IEA Sounds Peak Oil Alarm
by Dominic Muren, Philadelphia, USA on 07.15.07
Like other eco-topics -- climate change, species endangerment, ocean ecosystem collapse -- Peak Oil has had it's share of detractors. Some cite Russian research claiming a geological mechanism is replenishing stores. Others contend that our supplies are so vast that they might as well be infinite. Regardless of their camp, skeptics of the peak oil concept have had to draw from a shrinking pool of watchdog groups for studies which matched their assertions.
Last week, that pool got a whole lot smaller, as the International Energy Agency, a major international petroleum market assessment group released their "Medium Term Oil Market Report".
While the report is written from a fairly optimistic point of view, the real facts that it discloses mean big trouble for the world market in cheap oil. Andrew Leonard, a writer for Salon, summed the report up this way:
The problem is not that the world is running out of oil, but that right now, offshore oil rigs are scarce and expensive, skilled labor is tight, transport infrastructure is limited, and political considerations such as "resource nationalism" in states such as Venezuela and Russia and geopolitical risk in Iran and Nigeria are hampering investment and development. Logistics are the real problem, the report seems to be saying, and not the actual amount of oil in the ground.
For consumers, that will be troublesome in two ways. First, the "...effective plateau, rather than a peak..." in supply that the IEA talks about will cause prices of plastic items, gasoline, and of products in general which need fuel for delivery will climb as demand continues to outstrip supply. Second, prices of these items will be more volatile in general, because the supply is now more determined by human and political problems, rather than geological restrictions.
The upside of all of this is that committed TreeHuggers are one step ahead of the game. Even thought it's nearly impossible to completely eliminate your dependency on petroleum, every little bit you do means more safety from the thousand cut death that peak oil promises. If you're stuck for ideas, TreeHugger is here to help:
- Switch to wood heat to eliminate the need for fuel oil or natural gas.
- Cut your car use by commuting on a bike, or making grocery runs on an Xtracycle
- Buy as much as you can locally, since these prices don't have such a high percentage of fuel factored in, they won't be as volitile.
Peak oil may be a looming disaster waiting to happen, but you don't have to be caught offgaurd when it hits. The Boyscouts had it right: Be Prepared. :: Salon on the IEA :: The IEA Report
Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State energy consumptions, demographics and State energy offices, State Taxes and more...
http://www.eredux.com/states/
This is why wood heat won't save us:
Nate Hagens, at the Oil Drum, just (july 11th) did an exhaustive analysis of heating with wood:
"Warmth and protection from cold is among the most basic of our human needs – quite simply, there are not enough trees for an annual growth harvest to provide more than a fraction of our current heating needs."
"So the good news is if we were really cold and sans fossil fuels, we could chop down trees for at least 4 years before the US would resemble Easter Island"
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2683
"the peak oil concept" whats that? thats almost the same thing as calling it a theory, and those two things it is not. Here it comes guys, the proof.
wood heat will also cause increased human health issues due to the larger particulate concentrations.
We're all going to die! Aaaaaggghhhh!!!
Yeah wood heating is a terrible suggestion. Why not suggest a windmill and solar power? That's more sustainable than wood heating.
Yes, I think that peak oil is here--demand keeps going up, and supply keeps going down. There are many local effects of this. For example, for many years approximately 40% of the Mexican budget has been paid with oil money. About 2010 or so, Mexico will have no oil to export, and will become a major importer of oil in the following years.
What I fail to see in these articles is putting the problem in context and in risk assessment.
An example of risk assessment would be the use of Chinese Silkworm missles against tankers in the Persian Gulf. This could effectively close the Gulf to all comercial shipping for six months to a year. I don't lie awake nights worring about this, and George Bush doesn't either.
An example of ignoring context is the likelyhood that the world economy is likely to go into the tank in the coming year. The streets of America (and other countries) will be crammed with inoperative cars as the owners cannot afford to by gasoline.
None of this might happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.