle over control of the Nile’s water, with the river running dry at the Nile delta on the Mediterranean during some seasons. The Colorado River in the US has failed to reach the sea and is seeing its flow through the Grand Canyon significantly reduced, as states in the Colorado River Basin dispute claims on the river’s water.

Hyper-exploitation even extends to the use of natural resources like water as dumping grounds. The level of toxic chemicals and plastic polymer byproducts now found in ocean water the world over has reached alarming levels, threatening vast ecosystems and undermining the health of human beings and wildlife in most of the world. Drinking water across the US was found to be contaminated by high levels of pharmaceuticals earlier this year, raising the specter of as yet unknown potential harm to public health, over the long term.

High levels of contaminant emissions or toxic dumping are an abusive use of natural resources we often overlook —like air, land, water and forest cover— in our quest for combustible fuels, industrial-scale production and economies of scale we hope will reduce costs, even if they also increase the risk to our long-term economic and physical health and wellbeing. We are now facing a structural economic crisis, which requires us to reformulate and rebuild our economic model, at the most basic levels, a process which will be more or less painful, depending on how seriously we commit to getting it done and done right.

SPEECH DELIVERED BY AL GORE
17 JULY 2008, AT CONSTITUTION HALL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ladies and gentlemen:

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.

The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more – if more should be required – the future of human civilization is at stake. I don’t remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse – much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland’s largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world. Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an “energy tsunami” that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn’t it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that’s been worrying me. I’m convinced that one reason we’ve seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately – without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective – they almost always make the other crises even worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges – the economic, environmental and national security crises. We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change. But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we’re holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.

View full article »

When Henry David Thoreau published Walden, a narrative of his experiences and meditations near Walden Pond, in the densely wooded hill country of Massachusetts, it was a breakthrough treatise on the role of human industry and individual will in terms of the natural environment. Thoreau infused an explanation of day to day existence with a transcendental consciousness of the value of the natural world around him, and explored the manner in which human civilization is both habitually divorced from and irrefutably dependent upon that environment.

The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation explains:

In 1845, Thoreau went to live and work at Walden Pond. He stayed for two years, keeping a journal of his thoughts and his encounters with nature and society. Over the next few years, Thoreau wrote and rewrote (seven drafts in all) Walden; or Life in the Woods, one of the most famous works in American literature. Published in 1854, this classic has never been out of print and is still read by people all over the world.

Indeed, the book is considered by some a foundational text in the eventual springing up of a vast conservation movement, popular environmentalism, and later efforts to bring the federal government and the rule of law into the work of ensuring that human civilization does not thoughtlessly plunder the resources of the natural environment, on which it depends for survival. The text is as relevant now as ever to giving us perspective as to how to move forward in a human-affected geological epoch.

Former US vice-president Al Gore is calling on the nation to marshal its resources and divorce itself from the combustible fuels economy. Gore says the US can produce all its energy requirements from renewable resources within 10 years, if concerted action is taken. The bold initiative is designed to drive debate on the topic and move discussions about how to deal with high fuel prices toward the new opportunity they provide for funding renewable infrastructure development.

According to the Associated Press:

Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create “a new political environment” that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.

When Pres. Bush announced he would lift the executive ban on offshore oil drilling and urged Congress to do the same, critics retorted that the science shows the potential energy output is too far off and too small to affect prices, but that new drilling would “enable” the nation’s “addiction” to carbon-based fuels. Pres. Bush himself used the word addiction in a State of the Union address, to describe what could be a crippling reliance on petroleum-based fuels.

Gore’s proposed initiative has been compared to Pres. John F. Kennedy’s promise that the United States could land a man on the moon within the decade of the 1960s. Ecological economist Lester Brown, of the Earth Policy Institute, has long called for the US to treat the climate crisis as a major threat and to begin to overhaul its energy economy “at wartime speed”, referring specifically to how Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the industrial economy of the US to war production to fight and win World War II.

Gore has not shied away from the issue of cost, but points out that the cost is no longer higher than simply filling in gaps in current demand with new output from high-contamination fuel-sources like coal:

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.

Gore says his goal is to drive public opinion toward an alternative fuels revolution, noting how this process seems to have begun already as a response to soaring gasoline prices. The fuel-source issue has come to dominate every aspect of current economic analysis, as transport costs are now being blamed for a rise in inflation across the US and for 9-figure losses for at least two major airlines.

