Here is the video:
And here is a link if the player doesn't work in your browser: GreenSkeptic on FOX Business
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
09 May 2011
Get Rid of All Energy Subsidies: The Green Skeptic on FOX Business
I was on FOX Business this morning with Stuart Varney & Co, taking about oil subsidies and arguing for a balanced use of fossil fuels and alternative energy.
Here is the video:
And here is a link if the player doesn't work in your browser: GreenSkeptic on FOX Business
Here is the video:
And here is a link if the player doesn't work in your browser: GreenSkeptic on FOX Business
28 October 2010
Why We Deserve to Lose (The Race for a New Green Economy)
No offenths, as the 4-year-old son of a friend used to say before offering a critical observation, but we suck.
And we deserve to lose the race for a new green economy to China. Why? Because we have systematically destroyed our opportunity to lead through bad decisions and illusion, sold ourselves to China, and blanketed ourselves with cheap and toxic products bought from China.
(No wonder the Chinese are laughing at us in this political ad Joshua Brown wrote about on The ReformedBroker.com this weekend. Of course, as Josh pointed out in his post, China needs us as much as we need them.)
Then there is this disturbing item from an editorial in the New York Times this morning: "Until a little over three weeks ago, the Interior Department had approved more than 73,000 oil and gas leases since 2005, but only one offshore wind energy project and not a single solar project."
Don't get me wrong, I support domestic oil and gas development -- both offshore and on land -- as long as it is conducted using the highest environmental standards and safeguards.
But why has it so long to approve a project like Cape Wind off the coast of Massachusetts while oil and gas leasing has accelerated?
Two things have been happening since 2005 when Congress directed the US Department of the Interior "to approve enough wind, solar and other projects on public land to produce 10,000 megawatts by 2015 — enough to heat, cool and light five million homes."
The first is the so-called "Haliburton loophole," which exempted natural gas drilling companies from the Clean Water Act after the companies raised a "frackas" over having to disclose chemicals used in their fracking process. They claimed it would endanger their proprietary formulas.
A September 2009 report issued by the General Accountability Office (GAO) found that 28 percent of drilling permits issued from 2006 to 2008 (about 6,100 applications) were expedited by the Bureau of Land Management through this categorical exclusion.
Here's an interesting list of exemptions the oil and gas industry currently enjoys from the Federal government compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Any one of these can help accelerate the approval process.
By comparison, the Cape Wind project was subject to meeting a plethora of state and federal agency standards and required almost nine years to get a final permit.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, to his credit, has approved six large-scale solar power projects on public lands in California and Nevada, and has moved to close the loophole and reform the process for reviewing all projects on lands under Federal management.
But renewables also continue to be subjected to unclear and inconsistent signals in terms of subsidies and tax credits, which makes investors and project developers wary of going too deep.
As the Times editorial asserts, "When the production tax credit expired at the end of 2003, development of newly installed wind capacity fell from 1,687 megawatts to less than 400 the following year."
Meanwhile, as an Environmental Law Institute study last year illustrated, fossil fuel development benefited from approximately $72 billion in subsidies and tax credits over a seven-year period (2002-2008), while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion overt the same period.
This kind of unlevel playing field and unfair advantage is just another reason why we have already lost the race with China and others on renewables.
In fact, we better stop thinking about it as a race at all and begin thinking about how best to cooperate with our competitors before we are left out of this new economic opportunity altogether.
And we deserve to lose the race for a new green economy to China. Why? Because we have systematically destroyed our opportunity to lead through bad decisions and illusion, sold ourselves to China, and blanketed ourselves with cheap and toxic products bought from China.
(No wonder the Chinese are laughing at us in this political ad Joshua Brown wrote about on The ReformedBroker.com this weekend. Of course, as Josh pointed out in his post, China needs us as much as we need them.)
Then there is this disturbing item from an editorial in the New York Times this morning: "Until a little over three weeks ago, the Interior Department had approved more than 73,000 oil and gas leases since 2005, but only one offshore wind energy project and not a single solar project."
Don't get me wrong, I support domestic oil and gas development -- both offshore and on land -- as long as it is conducted using the highest environmental standards and safeguards.
But why has it so long to approve a project like Cape Wind off the coast of Massachusetts while oil and gas leasing has accelerated?
Two things have been happening since 2005 when Congress directed the US Department of the Interior "to approve enough wind, solar and other projects on public land to produce 10,000 megawatts by 2015 — enough to heat, cool and light five million homes."
The first is the so-called "Haliburton loophole," which exempted natural gas drilling companies from the Clean Water Act after the companies raised a "frackas" over having to disclose chemicals used in their fracking process. They claimed it would endanger their proprietary formulas.
A September 2009 report issued by the General Accountability Office (GAO) found that 28 percent of drilling permits issued from 2006 to 2008 (about 6,100 applications) were expedited by the Bureau of Land Management through this categorical exclusion.
Here's an interesting list of exemptions the oil and gas industry currently enjoys from the Federal government compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Any one of these can help accelerate the approval process.
By comparison, the Cape Wind project was subject to meeting a plethora of state and federal agency standards and required almost nine years to get a final permit.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, to his credit, has approved six large-scale solar power projects on public lands in California and Nevada, and has moved to close the loophole and reform the process for reviewing all projects on lands under Federal management.
But renewables also continue to be subjected to unclear and inconsistent signals in terms of subsidies and tax credits, which makes investors and project developers wary of going too deep.
As the Times editorial asserts, "When the production tax credit expired at the end of 2003, development of newly installed wind capacity fell from 1,687 megawatts to less than 400 the following year."
Meanwhile, as an Environmental Law Institute study last year illustrated, fossil fuel development benefited from approximately $72 billion in subsidies and tax credits over a seven-year period (2002-2008), while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion overt the same period.
This kind of unlevel playing field and unfair advantage is just another reason why we have already lost the race with China and others on renewables.
In fact, we better stop thinking about it as a race at all and begin thinking about how best to cooperate with our competitors before we are left out of this new economic opportunity altogether.
22 June 2010
Dark Ecosystems Nurtured by Oil (NYT)
"In 2003, the National Research Council released a comprehensive study, 'Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates and Effects.' The 265-page report paints a global portrait of the petrochemical flows, both natural and unnatural. It turns out that the largest contributors [of petrochemicals in the ocean] far and away are the natural seeps, like those across the bottom of the gulf that power the dark ecosystems."
