Monday, December 1, 2008

Oil & Energy

THOUGHTS ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND OIL - 10/11/2008

Countries that trade a lot overseas and those that are developing countries that rely on one particular commodity seem to be particularly affected by recession and oil.

However, Arab states are unusual in that they have the oil and realizing it will run out are pumping in all their money to built an attraction to investors, MNCs, Banking and tourism much like Singapore and have targets to meet.

With the recession slowing everything down, the transport industry is now particularly affected by the higher oil prices. This affects exports which paradoxically affects these countries. Anyway, I think they are cutting supply in a staggered manner because they cannot afford to let all the oil be sold for peanuts and being unsure how long this recession lasts lose it for peanuts and be unable to afford to build their plans before things turn around.

But of course, by this policy of reducing supply, instead of demand going up people are just cutting further back, leading the economy further in recession as everything shrinks. But it seems that they are trying to find their new balance where the supply is low enough from them to stabilize the oil prices by a demand that is sufficient for the world relying on them to operate at reduced costs.

Of course , the fear is it will just continue to shrink as businesses cut back and eventually shrink and everything comes to a stand still. But hopefully, an equilibrium is established that businesses can manage as well as more people will move towards public transport where governments are directly covering the oil prices.

OPEC will have to also slow down on their targets and development and just ride this world bear market but obviously do not want their limited oil to dry up before development is finished. Seems like they need to find the balance between their costs for building the new cities at later targets against a rate that equates to the oil consumption and pricing on the new level and get more realistic about the state of affairs and interdependency of the world.

As for the oil with sand in other areas of the world that costs too high and requires enough demand to make it worth while.. seems like a hard one to call, as with this recession, it has become more apparent that we have to move to alternative energy options and Obama apparent cooperation to reduce carbon emission could mean that demand for oil will never quite go back to what it was?

So I am not sure what will happen and whether it is such a good idea to buy into these logistics rather than alternative energy ones in the US and northern Europe. The alternative energy ones seems like a sure option; especially those that are not from food sources as much as solar, nuclear and mechanical methods of conversion. And should not car manufacturers really start looking at alternative ways to power their cars.

Anyway bro, please share your thoughts a bit...to get ideas rolling...

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

Response...

I don't have a clear focus on the oil issue. My broad view is that our current level of consumption of material goods, and particularly the use (and abuse) of the planet's natural resources, is unsustainable.

As you covered in your mail, from a geopolitical standpoint, world power is definitely shifting away from the traditional base in Europe and America towards the oil-rich states in the Middle East, Eurasia, Russia, China's interests in Africa and so on. One thing is for sure, the move is on, and we are currently witnessing the fall of the Great American Empire of the 20th Century.

One question that engages me about the future, is how we will continue to live in a world so reliant on oil. I propose this question also in the context of our broader reliance on industry and technology, and the assumption that we cannot continue in the current way.

The first problem with the oil running out is that too many of our day-to-day products are based on petro-chemicals (by-products of the oil refining process), such as plastics, chemicals, synthetic materials, used in everything from manufacturing to food production, building, and so on. There is also the problem of our dependence on oil as a fuel, plus the damage its use causes to the environment. Basically, the fossil fuels that it took the earth billions of years to produce has taken us about 100 years to consume. We have reached the end of this road, so where do we go from here?

As I see it, we can either go backwards or forwards in our relationship with technology. To go back is fairly easy to envisage - we consume less, live in self-sustained local communities, produce our own food and water and energy, recycle our building materials, clothing and so on. It would be possible, but would require such a dramatic change to the way we live now, I don't know if people are capable of doing it.

The second possibility is that we go forward with newer and cleaner and better technologies. The problem with new technologies is that special interests have always used them to make more money, wage bigger wars, and gather more power unto themselves. I'm not especially blaming oil companies or the arms industry, or even the mega-bankers behind them, guilty as they may be this time around. If it wasn't them, it would have been someone else. The problem is not any individual or group or political or economic system, but rather the human ego that will always find a way to work the system to its own advantage.

We are at a point where the most pressing need is the evolution of human consciousness. Without a major breakthrough in the practice of human values and a global spiritual awakening, new technologies will only make things worse. First, humans must evolve, then the new technologies can emerge.

In conclusion, I really don't know where things are going. I believe that Swami's mission is to facilitate the transformation (both individual and collective) that we are undeniably going through. Our duty is to stay focused on Him, be courageous, be honest, and as He says, "fight to the end and finish the game." I don't know where we're going, and I don't know how to get there, but I am very confident we will make it. How's that for optimism?

1 comment:

rayesh said...

The economic crisis is petty by comparison to the nature crunch. But they have the same cause.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 14th October 2008

This is nothing. Well, nothing by comparison to what’s coming. The financial crisis for which we must now pay so heavily prefigures the real collapse, when humanity bumps against its ecological limits.

As we goggle at the fluttering financial figures, a different set of numbers passes us by. On Friday, Pavan Sukhdev, the Deutsche Bank economist leading a European study on ecosystems, reported that we are losing natural capital worth between $2 trillion and $5 trillion every year, as a result of deforestation alone(1). The losses incurred so far by the financial sector amount to between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion. Sukhdev arrived at his figure by estimating the value of the services - such as locking up carbon and providing freshwater - that forests perform, and calculating the cost of either replacing them or living without them. The credit crunch is petty when compared to the nature crunch.

The two crises have the same cause. In both cases, those who exploit the resource have demanded impossible rates of return and invoked debts that can never be repaid. In both cases we denied the likely consequences. I used to believe that collective denial was peculiar to climate change. Now I know that it’s the first response to every impending dislocation.