No longer a politician, but keenly involved in the political sphere, Gore is now devoted to the complex project of informing and changing attitudes, hoping to “enlarge the political space” where government and the private sector can “deal with the climate challenge.” His words may help spur bolder action by politicians, which would help business make the investment commitments necessary to revolutionize their own infrastructure and/or industrial output.

Last year, consumption of renewable energy actually declined slightly in the US, the fall attributed largely to lower levels of precipitation affecting hydrological energy output. But solar and wind energy are now rapidly expanding their production capacity, and Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens’ personal wind-energy initiative —aimed at building a continent-wide wind-energy corridor to produce over 20% of power-generation needs— is the latest major sign of progress.

New solar technologies that make solar-power generation perhaps 10 times more efficient mean prices for producing renewable energy are coming down dramatically, just as prices for conventional fuel sources are skyrocketing. While both candidates’ energy plans include coal as a viable resource for expanding production, the major progress being made in renewable fuel sources may make such expansion unnecessary before new plants come online.

Critics have often said the renewable resources market is too costly to be implemented in a way that benefits most consumers economically, but this is no longer the case, and what Mr. Gore is pushing for is precisely the kind of national innovation initiative that brings the most efficient clean energy technologies within the economic range of all consumers. Sustaining these clean technologies would be far less costly than cleaning up after high-contamination combustibles, so the long-term gains, added to the economic boom from infrastructure development, will be part of a needed green technology boom

TRANSCRIPT OF ENERGY INFORMATION ADMIN. REPORT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Data For: 2007
Report Released: May 2008
Next Release Date: May 2009

Renewable energy consumption declined 1 percent between 2006 and 2007 to 6,830 trillion Btu, according to preliminary 2007 data (Table 1 and Figure 1).  In contrast, both total energy and non-renewable energy increased 2 percent.

There was wide variation in the consumption behavior of individual renewable energy sources. Hydro electricity dropped 14 percent in 2007 due to reduced precipitation in several regions of the country. On the plus side, biomass-based energy grew 7 percent and wind-generated electricity jumped 21 percent (Table 3). Major increases in consumption of biomass to produce and use biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) were almost entirely responsible for the increase in biomass during 2007 (Table 1).

From 2003 through 2007, renewable energy consumption’s average annual growth rate was 3 percent, compared with just 1 percent for total energy consumption. Again, biofuels and wind were largely responsible for the increase, with 5-year average annual growth rates of 25 and 29 percent, respectively.

Just over half of renewable energy consumption occurred in the electric power sector in 2007 (Table 2). The industrial sector was the second-leading consumer of renewable energy, accounting for nearly 30 percent. The transportation, residential, and commercial sectors accounted for 9, 8, and 2 percent, respectively. While the electric power sector currently consumes the most renewable energy (51 percent), its use dropped 8 percent between 2006 and 2007. In 2003, the electricity sector accounted for 59 percent of total renewable energy consumption.

In contrast, transportation sector renewable energy consumption increased 30 percent during 2007, and residential sector consumption grew 12 percent. Residential sector growth was due to healthy increases in all three energy sources: biomass, geothermal, and solar/photovoltaic. Commercial and industrial uses of renewable energy changed little between 2006 and 2007 and have also changed little as a fraction of total renewable consumption since 2003. That could change for the industrial sector if ethanol and biodiesel use continues to grow rapidly resulting in increased feedstock consumption. This is especially significant in view of the fact that the largest biomass fuel consumed in the industrial sector, wood and derived fuels, has grown little since 1989 and appears to have peaked in 1997.[1]

Within the electric power sector, wind energy consumption has grown each year since 1998.[2] From 2003 to 2007, wind’s share of total renewable energy consumption increased from 2 percent to 5 percent. For the first time ever in 2007, wind energy consumption in the electric power sector exceeded geothermal. Hydro electricity accounted for 36 percent of total renewable consumption in 2007, down from 46 percent in 2003. However, hydro consumption is tied mostly to precipitation, which can vary year to year. Few plants are being built or retired.