Of course, as one commentator pointed out, the BP Deepwater Horizon spill has leaked "an amount equal to 75 percent of the annual natural seepage worldwide, except it has occurred in 2 months in one specific location."
20 May 2010
Green Skeptic on StockTwits TV with Howard Lindzon
I'm in San Diego and dropped by the StockTwits West studio to sit down with Howard Lindzon to talk about cleantech, oil and gas, and just have some fun:
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uctr4HEtxPJ3qSD4NTTthWUOWzNByBwfVInjOsSyDCQxY7RPecnErgDGJU6uaf7vfvwFUp9MOjKskRedGbJNcFmeFaYH58GozephkgRSPRacpOxBLzP3R4KL-GgvJjjxDPltn2i9J9gkPiDzTQHDE=s0-d)
18 May 2010
BP: Latest Effort Captures 1,000 Barrels of Leaking Oil Per Day
According to a report in yesterday's Environmental Leader, BP successfully connected a mile-long tube into a broken pipe at the Deepwater Horizon well to start capturing some of the leaking oil, which is being siphoned to a ship at the surface.
BP said it is capturing about 1,000 barrels per day in the Gulf of Mexico, a drop in the bucket compared to the 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons/795,000 liters) it estimates to be leaking daily.
Read the full article here: BP Roundup – Latest Effort Captures 1,000 Barrels of Leaking Oil Per Day
The question is, do those estimates underestimate the amount of oil gushing from the sea floor?
Some scientists believe that oil is gushing out at a rate of somewhere between 25,000 to 80,000 barrels a day. The New York Times reported over the weekend that huge plumes of oil -- some 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick -- have been found underwater in the Gulf.
BP has resisted efforts to determine the size of the leak, preferring to focus on containment efforts. They hope to have the leak stopped by the end of the week.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tvYM1NZMNGkpaoGV8d2Gq7oBYf4li-ZxPbAbhVYaDyxx9Yu5A52ic9erWpHhcW99v8F8rzSAlkoYK6PWrE6T4NSOrMgjVEBheiEQPayDrFScVMBTQBgp1f6HzDNVkluJN6SKgKAhRSprgIKf51lTgn=s0-d)
BP said it is capturing about 1,000 barrels per day in the Gulf of Mexico, a drop in the bucket compared to the 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons/795,000 liters) it estimates to be leaking daily.
Read the full article here: BP Roundup – Latest Effort Captures 1,000 Barrels of Leaking Oil Per Day
The question is, do those estimates underestimate the amount of oil gushing from the sea floor?
Some scientists believe that oil is gushing out at a rate of somewhere between 25,000 to 80,000 barrels a day. The New York Times reported over the weekend that huge plumes of oil -- some 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick -- have been found underwater in the Gulf.
BP has resisted efforts to determine the size of the leak, preferring to focus on containment efforts. They hope to have the leak stopped by the end of the week.
30 April 2010
Two Coasts Tell Tale of Where We Are
What happened on two coasts in the US the past two weeks speaks to our energy reality. The two coasts tell us where we are.
Both events illustrate the conundrum in which we find ourselves early in the 21st Century and very early in the transition from one primary fuel source to the next.
First the good news: Consent was given by US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar on Wednesday for Cape Wind, the long-stalled 468 MW wind farm project off the coast of Massachusetts. The project was held up by local interests concerned about the appearance of a line of 130 wind turbines located miles off the coast in the Horseshoe Shoal area of Nantucket Sound.
The second was the explosion, sinking, and subsequent leaking of a deep water oil facility last week, which by some estimates is now spewing 5,000 barrels (200,000 gallons) a day into the Gulf of Mexico from below the ocean floor. This spill is set to threaten the Gulf Coast, just five years after Hurricane Katrina devastated that region.
One of these events represents the future of our energy production: Cleaner, renewable, and with a free resource feed stock (the wind). The other represents a variation on the past: Dirty, dangerous, and dependent upon a dwindling feed stock (fossil fuels).
What people forget, however, whether celebrating the victory or decrying the disaster, is that we are not in a position to switch from the old to the new like a light switch in the kitchen.
We are very likely going to need the old to help foster the development of the new -- and our dependence upon the old isn't going away any time soon. Furthermore, because oil is running out, we are likely to see more risky and dangerous ventures to access what's left in the immediate future.
Extracting fossil fuels is a risky and dangerous business, as we've seen with this drilling disaster and last month's coal mine disaster in West Virginia. The sooner we can foster the transition off fossil fuels and to cleaner, renewable source the better off we will be.
But let's not forget where we are in that transition: we are just at the very beginning.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v1URrzLyTfXRu5S8Nl3zZcfHM5Bz2MgWWWeKS_fceBmeQWGAnBKo16-zbQufYGGQo5GgDTu2kSNSdC5w1ylen_OSyGmkoho7mtXJXGw_dLy80iijz9fw30FQpD4WDLDuVWKbeLMO2A6Ts4hx3DHeIR=s0-d)
Both events illustrate the conundrum in which we find ourselves early in the 21st Century and very early in the transition from one primary fuel source to the next.
First the good news: Consent was given by US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar on Wednesday for Cape Wind, the long-stalled 468 MW wind farm project off the coast of Massachusetts. The project was held up by local interests concerned about the appearance of a line of 130 wind turbines located miles off the coast in the Horseshoe Shoal area of Nantucket Sound.
The second was the explosion, sinking, and subsequent leaking of a deep water oil facility last week, which by some estimates is now spewing 5,000 barrels (200,000 gallons) a day into the Gulf of Mexico from below the ocean floor. This spill is set to threaten the Gulf Coast, just five years after Hurricane Katrina devastated that region.
One of these events represents the future of our energy production: Cleaner, renewable, and with a free resource feed stock (the wind). The other represents a variation on the past: Dirty, dangerous, and dependent upon a dwindling feed stock (fossil fuels).
What people forget, however, whether celebrating the victory or decrying the disaster, is that we are not in a position to switch from the old to the new like a light switch in the kitchen.
We are very likely going to need the old to help foster the development of the new -- and our dependence upon the old isn't going away any time soon. Furthermore, because oil is running out, we are likely to see more risky and dangerous ventures to access what's left in the immediate future.