Gordon Brown, for example, was as much in denial about financial realities as any toxic debt trader. In June last year, during his Mansion House speech, he boasted that 40 per cent of the world’s foreign equities are now traded here. “I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.”(2) The financial sector’s success had come about, he said, partly because the government had taken “a risk-based regulatory approach”. In the same hall three years before, he pledged that “in budget after budget I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers”(3). Can anyone, surveying this mess, now doubt the value of the precautionary principle?

Ecology and economy are both derived from the Greek word oikos - a house or dwelling. Our survival depends upon the rational management of this home: the space in which life can be sustained. The rules are the same in both cases. If you extract resources at a rate beyond the level of replenishment, your stock will collapse. That’s another noun which reminds us of the connection. The OED gives 69 definitions of stock. When it means a fund or store, the word evokes the trunk - or stock - of a tree, “from which the gains are an outgrowth”(4). Collapse occurs when you prune the tree so heavily that it dies. Ecology is the stock from which all wealth grows.

The two crises feed each other. As a result of Iceland’s financial collapse, it is now contemplating joining the European Union, which means surrendering its fishing grounds to the Common Fisheries Policy. Already the prime minister Geir Haarde has suggested that his countrymen concentrate on exploiting the ocean(5). The economic disaster will cause an ecological disaster.

Normally it’s the other way around. In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond shows how ecological crisis is often the prelude to social catatrosphe(6). The obvious example is Easter Island, where society disintegrated soon after the population reached its highest historical numbers, the last trees were cut down and the construction of stone monuments peaked. The island chiefs had competed to erect ever bigger statues. These required wood and rope (made from bark) for transport and extra food for the labourers. As the trees and soils on which the islanders depended disappeared, the population crashed and the survivors turned to cannibalism. (Let’s hope Iceland doesn’t go the same way.) Diamond wonders what the Easter islander who cut down the last palm tree might have thought. “Like modern loggers, did he shout ‘Jobs, not trees!’? Or: ‘Technology will solve our problems, never fear, we’ll find a substitute for wood.’? Or: ‘We don’t have proof that there aren’t palms somewhere else on Easter … your proposed ban on logging is premature and driven by fear-mongering’?”(7).

Ecological collapse, Diamond shows, is as likely to be the result of economic success as of economic failure. The Maya of Central America, for example, were among the most advanced and successful people of their time. But a combination of population growth, extravagant construction projects and poor land management wiped out between 90 and 99% of the population. The Mayan collapse was accelerated by “the competition among kings and nobles that led to a chronic emphasis on war and erecting monuments rather than on solving underlying problems”(8). Does any of this sound familiar?

Again, the largest monuments were erected just before the ecosystem crashed. Again, this extravagance was partly responsible for the collapse: trees were used for making plaster with which to decorate their temples. The plaster became thicker and thicker as the kings sought to outdo each other’s conspicuous consumption.

Here are some of the reasons why people fail to prevent ecological collapse. Their resources appear at first to be inexhaustible; a long-term trend of depletion is concealed by short-term fluctuations; small numbers of powerful people advance their interests by damaging those of everyone else; short-term profits trump long-term survival. The same, in all cases, can be said of the collapse of financial systems. Is this how human beings are destined to behave? If we cannot act until stocks - of either kind - start sliding towards oblivion, we’re knackered.

But one of the benefits of modernity is our ability to spot trends and predict results. If fish in a depleted ecosystem grow by 5% a year and the catch expands by 10% a year, the fishery will collapse. If the global economy keeps growing at 3% a year (or 1700% a century) it too will hit the wall.

I’m not going to suggest, as some scoundrel who shares a name with me did on these pages last year(9), that we should welcome a recession. But the financial crisis provides us with an opportunity to rethink this trajectory; an opportunity which is not available during periods of economic success. Governments restructuring their economies should read Herman Daly’s book Steady-State Economics(10).

As usual I haven’t left enough space to discuss this, so the details will have to wait for another column. Or you can read the summary published by the Sustainable Development Commission(11). But what Daly suggests is that nations which are already rich should replace growth (”more of the same stuff”) with development (”the same amount of better stuff”). A steady state economy has a constant stock of capital maintained by a rate of throughput no higher than the ecosystem can absorb. The use of resources is capped and the right to exploit them is auctioned. Poverty is addressed through the redistribution of wealth. The banks can lend only as much money as they possess.

Alternatively, we can persist in the magical thinking whose results have just come crashing home. The financial crisis shows what happens when we try to make the facts fit our desires. Now we must learn to live in the real world.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Richard Black, 10th October 2008. Nature loss ‘dwarfs bank crisis’. BBC Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7662565.stm

2. Gordon Brown, 20th June 2007. Speech to Mansion House. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2014.htm

3. Gordon Brown, 16th June 2004. Speech to Mansion House. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/1534.htm

4. Oxford English Dictionary, 1989. Second Edition.

5. Niklas Magnusson, 10th October 2008. Iceland Premier Tells Nation to Go Fishing After Banks Implode.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azZ189JG.1S8&refer=home

6. Jared Diamond, 2005. Collapse: how societies choose to survive or fail. Allen Lane, London.

7. Page 114.

8. Page 160.

9. George Monbiot, 9th October 2007. Bring on the Recession. The Guardian.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/09/bring-on-the-recession/

10. Herman E. Daly, 1991. Steady-State Economics - 2nd Edition. Island Press, Washington DC.

11. Herman E. Daly, 24th April 2008. A Steady-State Economy. Sustainable Development Commission. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Herman_Daly_thinkpiece.pdf