Electricity generation from renewable sources fell 9 percent in 2007 to 351 billion kilowatthours (kWh), largely due to reduced precipitation (Table 3). Excluding hydro electricity, however, renewable electricity generation grew 7 percent. This gain was led by a 21 percent increase in electricity from wind and moderate increases in electricity from biomass waste. There has been little change in generation from the largest non-hydro renewable electricity source, wood and derived fuels, since 2003.

View full article »

US pres. George W. Bush has lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and has challenged the US Congress to act to open the OCS to new oil exploration, saying the US needs to increase domestic production to reduce its dependence on imported oil. The ban was put in place by his father, George H.W. Bush, the 41st US president, for environmental concerns and in part because the oil companies have leases for huge expanses of underwater terrain they have not explored or exploited.

Critics say lifting the ban will have little to no effect, short or long-term on the price of crude oil or on gasoline at the pump, in part because the US is not part of the OPEC cartel that sets production rates and prices, and in part because it will take so long for any of the new production to come online. Opponents in Congress have said it is just a ploy to put political pressure on Democrats in an election year when gas prices are high.

Both presidential candidates have made a point to repeatedly state their intention to provide heavy increases in funding for the development of alternative energy sources. Sen. John McCain, however, has said he backs lifting the ban, and he has backed policy intervention to alter the price of gasoline, like lifting the federal gas tas temporarily. Sen. Obama has often talked of the need to tap America’s resources, but he supports maintaining the ban.

The truth of the matter at present is that there is no known way for offshore drilling to bring oil prices down to sustainable levels, as the projected rise in global demand far outstrips the expected production capacity of the US offshore reserves. As evidenced by oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens’ massive national campaign for wind-power, only by changing the structure of our national energy economy can we bring energy and transport-fuel prices back within reach of the average consumer.

As reported by The Hot Spring last week:

Special transparent dyes coating glass or plastic panes concentrate the Sun’s rays, guiding them to solar-voltaic cells lining the edges, allowing a window to act as a solar panel with 10 times the electricity generation capacity of solar cells, by current standards. The ‘organic solar concentrator’ (OSC) system also reduces cost, by reducing the surface area that needs to be coated by solar-voltaic cells and by eliminating the need for large concentrating mirrors and sun-tracking mechanisms.

In line with this information, and because climate scientists, US courts, international treaties, and American law, all suggest that we move toward a long-term ongoing decline in carbon emissions, the US Congress continues to oppose lifting the ban, which they would have to do with new legislation. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

On the surface, President Bush’s decision Monday to lift the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling – a policy initiated by his father and extended by Bill Clinton – appeared only to embolden Democrats in their efforts to preserve the 27-year-old federal ban.

Congress has renewed its ban on drilling on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts every year since 1981, and top Democrats said Monday they will do so again this year, despite the pressure from Bush. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush’s action a hoax that “will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence.”

Coming just days after the EPA announced it would not institute caps on carbon emissions this year, the executive action is likely to intensify political attacks related to the issue of energy production and oil prices. Pres. Bush has sought to blame Congressional Democrats’ opposition to drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska for the recent upsurge in oil prices. Since that policy has not changed in nearly 3 decades, it is hard to see the immediate cause and effect.

If we look for geopolitical causes, we find ongoing chaos in Iraq, threats of a possible military action against Iran, Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, interrupting potentially more than one-third of the world’s oil traffic, a rogue regime in Sudan and a surge in sabotage on Nigerian oil fields. On the economic front, we have the collpase of major financial institution in the US, the dollar now worth less than half its 2001 value against the euro, and the predicted approach of peak oil production.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) wrote on the issue:

a report last year threw cold water on the idea of new offshore drilling as the way to lower gas prices. It said that new offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030″ and that the impact on prices would be “insignificant.”

Pres. Bush’s own Energy Information Administration issued that report. Rep. Capps went on to note that “the oil and gas industry is sitting on 68 million acres of public lands where it could be drilling but isn’t. It has some 6,000 leases in the Gulf of Mexico (where the majority of oil and natural gas reserves are found) that are not being explored.”

The argument that oil and natural gas firms would gladly lower prices if only they were given access to drillable reserves does not hold up, if we consider that they are not doing this now, though they can. So the summer will likely see a heated contest for public support between Congressional conservationists and the Bush White House, with Senators McCain and Obama squaring off as spokespeople for the competing points of view, but something other than future drilling will have to be done to lower prices at the pump.

Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.