Extracting fossil fuels is a risky and dangerous business, as we've seen with this drilling disaster and last month's coal mine disaster in West Virginia. The sooner we can foster the transition off fossil fuels and to cleaner, renewable source the better off we will be.
But let's not forget where we are in that transition: we are just at the very beginning.
10 March 2010
Federal Subsidies Visualized
Timothy B. Hurst posted on this earlier this week on The Energy Collective, and it is worth checking out his post and the comments: Think Renewables Need Huge Subsidies?
11 November 2008
More On What's Next for the New Green Economy
I've been thinking more about last week's panel discussion, "What's Next for the Green Economy?"
A few of the questions made me think about President-elect Obama and what he'll be facing when he takes office in January.
So I thought I'd try to answer some of the questions here and, in a future post, I'll offer my two cents to Mr. Obama.
Will a Green Economy rebound faster from financial turmoil?
I think it will, if only because the concerns that are driving the green wave are not going away anytime soon: dependence on foreign oil, stemming climate change, and high fuel prices.
(On the last point, while price per barrel is down in the mid-60s today; it averages out around $109 per barrel for the year. As energy analyst Gregor MacDonald points out in this post, the average price over time is more important for commodities like oil.)
Will consumers stick with Green during tough times?
Tough one. Depends upon how hard hit they are where they keep their wallets. The good news is, companies like Wal-Mart have already made commitments to go green and are making money at it.
It will be tough to maintain momentum if the costs of greener goods don't come down or if manufacturers stick to luxury green items. Overall, however, there are gains in green stuff like organic foods and some consumer goods, such as Energy Star-rated appliances. (TVs should see a bump-up, with the changes coming in the new year concerning the switch to digital signals.)
What is the next administration really facing that's not being talked about in the media?
How to pay for the huge transformation from old, dying economy to new green economy. You can't nickel and dime your way there, but with the War in Iraq (and Afghanistan) still going on and $700B bailout of banks and potentially more for automakers. Where ya gonna get the money?
Does America need a energy technology bubble just like the information technology bubble?
Yes. Bubbles can be good. As author of Pop! Why Bubbles Are Great for the Economy, has written, "the excitement of a new technology interacts with some of the more unstable components of America's character—boundless optimism, a tendency toward entrepreneurship, a tolerance of creative destruction, and greed—to produce a kind of mania."
We could use a little of that boundless optimism today. Dontcha' think?
When the bubble bursts, we'll be left with a new green infrastructure that will keep the new green economy going.
And it may just save our assets.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sTU_L6YsJsAVglpQuVCqFx4WB-6X6j4-spDpQ9_spRHgapfnthBnUCNLXXeJdHsDFKLIOZRYxEqW9O28VUuWoNjPd_Mrqn82uItUmwvusRm0QAGyI737pcIUWUD8XGiGmWOHA9B7H6q8KvHKgnL5o=s0-d)
A few of the questions made me think about President-elect Obama and what he'll be facing when he takes office in January.
So I thought I'd try to answer some of the questions here and, in a future post, I'll offer my two cents to Mr. Obama.
Will a Green Economy rebound faster from financial turmoil?
I think it will, if only because the concerns that are driving the green wave are not going away anytime soon: dependence on foreign oil, stemming climate change, and high fuel prices.
(On the last point, while price per barrel is down in the mid-60s today; it averages out around $109 per barrel for the year. As energy analyst Gregor MacDonald points out in this post, the average price over time is more important for commodities like oil.)
Will consumers stick with Green during tough times?
Tough one. Depends upon how hard hit they are where they keep their wallets. The good news is, companies like Wal-Mart have already made commitments to go green and are making money at it.
It will be tough to maintain momentum if the costs of greener goods don't come down or if manufacturers stick to luxury green items. Overall, however, there are gains in green stuff like organic foods and some consumer goods, such as Energy Star-rated appliances. (TVs should see a bump-up, with the changes coming in the new year concerning the switch to digital signals.)
What is the next administration really facing that's not being talked about in the media?
How to pay for the huge transformation from old, dying economy to new green economy. You can't nickel and dime your way there, but with the War in Iraq (and Afghanistan) still going on and $700B bailout of banks and potentially more for automakers. Where ya gonna get the money?
Does America need a energy technology bubble just like the information technology bubble?
Yes. Bubbles can be good. As author of Pop! Why Bubbles Are Great for the Economy, has written, "the excitement of a new technology interacts with some of the more unstable components of America's character—boundless optimism, a tendency toward entrepreneurship, a tolerance of creative destruction, and greed—to produce a kind of mania."
We could use a little of that boundless optimism today. Dontcha' think?
When the bubble bursts, we'll be left with a new green infrastructure that will keep the new green economy going.
And it may just save our assets.
29 September 2008
If Oil Tumbles Lower, Will It Take Green Energy with It?
This is not a bottle of Talisker. Image via WikipediaToday is Monday, September 29, 2008, a day that will live, well, infamy is not harsh enough for it...the bottom fell out and the Dow dropped to 10,365.45, -777.68 (or -6.98 percent.)
Meanwhile, November crude fell $10.52, or 9.84 percent, to settle at $96.37 a barrel, trading from $95.04 to $106.91.
Could we be heading for $80/barrel? And, if so, what then?
Will it take renewable energy with it?
Or will there be enough of a bounce from renewable energy tax credits to keep up momentum? (That is, if Congress gets back to the energy tax credits Bill again this session! See "Lame Duck and Cover" below.)
Will $80/barrel oil cause a splurge that sends demand sky high and the price back up with it?
And what happens to the new green economy now?
These are just a few of the questions with which I am wrestling this afternoon.
And now to pour that glass of Talisker.
(Note: The photo above is decidedly not a bottle of Talisker.)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s1z9pOV_zKZSodqQ259Fij7Ena2EihFygCV0ULK6oJUHvqiWG3b8BmNXx86pwXDRvNM7yQ0_U2to60VCT38Itn5hddQjWp2ZMggbZi50ds1G9JzAzafqPkel_koAbisV_2r5_jfFY3IrJpLj8YWIv8=s0-d)
23 August 2008
Clean Tech: WSJ-NBC News Poll Suggests Americans Want it All When it Comes to Energy
US voters want solar and wind energy, but that doesn't mean they are against drilling for more oil, according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll released this week.
