Obama Action Will Please Environmentalists, Peak Oil Advocates
Filed under: Barack Obama, Big Three Automakers, Energy Policy, Environment, Peak Oil, State Governments
Action that President Barack Obama will take Monday to allow California and other states to require stricter tailpipe emissions and automobile fuel efficiency standards shouldn’t just please environmentalists.
If you’re concerned about Peak Oil and the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, this is also a win for energy conservation. This could be a market force that Detroit cannot ignore, pushing fuel efficiency farther faster. Conservation isn’t everything, but for a society so totally unprepared, it’s one span in the bridge to the energy future.
The New York Times is reporting tonight that President Barack Obama will reverse Bush Administration environmental policy tomorrow and allow California and other states to mandate their stricter rules.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had requested and been denied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2007 a waiver to set California automobile emission standards higher than federal guidelines. The Bush Administration told California and several other states that 2007 increases in federal fuel efficiency guidelines for cars and light trucks made their efforts moot and that a national patchwork of differing emissions laws would be untenable.
This is a win not only for environmentalists but also those concerned about the Peak Oil crisis and America’s continued over reliance on fossil fuels. The stricter standards set by states will be a market force that the Big Three and other automakers will not be able to ignore. According to the Times’ reporting, California’s action alone could have a great effect on fuel efficiency in the nation’s car and truck fleet:
The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable. The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon from the current average of 27.
In order to deal with the strategic, economic and societal changes which will brought on by a world where oil is harder to find and harder to extract, the U.S. and other nations will need to build bridges to the next energy economy. Actions such as the one Obama will take on Monday will make it easier to build the “conservation” span of our nation’s bridge.
One question remains — will the Big Three automakers fight this in court? Probably, but they should be shamed out of the courthouse. U.S. taxpayers are keeping two out of three of them afloat. They should be discouraged from using our cash to fight our government …
Unfortunately, conservation in the U.S. will not help much. Here is why.
Global crude oil production peaked in 2008.
The media, governments, world leaders, and public should focus on this issue.
Global crude oil production had been rising briskly until 2004, then plateaued for four years. Because oil producers were extracting at maximum effort to profit from high oil prices, this plateau is a clear indication of Peak Oil.
Then in August and September of 2008 while oil prices were still very high, global crude oil production fell nearly one million barrels per day, clear evidence of Peak Oil (See Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of “Oil Watch Monthly,” December 2008, page 1) http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_december_oilwatch_monthly.pdf.
Peak Oil is now.
Credit for accurate Peak Oil predictions (within a few years) goes to the following (projected year for peak given in parentheses):
* Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)
* Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of “Oil Watch Monthly” (2008)
* Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst; Samuel Foucher, oil analyst; and Stuart Staniford, Physicist [Wikipedia Oil Megaprojects] (2008)
* Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)
* T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)
* Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell geologist (2005)
* Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)
* Chris Skrebowski, Editor of “Petroleum Review” (2010)
* Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)
* Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)
* Fredrik Robelius, Oil analyst and author of “Giant Oil Fields” (2008 to 2018)
Oil production will now begin to decline terminally.
Within a year or two, it is likely that oil prices will skyrocket as supply falls below demand. OPEC cuts could exacerbate the gap between supply and demand and drive prices even higher.
Independent studies indicate that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. represents one fourth of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. There is no plan nor capital for a so-called electric economy. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The independent scientists of the Energy Watch Group conclude in a 2007 report titled: “Peak Oil Could Trigger Meltdown of Society:”
“By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame.”
With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.
Documented here:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
Clifford – I don’t believe that any one policy – including conservation — is the answer. I do believe that since we are ill prepared for what’s in front of us, technologically and strategically, we need to bridge from now to a different energy economy. Conservation should surely be a span in that bridge. Thanks for commenting, Pelikan.
These policies are too late to matter and too expensive–a rearranging of the deck-chairs if you will. A significant fuel tax (maybe a floating, counter-cyclical tax) would reduce emissions and conserve fuel with far less expenditure and delay. These are techno band aids, not conservation measures.
As to Mr. Wirth, he is a self-promoter. He simultaneously suggests nothing can be done, yet actively maintains, and promotes a site offering planning guidance. Hope you can eat that Ph.D., Mr. Wirth!