The Economist acknowledges that the IEA acknowledges peak oil

by Jerome a Paris
Sat Dec 12th, 2009 at 07:05:58 AM EST


The IEA puts a date on peak oil production

FATIH BIROL, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), believes that if no big new discoveries are made, "the output of conventional oil will peak in 2020 if oil demand grows on a business-as-usual basis." Coming from the band of geologists and former oil-industry hands who believe that the world is facing an imminent shortage of oil, this would be unremarkable. But coming from the IEA, the source of closely watched annual predictions about world energy markets, it is a new and striking claim.

I don't know what's most striking: the claim the Economist refers to, the fact that it's actually mentioned by the article, or the fact that it's mentioned with so little prominence.

In other words, this is like the articles about asset bubbles 4 years ago: there's enough publicly available information out there that there is little doubt about the underlying reality, the newspapers will be able to claim that they did cover the topic appropriately, and the topic can safely continue to be ignored by politicians, pundits and deciders. The topic is dismissed and neutralised and no policy conclusions need to be reached - and in particular no change to the system - and to the profits made by the incumbents and insiders need to be made.

Funnily enough:


The IEA reckons that co-ordinated action to restrict the increase in global temperatures to 2ºC will restrict global demand for oil to 89m b/d in 2030, compared with 105m b/d if no action is taken. That, Mr Birol says, "could push back the peak of production, as it would take longer to produce the lower-cost oil that remains to be developed." Action on climate change may yet save the world from an early supply crunch.

If any action or event is going to save the world from catastrophe, it's much more likely that fossil fuel scarcity will reduce carbon emissions, by reducing economic "growth" as we know it (and, possibly, but we can't put our hopes on this, because there simply won't be enough carbon around to burn). The good news is that the solutions to both problems (climate change and resource scarcity) are pretty much the same: energy efficiency, renewables, a re-definition of what economic propserity is. The bad news is that there's still a large consensus amongst serious people to do as little as possible to actually implement these.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
So how could we tell whether a future decline was the result of climate change or peak oil?  At first it seems a straightforward question, but consider that the causes of last year's oil price spike are still disputed, and the fact that people are still arguing about exactly what amount of climate change recorded is due to CO2 vs aerosols etc.
by njh on Sun Dec 13th, 2009 at 06:22:04 AM EST
Peak oil means the maximum level of production that will ever be reached. Peak oil does not cause any decline, it's rather being past it that necessarily means experiencing a decline from that peak level.

Now, maybe your question was if the decline will be due to climate change or to scarcity. At the moment, I'd say hardly any decline can be attributed to climate change fighting, except in countries that have either heavily taxed carbon emission (Sweden), or strongly subsidised alternative energy production.

"Few can believe that suffering, especially by others, is in vain. - Galbraith"

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sun Dec 13th, 2009 at 06:30:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant decline of 'western civilisation'.
by njh on Sun Dec 13th, 2009 at 05:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A rule of thumb would be to look at the price spikes (ex taxes) indicating oil shocks. If we have many such price spikes, we are supply-constrained (that is, production is dropping because we cannot get more oil out of the ground). If we have few such price spikes, we are demand-constrained (that is, production is dropping because people are not allowed to consume as much oil due to global warming regulations).

An individual spike may be put down to speculators, but when you have five or ten in the space of a decade and a half, it's a trend.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 13th, 2009 at 10:22:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
God, the comments over there are depressing.

What a bunch of Villagers.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 13th, 2009 at 11:21:08 AM EST

...it is evident that the production of whale oil followed a bell-curve according to Hubbert's
theory, modelled with a simple Gaussian curve, albeit showing strong oscillations. These data are in excellent
agreement with the report on Right Whale abundance by Baker and Clapham (Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Vol.19 No.7 July 2004), indicating that the fall in
production after the peak was caused by depletion
and not by the switching to different fuels.

Article 407 in http://www.energiekrise.de/e/aspo_news/aspo/newsletter045.pdf

by asdf on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 05:58:27 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]