According to a WSJ article by Stephen Power on Thursday, "72% of respondents said developing alternative energy sources could 'accomplish a great deal.'
"When the question was asked another way, 61% of respondents chose 'developing alternative energy sources' as the step that should receive the most emphasis from policy makers."
And yet, "twenty-five percent responded that 'exploring and drilling for oil' in the U.S. should get the most emphasis, and 12% picked 'having Americans conserve and use less oil.'
"When asked whether expanding areas for drilling for oil off coastal states was a step in the right direction, 63% said it was, with 44% saying it would accomplish 'a great deal.' Only 27% said that allowing more drilling off coastal states was a step in 'the wrong direction.'
"Asked about building more nuclear plants, 53% said it was a step in the right direction. Thirty-one percent said it was a step 'in the wrong direction.'"
Congress will come back to Washington in a few weeks and head into a debate about continuing alternative-energy tax credits and lifting the 27-year drilling ban off US coasts.
The poll suggests a need for a balanced approach. Hope Congress is listening.
For more on the poll: http://tinyurl.com/5cf6go
(Composed on BlackBerry; links to come; updated 8/30)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sGko3_eNGMaLb8q_JOeYrRGg0UiRb9TLy_Esi8UkDEuGFAx8qCTcWEiBa0Hdw-phUqvDN204F-CwWAbe0rNf4cSyb14cUSDdit2JGjK9nIPcymc3NmwjwW7gakglaB2X-DUi7UmGE6wLlPby9G0rI=s0-d)
According to a WSJ article by Stephen Power on Thursday, "72% of respondents said developing alternative energy sources could 'accomplish a great deal.'
"When the question was asked another way, 61% of respondents chose 'developing alternative energy sources' as the step that should receive the most emphasis from policy makers."
And yet, "twenty-five percent responded that 'exploring and drilling for oil' in the U.S. should get the most emphasis, and 12% picked 'having Americans conserve and use less oil.'
"When asked whether expanding areas for drilling for oil off coastal states was a step in the right direction, 63% said it was, with 44% saying it would accomplish 'a great deal.' Only 27% said that allowing more drilling off coastal states was a step in 'the wrong direction.'
"Asked about building more nuclear plants, 53% said it was a step in the right direction. Thirty-one percent said it was a step 'in the wrong direction.'"
Congress will come back to Washington in a few weeks and head into a debate about continuing alternative-energy tax credits and lifting the 27-year drilling ban off US coasts.
The poll suggests a need for a balanced approach. Hope Congress is listening.
For more on the poll: http://tinyurl.com/5cf6go
(Composed on BlackBerry; links to come; updated 8/30)
01 August 2008
Energy: Speculating on Oil Speculators, Wallstrip and others Weigh In
Is the high price of oil due to oil speculation? Opinions differ on the impact of investors looking to make a buck on limited supplies and rising demand.
Some point out that while the White House would like to blame supply shortages, that's the same argument given back when Enron was fleecing California by manipulating energy prices.
"Many members of the media have forgotten how in 2001 the White House deflected any blame for California's suddenly stratospheric electrical costs away from their Houston friends," wrote Ed Wallace in his Business Week Viewpoint piece on 27 June 2008.
"Likewise, our Energy Secretary has a real problem discussing issues with facts. Like a broken record, he continues to maintain that in no way has speculation had anything to do with today's high oil prices. No, to hear Sam Bodman tell it, they are now and always have been caused by too many buyers chasing too few barrels of oil."
But, as our friends at The Oil Drum (TOD) reported last week, a recent report by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), "threw cold water on the recent rhetoric in Congressional testimonies and television commentary that high oil prices are caused by investment speculators."
TOD quotes from the report, "The Task Force's preliminary assessment is that current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors." And pulls this graphic to illustrate this view:
"During this same period," according to the report, "activity on the crude oil futures market – as measured by the number of contracts outstanding, trading activity, and the number of traders – has increased significantly. While these increases broadly coincided with the run-up in crude oil prices, the Task Force's preliminary analysis to date does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices."
Now, our favorite Web tv daily, Wallstrip, takes a crack at explaining the links between the run up and commodities speculation:
Now, we'll believe anything Julie tells us (except that she'll call when she says she will), but the fact is, the run-up in oil prices is probably a bit of everything: less supply, higher demand, speculation, and good old-fashioned free-market profiteering (not that there's anything wrong with it...).
Some point out that while the White House would like to blame supply shortages, that's the same argument given back when Enron was fleecing California by manipulating energy prices.
"Many members of the media have forgotten how in 2001 the White House deflected any blame for California's suddenly stratospheric electrical costs away from their Houston friends," wrote Ed Wallace in his Business Week Viewpoint piece on 27 June 2008.
"Likewise, our Energy Secretary has a real problem discussing issues with facts. Like a broken record, he continues to maintain that in no way has speculation had anything to do with today's high oil prices. No, to hear Sam Bodman tell it, they are now and always have been caused by too many buyers chasing too few barrels of oil."
But, as our friends at The Oil Drum (TOD) reported last week, a recent report by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), "threw cold water on the recent rhetoric in Congressional testimonies and television commentary that high oil prices are caused by investment speculators."
TOD quotes from the report, "The Task Force's preliminary assessment is that current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors." And pulls this graphic to illustrate this view:
"During this same period," according to the report, "activity on the crude oil futures market – as measured by the number of contracts outstanding, trading activity, and the number of traders – has increased significantly. While these increases broadly coincided with the run-up in crude oil prices, the Task Force's preliminary analysis to date does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices."
Now, our favorite Web tv daily, Wallstrip, takes a crack at explaining the links between the run up and commodities speculation:
Now, we'll believe anything Julie tells us (except that she'll call when she says she will), but the fact is, the run-up in oil prices is probably a bit of everything: less supply, higher demand, speculation, and good old-fashioned free-market profiteering (not that there's anything wrong with it...).
11 July 2008
Energy: Drilling for Oil Offshore and in ANWR; Has the Time Come?
Okay, brace yourself. If you're a dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist, you're not going to like what I'm about to write. I'm not sure you'll like it if you're on the other extreme either, but what the hell.
I'm wondering whether it may be time to reconsider drilling offshore, and to take a hard look at whether the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) can be developed for oil in an environmentally favorable way.
I'm not saying we should go ahead with either, but I do think we need to put both considerations on the table, put aside our emotions, look at the real impacts, weigh the options, and then decide.
There are several things we need to factor into our consideration:
1. Our dependence upon fossil fuels is not going away any time soon.
2. There are, according to some sources familiar with the situation, relatively abundant remaining sources of fossil fuels, offshore and on land. Most agree they will take too long to develop to have immediate impact, but they may extend the time-frame for alternatives to replace fossil fuels. And with prices what they are now, it's looking like now may be the time when these sources are actually viable.
3. It is not known whether ANWR is a viable source; there is little baseline data with which to make such a call. Some say the oil industry may be betting on the fact that developing ANWR will allow the life of Alaska's pipeline to extend beyond 2030, and make it more viable to recover smaller pools throughout the region.
4. Developing ANWR is likely to have little impact on today's prices. In a report last May, the Department of Energy estimated that it will result in a reduction of only 75 cents a barrel.
5. A recent study by the federal government's Energy Information Administration projects, in the best-case scenario, developing ANWR will engender a price reduction of around $1.44/barrel by 2027.
The same study claims drilling off the coasts of the US won't affect prices until 2030, as reported in the New York Times.
6. Global consumption of oil reached 85.2 million barrels a day in 2008, up from last year's 76.3 million. Another study, to be released this fall by the International Energy Agency (IEA), projects consumption will rise to 116 million barrels next year.
7. New techniques, such as directional drilling will continue to reduce the footprint per well-head on Alaska's North Slope, but there remains the issue of roads, housing, pipelines, and other facilities needed to bring the oil to market.
Those impacts could still be huge in ANWR, which is used by polar bears, caribou, and other animals as they search for places to give birth. (Birth is the most vulnerable stage in the life-cycle of some species.) Other biologists familiar with the area claim the stated impacts may be overdone.
As for the coasts, there are worthy concerns about impacts on human coastal communities, especially those that rely on fishing or tourism for their livelihoods. Our neighbors to the north and south have increased their off-shore development over the past decade with little or marginal impact on the environment.
8. New off-shore development will also take years to put in place.
9. Finally, there is a shortage of deep water drill-ships for offshore development, which are currently booked for the next five years, and we may be looking at a long time horizon with very little short-term impact.
Still, impact is impact, and while we're looking at alternative energy development, perhaps we need to consider how we will meet demand for fossil fuels while alternatives build momentum.
High demand, low supply rules the day. But if the benefits of off-shore and ANWR development are a long way off, is it worth the risk? Can we do without it? What if it can be demonstrated that the environmental impacts are negligible? What if, as Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska announced last week, we could put revenues in service of alternative energy projects?
I am not advocating a position for or against such development; I'm simply calling for a rational, emotion-free analysis before we move forward or rule it out.
I'm wondering whether it may be time to reconsider drilling offshore, and to take a hard look at whether the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) can be developed for oil in an environmentally favorable way.
I'm not saying we should go ahead with either, but I do think we need to put both considerations on the table, put aside our emotions, look at the real impacts, weigh the options, and then decide.
There are several things we need to factor into our consideration:
1. Our dependence upon fossil fuels is not going away any time soon.
2. There are, according to some sources familiar with the situation, relatively abundant remaining sources of fossil fuels, offshore and on land. Most agree they will take too long to develop to have immediate impact, but they may extend the time-frame for alternatives to replace fossil fuels. And with prices what they are now, it's looking like now may be the time when these sources are actually viable.
3. It is not known whether ANWR is a viable source; there is little baseline data with which to make such a call. Some say the oil industry may be betting on the fact that developing ANWR will allow the life of Alaska's pipeline to extend beyond 2030, and make it more viable to recover smaller pools throughout the region.
4. Developing ANWR is likely to have little impact on today's prices. In a report last May, the Department of Energy estimated that it will result in a reduction of only 75 cents a barrel.
5. A recent study by the federal government's Energy Information Administration projects, in the best-case scenario, developing ANWR will engender a price reduction of around $1.44/barrel by 2027.
The same study claims drilling off the coasts of the US won't affect prices until 2030, as reported in the New York Times.
6. Global consumption of oil reached 85.2 million barrels a day in 2008, up from last year's 76.3 million. Another study, to be released this fall by the International Energy Agency (IEA), projects consumption will rise to 116 million barrels next year.
7. New techniques, such as directional drilling will continue to reduce the footprint per well-head on Alaska's North Slope, but there remains the issue of roads, housing, pipelines, and other facilities needed to bring the oil to market.
Those impacts could still be huge in ANWR, which is used by polar bears, caribou, and other animals as they search for places to give birth. (Birth is the most vulnerable stage in the life-cycle of some species.) Other biologists familiar with the area claim the stated impacts may be overdone.
As for the coasts, there are worthy concerns about impacts on human coastal communities, especially those that rely on fishing or tourism for their livelihoods. Our neighbors to the north and south have increased their off-shore development over the past decade with little or marginal impact on the environment.
8. New off-shore development will also take years to put in place.
9. Finally, there is a shortage of deep water drill-ships for offshore development, which are currently booked for the next five years, and we may be looking at a long time horizon with very little short-term impact.
Still, impact is impact, and while we're looking at alternative energy development, perhaps we need to consider how we will meet demand for fossil fuels while alternatives build momentum.
High demand, low supply rules the day. But if the benefits of off-shore and ANWR development are a long way off, is it worth the risk? Can we do without it? What if it can be demonstrated that the environmental impacts are negligible? What if, as Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska announced last week, we could put revenues in service of alternative energy projects?
I am not advocating a position for or against such development; I'm simply calling for a rational, emotion-free analysis before we move forward or rule it out.
06 July 2008
Energy: On the Way to $200 Oil?
Just a couple of months ago, I heard T. Boone Pickens, Jr. call for $150 oil by the end of the year, but now that we're approaching that mark by mid-year, it may be time to revise the target.
Is $200 a possibility? Indeed, it may be too late to avoid it, says Jerome a Paris over at The Oil Drum.
Jerome cites an International Energy Agency (IEA) study released last week that claims the "oil market will remain tight during the next five years as production from non-OPEC countries stalls and demand growth remains relatively strong."
"This is one of the most important trends in current oil markets: the depletion of existing fields, and the decline in their production," Jerome adds. "It's long been discussed in specialised sites like this one but it's been ignored in the 'serious' media for too long. and yet, discussions of new fields coming into production cannot paint a correct picture of future production trends if these declines are not deducted to get net production increases.
"And the stark truth is that in most of the world, the declines are bigger than the new capacity additions. This is particularly true in 'friendly' production zones like the North Sea, Mexico or even Russia, where overall decline rates are dizzying and actually impact global production numbers significantly."
The comments are nearly as interesting as the post. In one SamuM makes the following observations after watching the presentation (embedded below):
* No obvious sign speculators behind high prices
* Global oil demand growth still 1.3% in 2007
* Producers operating close to flat out
* Global net decline 5% p.a. (2008-2013 avg?)
* OPEC mature field decline >10% p.a.
* More spare capacity by 2009, but then dip again, recovery by 2013?
* Non-OPEC supply slows to 2012, then picks up in 2013 [???]
* 48% of gobal demand growth in distillate
* Biofuels 2.8 Mb/d by 2013 (max capacity potential 3.3Mbpd), big downside risks remain
* OPEC condensates to grow from c. 3Mbpd to c. 5Mbpd by 2013
* OPEC NGL growth to be used by petrochemical industry
* Remaining GTL insignificant
* Increasing fuel oil demand from Middle East for power generation
* Non-OECD demand to oustrip OECD by 2015
Here is the presentation from the IEA:
Worth a look at the full presentation. (Thanks to Paul Kedrosky of Infectious Greed for the SlideShare link.)
Is $200 a possibility? Indeed, it may be too late to avoid it, says Jerome a Paris over at The Oil Drum.
Jerome cites an International Energy Agency (IEA) study released last week that claims the "oil market will remain tight during the next five years as production from non-OPEC countries stalls and demand growth remains relatively strong."
"This is one of the most important trends in current oil markets: the depletion of existing fields, and the decline in their production," Jerome adds. "It's long been discussed in specialised sites like this one but it's been ignored in the 'serious' media for too long. and yet, discussions of new fields coming into production cannot paint a correct picture of future production trends if these declines are not deducted to get net production increases.
"And the stark truth is that in most of the world, the declines are bigger than the new capacity additions. This is particularly true in 'friendly' production zones like the North Sea, Mexico or even Russia, where overall decline rates are dizzying and actually impact global production numbers significantly."
The comments are nearly as interesting as the post. In one SamuM makes the following observations after watching the presentation (embedded below):
* No obvious sign speculators behind high prices
* Global oil demand growth still 1.3% in 2007
* Producers operating close to flat out
* Global net decline 5% p.a. (2008-2013 avg?)
* OPEC mature field decline >10% p.a.
* More spare capacity by 2009, but then dip again, recovery by 2013?
* Non-OPEC supply slows to 2012, then picks up in 2013 [???]
* 48% of gobal demand growth in distillate
* Biofuels 2.8 Mb/d by 2013 (max capacity potential 3.3Mbpd), big downside risks remain
* OPEC condensates to grow from c. 3Mbpd to c. 5Mbpd by 2013
* OPEC NGL growth to be used by petrochemical industry
* Remaining GTL insignificant
* Increasing fuel oil demand from Middle East for power generation
* Non-OECD demand to oustrip OECD by 2015
Here is the presentation from the IEA:
Worth a look at the full presentation. (Thanks to Paul Kedrosky of Infectious Greed for the SlideShare link.)
24 June 2008
Clean Tech: The Economist Looks at the Future of Energy
The energy landscape is changing, says The Economist, but where is it heading?
This week's issue (21 June) has a special report looking at the options facing the world, including alternative sources and
The market for energy is huge. Estimated at US$6 trillion a year, it accounts for about a tenth of the world's economic output -- and by 2050, power consumption is likely to have doubled from today's levels. High fuel prices and worries over energy security and global warming mean that a technology boom based on alternative energy may soon be upon us.
Wind and solar both are approach cost parity with traditional sources, at least in terms of new development. Biofuels caught on and we were all heading to Abilene with them, until some folks pointed out the issues with corn- and other food-based sources. And even electric cars and nuclear power seem to be rising from the dead.
It's clear the future of energy must change if economic development and prosperity are to continue.
The Economist report looks at the full range of alternative energy options that may fuel the new green economy and asks the critical question, can they break our addiction to oil and coal?
10 June 2008
Global Climate Change: World Bank Says, Oil Will Come Down Hard; Sovereign Wealth Can Fund Climate Fight
So, this morning on CNBC's Squawk Box, the show that never met a bear it didn't like, Uri Dadush, the dowdy and drowsy chief of International Economics at the World Bank, told the lovely and smart Becky Quick (she's quick too) that oil will be at $95/barrel by end of year and $88/barrel by 2010.
Watch video: Squawk Box
But how does that jibe with what the World Bank's Latin America chief, Pamela Cox told Reuters today that, "essentially, emerging economies can help fund the fight against climate change through sovereign wealth funds, swollen by oil and other exports receipts"?
"'It would be great if some of these sovereign wealth funds started investing in alternative technologies, some of the climate change funds that are being put forward,' Cox said, but added that the World Bank could not tell countries how they should invest their sovereign wealth."
"Emerging economies control up to US$3 trillion in sovereign wealth funds," according to Reuters, much of which have been padded by skyrocketing oil and commodities prices," along with bulging trade imbalances.
But those sovereign wealth funds will be a lot less swollen at $95-88/barrel.
Meanwhile, CNBC reported that oil prices fell today, despite an earlier advance to $137 on greatly reduced oil consumption projections from the Energy Department.
"The Energy Department, in a monthly report, indicated that high prices are cutting oil consumption more than expected in the industrialized world," according to CNBC. "Consumption is now expected to fall by 240,000 barrels a day in 2008; last month, the department forecast consumption would be unchanged from 2007 levels."
Still a long way to go from $131/barrel to $95. And it remains to be seen what this news will have on investments in climate change initiatives and alternative energy?
Very little, it appears.
According to Reuters, some emerging economy oil exporters are already planning clean energy and other climate initiatives:
--OPEC is planning a US$750 million research fund into burying greenhouse gases underground and has committed about US$35 million so far.
--The United Arab Emirates has launched a $15 billion "Masdar Initiative" to help plan for an era of falling oil reserves by investing in low carbon-emitting energy like solar power.
