Hello Readers,
A recent Treehugger article caught my eye with a snippet of a report from the NRDC about how the Keystone XL pipeline will raise gas prices in the United States if it is implemented (see the full pdf version of the report). The report provides an in-depth analysis economic nega-benefit that the pipeline will offer drivers in the US and Canada.
In fact, the report shows how the "Keystone XL is not a pipeline to the United States, but one through it" with many quotes from the would-be beneficiaries of the pipeline (e.g. TransCanada executives) and an explanation of how regional oil refineries are impacted by international crude oil markets.
On the very last page of the report, the NRDC goes beyond gasoline price and discusses the true negative impact of that the Keystone XL pipeline, the environmental damage. If the pipeline is built, there will be an economic incentive for oil companies to rapidly expand tar sands extraction (Note: this expansion will not decrease the price of gasoline at the pump at all!) and increase the localized watershed and forestry destruction as well as the global release of greenhouse gases (and decrease of carbon sequestration capacity).
Instead, the NRDC suggests that the US could simultaneously decrease the price of gasoline at the pump and avoid the environmental destruction through increase fuel efficiency. Or as pointed out in a recent letter by Amory Lovins (and similar TED Talk), which highlights all of the possible savings from improved energy efficiency and shifts away from fossil fuels, the US should be focused on encouraging companies to provide the solutions to climate change and environmental issues rather than condoning the perpetuation of fossil fuel use.
Drive Less and Drive Smarter,
Sean
Showing posts with label Oil Companies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil Companies. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Energy Future TED Talk
Hello Readers,
This is potentially the most important and informative TED Talk you will see this decade. The speaker is the head of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Please watch this.
Thanks,
Sean
This is potentially the most important and informative TED Talk you will see this decade. The speaker is the head of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Please watch this.
Thanks,
Sean
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Movie Review: A Crude Awakening
Hello Readers,
Earlier this week, I watched A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash movie directed by Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormack. This movie, which was released in 2006 (the middle of the Bush administration), is as much a horror movie as it is a documentary.
Through a series of intertwining interviews, which are scored with a background soundtrack that would not be out of place in a slasher movie or an episode of the X-Files (similar to the background track of the trailer below), A Crude Awakening offers a prophecy of the collapse of the modern oil-based society.
A Crude Awakening is a mixed bag for environmentalists. It will both inform and frighten the audience. I did not notice statements (opinions aside) that are overtly factually incorrect; however, the tone of the movie overpowers the information. It may be good as a factual refresher for seasoned environmentalists, but I would not recommend this movie as a way to start a discussion on peak oil.
While the movie describes in detail the implications and likelihood of peak oil, it offers no sense of purpose or motivation to solve the issue. In fact, any solutions that may have been mentioned will be lost in the mosh-pit of despair that is A Crude Awakening.
The tagline of the movie says it all: "We're running out [of oil], and we don't have a plan." If you do show this movie, I would definitely follow up with a debriefing session or by handing out business cards of therapists.
Best of Luck,
Sean Diamond
Earlier this week, I watched A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash movie directed by Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormack. This movie, which was released in 2006 (the middle of the Bush administration), is as much a horror movie as it is a documentary.
Through a series of intertwining interviews, which are scored with a background soundtrack that would not be out of place in a slasher movie or an episode of the X-Files (similar to the background track of the trailer below), A Crude Awakening offers a prophecy of the collapse of the modern oil-based society.
A Crude Awakening is a mixed bag for environmentalists. It will both inform and frighten the audience. I did not notice statements (opinions aside) that are overtly factually incorrect; however, the tone of the movie overpowers the information. It may be good as a factual refresher for seasoned environmentalists, but I would not recommend this movie as a way to start a discussion on peak oil.
While the movie describes in detail the implications and likelihood of peak oil, it offers no sense of purpose or motivation to solve the issue. In fact, any solutions that may have been mentioned will be lost in the mosh-pit of despair that is A Crude Awakening.
The tagline of the movie says it all: "We're running out [of oil], and we don't have a plan." If you do show this movie, I would definitely follow up with a debriefing session or by handing out business cards of therapists.
Best of Luck,
Sean Diamond
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Alberta Tar Sands - pipeline decision
Hello Readers,
Yesterday, I came across post about Obama's current predicament about the XL Keystone Pipeline proposal. I recommend checking out the post as it offers many links to resources and provides a review of the considerations that the president must take.
Also, you can check out the author's interview about the topic below:
...it's a bit dry, but its fairly thorough.
Enjoy,
Sean
Yesterday, I came across post about Obama's current predicament about the XL Keystone Pipeline proposal. I recommend checking out the post as it offers many links to resources and provides a review of the considerations that the president must take.
Also, you can check out the author's interview about the topic below:
...it's a bit dry, but its fairly thorough.
Enjoy,
Sean
Friday, April 1, 2011
Obama sets goal of 1/3 cut in oil imports
Hello Readers,
This week President Obama reaffirmed and strengthened his previous statements from the State of the Union address about moving the country toward clean energy and specifically away from the use of petroleum-based fuels in transportation. In case you missed the announcement, here is a New York Times article that covered the announcement and it's implications.
Have a good weekend!
~Sean
This week President Obama reaffirmed and strengthened his previous statements from the State of the Union address about moving the country toward clean energy and specifically away from the use of petroleum-based fuels in transportation. In case you missed the announcement, here is a New York Times article that covered the announcement and it's implications.
Have a good weekend!
~Sean
Monday, July 5, 2010
Afraid of being jobless?
Hello Reader,
Today, I read an article that caught my attention. For years now, I've heard the generic claim that oil companies receive absurdly large government subsidies. However, I've rarely heard "large" spelled out as a quantifiable number. Well, it turns out that "large" is apparently $4 billion per year (on average). Now, as best as I can tell from the article, that is $4 billion of real tax money that is not paid by oil industry companies to the federal government each year. This is compared to the approximately $93 billion per year (during 2006-2008) that those same companies do pay according to the American Petroleum Institute.
The argument apparently goes that without these tax incentives (aka subsidies) oil companies would move their operations to other countries. To frame this argument in another manner, without what effectively amounts to a 4% tax break (not paying $4 billion out of what would otherwise be $97 billion in taxes) all of these oil companies, which apparently provide 9.2 million jobs in the US, would move to other countries leaving Americans jobless! For some reason, I have a hard time believing that argument.
For one thing, according to NationMaster.com, which cites the CIA World Fact Book as its source, the US apparently only had 20,970,000,000 barrels of proven reserves in 2008 and was producing 8,457,000 barrels/day in 2007. Doing the math (and initially assuming constant production) this works effectively out to roughly 7 years of remaining oil production capability.
Of course, oil production is not nearly that straight forward (the closer a country gets to the end of its proven reserves the slower its production), and US oil production will likely last much longer than 7 years but at an ever-declining rate. It is also prudent to consider that proven reserve numbers are flexible in that new technologies or new wells can cause that number to increase. However, to make the long story short, the United States' ability to hold sway as a major oil producing nation is limited.
Considering that some of the subsidies now offered to oil companies in the US were implemented as early as 1913 in order to help those companies develop, it seems fitting that those same companies should start to pay back some of that start-up money before they are forced to relocate due to a shortage in supply. More importantly, it makes more sense for that money to be used to find a replacement for the oil industry, which is getting to the end of its useful life, by way of transferring the subsidies to other energy industries that are likely to last beyond the year 2100.
One example would be to redirect that money to wind and solar energy companies and manufacturers. Not only would this allow for a great domestic expansion of our current renewable energy portfolio in the US, but it might also re-engage entrepreneurs and manufacturing companies as well. This could also make for an interesting shift in dynamics considering that the majority of the world's demand for wind turbine and solar panels is currently outside of the US (with China leading the charge).
Just imagine if the United States government could muster the political will to remove the $4 billion per year oil company subsidies and divert that money to kick-start manufacturing and energy companies that would not only stay in the US (as opposed to threatening to leave) but could possibly help to reduce our trade deficit with countries like China and improve our own national utility grid! All of this in what amounts to a zero sum game for Washington politicians, the IRS, and the national debt.
Additionally, as more renewable energy generators are produced and installed, this will require some additional infrastructural support of the electricity grid (read as more jobs and investment opportunities). In turn (and perhaps in some cases simultaneously) an improved utility grid will necessarily create opportunities for reducing emissions and moving from petroleum-powered to electrically-powered vehicles.
This means that there is a way to reduce our subsidies to oil companies operating domestically, reduce our dependence on all oil companies (and countries), improve our electricity grid and our transportation system, and secure domestic jobs for decades to come. When I lay it out like that, I have to ask: Why has this not happened yet?
Is the math too obscure? Is the information that well hidden? Are lobbyist for oil companies that influential? Is the political climate in Washington that sticky? Or do Americans just want to keep giving oil companies tax breaks for fear that many more jobs will evaporate overnight?
Please, somebody set me straight!
Thanks,
Sean Diamond
This post references:
As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: July 3, 2010
In the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
Today, I read an article that caught my attention. For years now, I've heard the generic claim that oil companies receive absurdly large government subsidies. However, I've rarely heard "large" spelled out as a quantifiable number. Well, it turns out that "large" is apparently $4 billion per year (on average). Now, as best as I can tell from the article, that is $4 billion of real tax money that is not paid by oil industry companies to the federal government each year. This is compared to the approximately $93 billion per year (during 2006-2008) that those same companies do pay according to the American Petroleum Institute.
