Nick Palmer wrote:
It's nice to have some heavyweight support from the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution!
Yes. The statement was intemperate but welcome. As I mentioned, Japanese
national television (NHK) and the Meteorological Agency appear to take it
for granted that global warming is real, and that is caused by human
activity. Their scientific papers they are probably more reticent, but when
the subject comes up in newscasts, it is treated as a matter of fact. The
other day the NHK discussed the recent record rainfall of 1.3 meters in 72
hours. They showed graphs demonstrating that incidents of intense rainfall
has increased to unprecedented levels in the last 10 years. They have
reliable data going back to around 1880.
In my opinion, there is no longer any question that the global climate is
changing. I cannot judge whether this is some natural cycle, or a long-term
trend in one direction. Of course I cannot judge whether it is caused by
human activity or some natural force. However, I would bet that the
consensus of experts who have studied this problem in detail is correct.
That is usually a safe bet.
As I have said before, the consensus of people who actually research cold
fusion is that the effect is real, and the ones who disagree have not
studied the subject, so their opinions do not count.
The informed consensus is that global warming is real, and if I were the
president I would act on that basis. Nearly every step we take to combat
global warming would be beneficial in other ways. The only exception would
be sequestering carbon. There is no economic benefit to doing that, and no
point, if global warming is not caused by CO2.
I also have no doubt whatever that the supply of oil has peaked and will
soon begin a rapid decline. This is much easier to understand than global
warming. I recommend Deffeyes book, "Hubbert's Peak." What is ironic about
this situation is that the oil industry will suffer the most if this
situation continues.
If the administration and the oil industry does not move quickly to the
forefront to promote conservation, the rapid development of plug-in
hybrids, and other steps to radically reduce oil consumption, the industry
will run through the remaining stocks too quickly, price itself out of the
market, and generate a huge angry backlash. Plus it is producing ideal
conditions for the commercial development of alternatives, such as
synthetic hydrogen based fuels generated from wind, solar or even fission.
If oil goes above $100 a barrel and stays there for several years,
synthetic fuel would be competitive. It will be developed and improved, and
the price will fall, so that later, even if oil later falls back to $50 per
barrel, synthetic fuel will remain competitive. It is in the oil industry's
best interests to reduce consumption now, stretch out supplies for an extra
30 years, and prevent this from happening. Since Bush and Cheney are from
the oil business, you would think they would understand what needs to be
done to rescue that business, but apparently they do not.
Here is a quote from the latest issue of the New Yorker:
"Last week, a study conducted by the National Commission on Energy Policy
identified a short list of possible problems -- political unrest in
Nigeria, terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia -- and showed that taking as
little as four per cent off the global oil market could cause prices to
soar to more than $161 a barrel."
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050926ta_talk_surowiecki
That translates to gasoline at $7.60 per gallon. If oil reaches this price
and stays there, sales will plummet worldwide and people will quickly find
alternative ways of getting around. (Oil is used almost exclusively for
transportation nowadays.) Years ago, at the time of the first oil crisis,
some economists and oil experts said that the demand for oil is inelastic.
Events soon prove them wrong. U.S. consumption fell from 18 million barrels
per day in 1979, to 15 million in 1983. It did not recover until 1996, and
if the price of oil had not fallen, and the downward trend had continued,
by now consumption would be approaching zero, because alternatives would be
cheaper. The "inelastic" claim strikes me as one of the craziest notions I
have ever read in the annals of business. Do these people really believe
that automobile drivers in the U.S. are incapable of forming car pools, or
leaving the SUV in the garage and driving the car instead? (Most families
with SUVs also have cars.) If the average commuter carpools one day a week
consumption will fall by 10% to 20%.
- Jed