--Tokyo will contribute US$1.2 billion to the planned US$10 billion of developed country Climate Investment Funds (CIF) administered by the World Bank.
--The United States has pledged US$2 billion to the CIF and the UK will add part of a 800 million pound (US$1.57 billion) environment fund to the mix.
--The CIF will invest roughly US$5 billion each in funds to help developing countries cut emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases, and to plan for climate change.
But how much of this could materialize without oil prices being what they are? And what happens if the oil bubble bursts or tankers are sitting just beyond the Verrazano Narrows waiting for the signal?
Watch video: Squawk Box
But how does that jibe with what the World Bank's Latin America chief, Pamela Cox told Reuters today that, "essentially, emerging economies can help fund the fight against climate change through sovereign wealth funds, swollen by oil and other exports receipts"?
"'It would be great if some of these sovereign wealth funds started investing in alternative technologies, some of the climate change funds that are being put forward,' Cox said, but added that the World Bank could not tell countries how they should invest their sovereign wealth."
"Emerging economies control up to US$3 trillion in sovereign wealth funds," according to Reuters, much of which have been padded by skyrocketing oil and commodities prices," along with bulging trade imbalances.
But those sovereign wealth funds will be a lot less swollen at $95-88/barrel.
Meanwhile, CNBC reported that oil prices fell today, despite an earlier advance to $137 on greatly reduced oil consumption projections from the Energy Department.
"The Energy Department, in a monthly report, indicated that high prices are cutting oil consumption more than expected in the industrialized world," according to CNBC. "Consumption is now expected to fall by 240,000 barrels a day in 2008; last month, the department forecast consumption would be unchanged from 2007 levels."
Still a long way to go from $131/barrel to $95. And it remains to be seen what this news will have on investments in climate change initiatives and alternative energy?
Very little, it appears.
According to Reuters, some emerging economy oil exporters are already planning clean energy and other climate initiatives:
--OPEC is planning a US$750 million research fund into burying greenhouse gases underground and has committed about US$35 million so far.
--The United Arab Emirates has launched a $15 billion "Masdar Initiative" to help plan for an era of falling oil reserves by investing in low carbon-emitting energy like solar power.
--Tokyo will contribute US$1.2 billion to the planned US$10 billion of developed country Climate Investment Funds (CIF) administered by the World Bank.
--The United States has pledged US$2 billion to the CIF and the UK will add part of a 800 million pound (US$1.57 billion) environment fund to the mix.
--The CIF will invest roughly US$5 billion each in funds to help developing countries cut emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases, and to plan for climate change.
But how much of this could materialize without oil prices being what they are? And what happens if the oil bubble bursts or tankers are sitting just beyond the Verrazano Narrows waiting for the signal?
29 May 2008
Book Review: Power of the People: America's New Electricity Choices by Carol Sue Tombari
Imported oil, dirty coal, energy inefficiencies and waste, and truncated investment in alternative energy development have landed us in a quandary. Where do we turn for the power we need to run our wired and wireless economy and our increasingly mobile culture?
Carol Sue Tombari, former director of the State of Texas's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and currently on staff at the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, describes some answers in her new book, Power of the People: America's New Electricity Choices.
Tombari provides a concise and cogent overview of how we got in this mess and a primer for how we can get out of it. Essentially, Tombari argues that we need a combination of vigorous policy agendas and massive investments in what we've called on this blog "The New Green Economy."
We are "sleepwalking toward disaster," argues the author, but she tempers her cynicism with equal doses of optimism and faith -- faith that we have the know-how and ingenuity to get us out of this mess.
If only we would wake up and change where we're going and what we're doing.
"I'm not talking about an overnight energy revolution, Tombari concludes. "Really, it's more like an evolution, incorporating both twentieth- and twenty-first-century technologies as we transition to the completely different, carbon-constrained reality in the coming years."
For anyone who wants a quick study of the path we've been on, as well as the good, the bad, and the balance of those choices, and the potential for alternatives, Power of the People is required reading.
"Renewable energy and energy efficiency can be expected to develop a larger presence in the marketplace," writes Tombari, "especially as the cost of twentieth-century fuels continues to go up and the capital costs of renewables continue to go down."
But our energy "needs remain humongous and continue to grow," Tombari argues. "Energy efficiency in particular will gain significantly greater market share because of its no-regrets nature and the fact that it doesn't require the investment of materials needed by utility-scale technologies."
While "we will continue to rely heavily on central station power plants, especially in the near- and mid-term," according to Tombari, "we as individuals, as neighbors, as citizens of our towns and states, can lead our government...Our roots as a nation are in the grass. We know how to do this."
Her optimism is infectious. Power of the People is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our nation and our planet.
27 May 2008
Global Climate Change: Tea for the Tillerson, Exxon Shareholders Try to Force Hand
More on the Rockefeller-led shareholder uprising at Exxon in today's New York Times:
The Rockefeller family built one of the great American fortunes by supplying the nation with oil. Now history has come full circle: some family members say it is time to start moving beyond the oil age.
The family members have thrown their support behind a shareholder rebellion that is ruffling feathers at Exxon Mobil, the giant oil company descended from John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust.
Three of the resolutions, to be voted on at the company’s shareholder meeting on Wednesday, are considered unlikely to pass, even with Rockefeller family support.
The resolutions ask Exxon to take the threat of global warming more seriously and look for alternatives to spewing greenhouse gases into the air.
One resolution would urge the company to study the impact of global warming on poor countries, another would encourage Exxon to reduce its emissions and a third would encourage it to do more research on renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines.
A fourth resolution, which the Rockefellers are most united in supporting, is considered more likely to pass. It would strip Rex W. Tillerson of his position as chairman of Exxon’s board, forcing the company to separate that job from the chief executive’s job.
A shareholder vote in favor of that idea would be a rebuke of Mr. Tillerson, who is widely perceived as more resistant than other oil chieftains to investing in alternative energy.
The Rockefellers say they are not trying to embarrass Mr. Tillerson, also Exxon’s chief executive, but think it is time for the company to spend more of its funds helping the nation chart a new energy future.
Read the article in full (requires log-in): Rockefellers
The Rockefeller family built one of the great American fortunes by supplying the nation with oil. Now history has come full circle: some family members say it is time to start moving beyond the oil age.
