I called Part 1 ‘OUR INABILITY TO CONSERVE 1% PROVES SOMETHING’ because after reading a particular passage I thought, can we not conserve our spending or driving or overall energy use by a measly 1 per cent in order to preserve, for example, Alaska, one of the most pristine, natural, beautiful areas in the entire universe?
Part 2 was entitled ‘SAVE ALASKA WITHOUT HAVING A BRAIN TRANSPLANT’ because the oil saved by two conservation methods -easily within our grasp - dwarfs what Alaska has to offer energy-wise.
‘SMALL MINDEDNESS WILL FOREVER THWART BIG DEEDS’ came to mind as a title for Part 3 because, though two methods of conservation related to automobiles would save Alaska from oil exploration, drilling and large scale degradation, many North Americans would chose faster acceleration over conservation.
And after reading the three concluding statements of the book I thought, ‘WE’LL PUT OUR HEAD IN THE SAND UNTIL THE NEXT CRISIS’ sums up my feelings about our willingness to reduce oil consumption (and subsequent carbon emissions that promote global warming and climate instability) in North America.
The authors wrote the following on their final page:
Oil consumption will continue to rise through 2025, with the developing world claiming the largest share of that increase.
Oil production is nearing its peak, which could come as early as 2010.
The world now has to make the choice of whether to work toward weaning itself from oil dependence or putting its head in the sand and waiting until resources are scarce.
About their first point, we know China and India are eager for a better lifestyle and as production of consumer goods increases in those countries they will rely mainly on fossil fuels.
Hardly anyone can blame them for desiring a richer lifestyle (i.e., bigger this, better that, one of everything for everyone, bling without end), especially any North America who has enjoyed more consumer goods on the back of cheap oil for the last 60 - 80 years than can be counted or stored easily in a basement or double-car garage.
And though many now know better on this continent, ‘most of the major oil companies are giving lip service to the push for renewables and hydrogen, if they mention it at all.’
“We expect conventional fuels will remain the dominant energy source, at least through the mid-century.” -- Lee R. Raymond, ExxonMobil Chairman, Feb., 2003
Though the damage and cost to human health and the environment is well-documented (e.g., ‘The US Environmental Protection Agency reported in 2001 that the annual health impact from nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides - chiefly from older power plants) is 10,800 premature deaths and over 1.5 million lost work days. damage to our environment from acid rain attacks soils and plants, and deposits nitrogen in critical bodies of water.’ pg. 275) North America will predominantly follow a business as usual economic philosophy.
We need look no farther than the almost nonexistent US and Canadian commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions made recently in Copenhagen.
One way to suppress emissions and encourage the growth of alternative fuels is to act now as if we’ve reached peak oil.
If North Americans were charged more now for gasoline and other petroleum products and monies were directed toward alternative fuel production not only might conservation take on a more important meaning (e.g., “Save fuel, save Alaska”) but we would be somewhat more prepared for the time peak oil actually arrives.
Something said in the book makes me think it could arrive at any time and we wouldn’t even know it.
This from pg. 281:
One of the reasons that no one can be sure how much oil is actually left in the ground is the politics of reporting oil reserves. Many suspect that OPEC countries pump up their estimated reserves because each country’s production quotas are based on the size of their reserves. In fact, in 1988 and 1990, many Middle-Eastern countries increased their reserve totals even though there were no new oil discoveries. I.e., (it was reported) oil reserves jumped 39 percent from 1986 to 1990 - with “no new oil discoveries.”
So, will we wean ourselves from oil dependence, conserve as if it means something (and it does), embrace a live small philosophy, or bury our heads in the sand (in Canada’s case, in “the tar sands”) until resources -- and options -- are scarce?
I predict the majority will wait until they’re told they are in the middle of the next crisis.
In summary, the book The Complete Idiot’s Guide to The Politics of Oil was worth the price of admission (bargain bin at Chapters), made me think that a live small philosophy is the order of the day and conservation is a much finer, braver more-needed word than consumption.
***
Can we continue business as usual?
Have we reached the tipping point?
Are we past the tipping point?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment