Peak Oil Is a Defunct Idea–But Does It Really Matter?
As shown in the graphic below, the concept of peak oil is pretty much dead and buried. In fact, there are supplies of all three fossil fuels to last indefinitely, as our technologies for extraction become more sophisticated.
Fortunately for our civilization, this is a moot point, as the costs of competitive solutions, particularly wind and solar, continue to fall, and advanced nuclear seems to be making progress. In other words, we most assuredly will be “leaving it in the ground,”–at least most of it, albeit not for the reasons many of us find so compelling, i.e., environmental stewardship.
This is particularly gratifying given that the incoming administration in the U.S. federal government appears to have identically zero interest in environmental matters. Our new Secretary of State (pictured above with Vladimir Putin) is an oil bazzionaire, the administrator of the EPA is a sworn enemy of the very organization he “leads,” the Secretary of Energy wants to abolish his entire Department, and the Secretary of the Interior can’t wait to rubber-stamp land leases to the oil and gas industry, making the G. W. Bush days look tame in comparison. (Not that it’s particularly germane, but the Secretary of Education is a huge investor in private education, and has worked hard to eviscerate our public schools, the Secretary of Labor is an opponent of labor laws, the Attorney General is an overt racist, and the list goes on from there.)
Back to the matter at hand, this is reminiscent of what (Pennsylvania ex-governer) Ed Rendell has repeatedly said in his speeches on the subject: “If you think major shifts in energy policy are going to happen in Washington, you’re an idiot.” And that was when Obama was in office and the Senate majority was Democrat. At this point, Washington is a joke when it comes to caring about the well-being of the American people, much less the world population.
But again, keeping it positive, none of this activity (criminal, treasonous, corrupt–call it what you will) matters too much, as the forces of pure market economics are about to take the reins. Needless to say, that can happen none too soon.
While I tend to agree with you Craig there is always the possibility that politics could overrule economics. Fossil fuels could receive further subsidies and renewable energy could be taxed and regulated out of existence. I don’t know how much more tampering with the market the country could withstand. I hope we don’t find that limit.
Craig,
One of the problems with the left is it can never admit when it’s wrong !
For years the left confidently predicted the immediate collapse of civilization due to nuclear weapons, then famine caused by overpopulation and drought, when these apocalyptic visions didn’t occur it was Peak oil that would definitely be the end of things as we knew them.
So when Exxon and the oil industry developed technology making “peak oil” another failed prediction, did the left ever pause, stop and reflect that maybe, just maybe, they were in error ?
Nope, not a chance! In an amazing feat of mental and moral gymnastics, the left not only found a reason to castigate Exxon and the oil industry for averting the predicted apocalypse, but discovered a new apocalyptic vision to avoid admitting they were ever in error.
The left continually need apocalyptic visions and doomsday prophesies to conceal their adherence to outdated failed economic doctrines and social ideology.
Thus comes the era of Watermelon politics ! A veneer of Green, but red all the way through!
Unfortunately, by hi-jacking the environmental movement, the old left considerably weakened the credibly of genuine and more moderate environmentalists who remained focused on practical solutions.
Craig, your latest post is a very good example of why the environmental movement is in conflict, retreat and disarray.
In general, the public is supportive of Clean Technology. What they don’t want is accompanying leftist propaganda. Your post is an example of political agenda in the disguise of environmental concern.
Of course you are entitled to express your political opinions and ideological philosophies, but when you wrap them in the cloak of environmentalist concern, you damage the credibility of the whole environmental movement.
That’s the problem with leftist ideologues. When they discover the general public reject their visions, they and their followers simply invent a new reality !
The era of disruptive, destructive ideologically driven public policy may well be over. The taxpayer no longer believes in funding failed projects and wonky economic agenda’s.
Germany is beginning to count the cost of a failed ‘Energiewende’, Spain and other European industrial nations are also discovering the price of pursuing impractical, ideologically driven energy solutions.
New technologies from the fossil fuel industry such as the post-combustion carbon capture system installed at the Parish Generating Station, are causing a re-think about the continuing value of coal.
But this billion-dollar facility has been derided by the green left, who actually demand it be shut down, not because the technology doesn’t work, but because it may prove to extend the life of the coal-fired power plants and provide competition for Wind and Solar.
The public has grown weary of this sort of hypocrisy. Regrettably, this makes gaining support and acceptance for
genuinely beneficial green technology that much harder.
Carbon capture technology is still at and early stage of development. The various technologies haven’t been without failures. Starting with Trump, the new administration is existed to maintain the impetus for this sort of technology, since it will not only retain coal mine jobs, but expand employment in the coal industry and general engineering.
Craig, the point of my reply to your post is in the form of a plea.
Look back through your post with an open mind, and see if without the 90% of political animosity and rhetoric, your message might have been just as effective or even more so ?
How much fossil fuel does Russia control?