The family members have thrown their support behind a shareholder rebellion that is ruffling feathers at Exxon Mobil, the giant oil company descended from John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust.
Three of the resolutions, to be voted on at the company’s shareholder meeting on Wednesday, are considered unlikely to pass, even with Rockefeller family support.
The resolutions ask Exxon to take the threat of global warming more seriously and look for alternatives to spewing greenhouse gases into the air.
One resolution would urge the company to study the impact of global warming on poor countries, another would encourage Exxon to reduce its emissions and a third would encourage it to do more research on renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines.
A fourth resolution, which the Rockefellers are most united in supporting, is considered more likely to pass. It would strip Rex W. Tillerson of his position as chairman of Exxon’s board, forcing the company to separate that job from the chief executive’s job.
A shareholder vote in favor of that idea would be a rebuke of Mr. Tillerson, who is widely perceived as more resistant than other oil chieftains to investing in alternative energy.
The Rockefellers say they are not trying to embarrass Mr. Tillerson, also Exxon’s chief executive, but think it is time for the company to spend more of its funds helping the nation chart a new energy future.
Read the article in full (requires log-in): Rockefellers
05 May 2008
Wallstrip on Oil and Gas Prices: They've Got Us Over a Barrel
Our minivan now cost over $70 to fill. We don't even drive it that much, but it still hurts.
Here's a Wallstrip "Julie in the Street" episode on oil and gas prices in New York. I'm with Julie, don't know whether to laugh or cry:
The saddest (but truest) comment is the Brit who says he'd pay whatever it takes for a gallon of petrol and just have to do without something else. OPEC take note!
Here's a Wallstrip "Julie in the Street" episode on oil and gas prices in New York. I'm with Julie, don't know whether to laugh or cry:
The saddest (but truest) comment is the Brit who says he'd pay whatever it takes for a gallon of petrol and just have to do without something else. OPEC take note!
18 July 2007
Global Climate Change: Business Leaders Call for Action
According to an article by Scott Malone at Reuters, "a major U.S. industry body said on Tuesday that human activity is changing the Earth's climate and urged Washington to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.
"But the Business Roundtable, representing 160 of the largest U.S. companies with $4.5 trillion in combined revenue, stopped short of advocating a specific policy to accomplish that, saying its members did not yet agree on methods.
"'The thinking of U.S. CEOs on climate change is evolving significantly,' said Charles Holliday, chairman and chief executive of U.S. chemicals group DuPont, and a Roundtable member. 'A growing number of CEOs view it as a major issue for their companies.'
"In recent years, corporate America has dropped arguments that there is no proof human activity causes warmer patterns across the world, putting some business executives at odds with the Bush administration which rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the main U.N. plan until 2012 for curbing greenhouse gases.
"Many scientists say rising emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels, are linked to rising world temperatures. Many fear the warming trend could lead to more droughts, floods, heat waves and more powerful storms.
"'Some of our members like the idea of a cap-and-trade,' said John Castellani, president of the Washington-based organization, referring to programs in which companies could buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide.
"'Some members like a tax approach, we don't know which works best. So at this point we're calling for flexibility,' Castellani said in a telephone interview.
"The Roundtable's members include some of the biggest names in U.S. business, such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and General Motors Corp.
"Environmental group the Sierra Club dismissed the Roundtable's statement as an attempt to appear environmentally sensitive while actually seeking to ensure any new regulations accommodate its members.
"'Businesses understand that any regulation that is going to pass this Congress and get signed by this president is going to be something very weak,' said Sierra spokesman Josh Dorner. 'It's no coincidence that a lot of huge emitters are tripping over themselves to call for some action on climate change.'"
Read More: Business Roundtable Climate Action
"But the Business Roundtable, representing 160 of the largest U.S. companies with $4.5 trillion in combined revenue, stopped short of advocating a specific policy to accomplish that, saying its members did not yet agree on methods.
"'The thinking of U.S. CEOs on climate change is evolving significantly,' said Charles Holliday, chairman and chief executive of U.S. chemicals group DuPont, and a Roundtable member. 'A growing number of CEOs view it as a major issue for their companies.'
"In recent years, corporate America has dropped arguments that there is no proof human activity causes warmer patterns across the world, putting some business executives at odds with the Bush administration which rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the main U.N. plan until 2012 for curbing greenhouse gases.
"Many scientists say rising emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels, are linked to rising world temperatures. Many fear the warming trend could lead to more droughts, floods, heat waves and more powerful storms.
"'Some of our members like the idea of a cap-and-trade,' said John Castellani, president of the Washington-based organization, referring to programs in which companies could buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide.
"'Some members like a tax approach, we don't know which works best. So at this point we're calling for flexibility,' Castellani said in a telephone interview.
"The Roundtable's members include some of the biggest names in U.S. business, such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and General Motors Corp.
"Environmental group the Sierra Club dismissed the Roundtable's statement as an attempt to appear environmentally sensitive while actually seeking to ensure any new regulations accommodate its members.
"'Businesses understand that any regulation that is going to pass this Congress and get signed by this president is going to be something very weak,' said Sierra spokesman Josh Dorner. 'It's no coincidence that a lot of huge emitters are tripping over themselves to call for some action on climate change.'"
Read More: Business Roundtable Climate Action
01 June 2007
Environment: Is Water the New Oil?
YaleGlobal Online this week features an article by Rohini Nilekani, chairperson of Arghyam, a charitable foundation that supports a safe and sustainable global water supply, on the future of a world facing increasingly scarce fresh water. This from the YaleGlobal intro:
Read the full article: Is Water the Next Oil?
Water is more vital for human life than oil – and environmentalists, corporations, communities and governments increasingly recognize its unequal distribution around the globe could lead to severe environmental degradation and intense conflicts in the years ahead.
Less than 3 percent of the world’s water is potable – and climate change is already rapidly diminishing the vast stores of freshwater stored in glaciers and polar ice. Nilekani suggests that individual awareness combined with some global leadership must focus on sustaining life on the planet rather than modern lifestyles – and could reduce waste, overpopulation and unsustainable practices. Otherwise, warns Nilekani, the conflicts over water will make the oil crisis “seem like the trailer of some horrible disaster movie.”
With water already in short supply for more than 20 percent of the world’s people, no person can afford to take freshwater for granted.
Read the full article: Is Water the Next Oil?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)