Yves here. I’m preserving the original OilPrice headline since it invokes one of the themes of a new pro-fossil-fuels messaging campaign, that migrating to cleaner energy sources is contrary to energy security. It’s not hard to see that message hitting home with a lot of voters, particularly ones that live in suburbs or other area with poor public transportation, or in parts of the world where there’s not enough sun for rooftop solar to be anything more than a secondary power source.
One reason the oil, specifically Shell messaging will strike home at least in Europe is the respite from super high energy prices came largely from government subsidies. Those will be reduced or even gone next winter. Bearing the full higher energy cost will make many consumers want relief, climate change impact be damned. Of course, the obvious expedient of rolling back sanctions on Russia is off the table.
But another, more broadly applicable reason is the lack of adequate planning for changing the mix of energy sources. Too many things are done in an uncoordinated manner at a low level, too often the result of the lobbying of various green energy interest, as opposed to a look at the merits. In addition, any adequate program would have a point of view on what sort of living, schooling, and community arrangements we should be moving towards. But the US seems not to tolerate planning controls much more stringent than zoning. Too many Green New Deal types treat important issues like grid adequacy and meeting base load needs as problems that will solve themselves. The “too much vision, too little technical plans” orientation of a lot of energy transition advocates is enough to make ordinary citizens worry about where this is all going, which then enables Big Oil to play on security fears.
As with everything that is embedded in a system, emergent challenges need to be addressed in terms of the entire system. Energy is foundational to the economic system hence to the operation of the world system not only economically but also socially and politically. Addressing economics issues often founders owing to the bias of powerful interests at the level of the political aspect of the system.
Naked Capitalism
Energy Transition Advocates Get A Reality Check
Iriva Slav, OIlprice
5 comments:
The system requires terawatts of chemical energy in the form of fossil fuels. Without those terawatts we can kiss the system goodbye.
Is that reality check enough for you?
Right. There are issues that the greens are not addressing sufficiently regarding the transition.
This is a huge systemic issue that may be heading for a mass culling if nukes or pandemics don't get humanity first. Or some combo of them.
As I have already said in previous comments, the public is not ready for governments to do what it takes to actually address the apparent emergency that climate scientists are saying is near the tipping point. The recent UN report is not encouraging. So this is not only an engineering issue but also a political one with large social implications, like survival in addition to affecting prosperity and the accustomed lifestyle of many, especially in developed countries.
1. The public will never be ready if they are fed hopeful fantasies. Fossil fuels are indispensable for maintaining civilization as we know it.
2. The public are not in charge.
1. The public will never be ready if they are fed hopeful fantasies. Fossil fuels are indispensable for maintaining civilization as we know it.
Right. There are two competing fantasies. First is the extreme green transition by going cold turkey. The second is so-called market-based solutions that play on ignorance.
2. The public are not in charge.
Right again. Liberal "democracy" is not democracy defined aptly as government of, by, and for the people. The Roman republic is the template for modern (18th c.) liberal democracy. Look what happened to that. First, it was dominated by the rich and powerful, then it became an empire, and finally, it collapsed just like all empires do eventually.
The façade of "democracy" is a key part of the elite's playbook for maintaining and extending domination.
If the population dropped from what it is today, to a sustainable number over the course of 100 years - that wouldn't be a tragedy in terms of natural lifespan.
But our behavior is to have too many progeny.
Post a Comment