The argument apparently goes that without these tax incentives (aka subsidies) oil companies would move their operations to other countries. To frame this argument in another manner, without what effectively amounts to a 4% tax break (not paying $4 billion out of what would otherwise be $97 billion in taxes) all of these oil companies, which apparently provide 9.2 million jobs in the US, would move to other countries leaving Americans jobless! For some reason, I have a hard time believing that argument.
For one thing, according to NationMaster.com, which cites the CIA World Fact Book as its source, the US apparently only had 20,970,000,000 barrels of proven reserves in 2008 and was producing 8,457,000 barrels/day in 2007. Doing the math (and initially assuming constant production) this works effectively out to roughly 7 years of remaining oil production capability.
Of course, oil production is not nearly that straight forward (the closer a country gets to the end of its proven reserves the slower its production), and US oil production will likely last much longer than 7 years but at an ever-declining rate. It is also prudent to consider that proven reserve numbers are flexible in that new technologies or new wells can cause that number to increase. However, to make the long story short, the United States' ability to hold sway as a major oil producing nation is limited.
Considering that some of the subsidies now offered to oil companies in the US were implemented as early as 1913 in order to help those companies develop, it seems fitting that those same companies should start to pay back some of that start-up money before they are forced to relocate due to a shortage in supply. More importantly, it makes more sense for that money to be used to find a replacement for the oil industry, which is getting to the end of its useful life, by way of transferring the subsidies to other energy industries that are likely to last beyond the year 2100.
One example would be to redirect that money to wind and solar energy companies and manufacturers. Not only would this allow for a great domestic expansion of our current renewable energy portfolio in the US, but it might also re-engage entrepreneurs and manufacturing companies as well. This could also make for an interesting shift in dynamics considering that the majority of the world's demand for wind turbine and solar panels is currently outside of the US (with China leading the charge).
Just imagine if the United States government could muster the political will to remove the $4 billion per year oil company subsidies and divert that money to kick-start manufacturing and energy companies that would not only stay in the US (as opposed to threatening to leave) but could possibly help to reduce our trade deficit with countries like China and improve our own national utility grid! All of this in what amounts to a zero sum game for Washington politicians, the IRS, and the national debt.
Additionally, as more renewable energy generators are produced and installed, this will require some additional infrastructural support of the electricity grid (read as more jobs and investment opportunities). In turn (and perhaps in some cases simultaneously) an improved utility grid will necessarily create opportunities for reducing emissions and moving from petroleum-powered to electrically-powered vehicles.
This means that there is a way to reduce our subsidies to oil companies operating domestically, reduce our dependence on all oil companies (and countries), improve our electricity grid and our transportation system, and secure domestic jobs for decades to come. When I lay it out like that, I have to ask: Why has this not happened yet?
Is the math too obscure? Is the information that well hidden? Are lobbyist for oil companies that influential? Is the political climate in Washington that sticky? Or do Americans just want to keep giving oil companies tax breaks for fear that many more jobs will evaporate overnight?
Please, somebody set me straight!
Thanks,
Sean Diamond
This post references:
As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: July 3, 2010
In the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Off-Shore Oil and Wind
Hello Reader,
This week I turned in my last piece of non-dissertation coursework, so I thought that it might be a good time for some guilt-free blog writing time. In order to keep up with some news-worthy issues, I thought I would point to two articles from last week. The first article discusses recent a step forward in the approval process for the Cape Cod off-shore wind farm and some of the public backlash that has accompanied the news. The second article announced that Florida Governor Crist has removed his support from off-shore oil drilling projects after witnessing the devastation caused by the recent BP off-shore oil volcano. The juxtaposition of these two articles makes me wonder which is the better off-shore option: oil drilling or wind farms.
Given the recent awareness raising that the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been able to offer as an argument against off-shore drilling, it seems hard to believe that there will be much public support remaining by the time this catastrophe plays out. At the very least, it seems likely that new and current drilling projects will be under much closer scrutiny regarding their safety procedures and "fail-safe" devises. After this disaster it seems reasonable to say that if off-shore drilling projects are going to continue, additional safety measures will have to be part of the minimum price of doing business.
The next question in this discussion has to be what are the concerns surrounding off-shore wind farms. It seems that the primary concern for any wind turbine project, which is echoed in the first article, is the aesthetic interference with the natural landscape. In the article, one of the more ethically credible of those arguments is that of the "coastal Wampanoag tribe, which requires unobstructed views of the sunrise for sacred ceremonies". (As a note, I consider this more ethically credible than financially-based arguments such as the detriment to tourism.) It seems reasonable that wind farm projects should try to avoid impinging upon religious ceremonies. However, I would like to question where the ethical balance lies. The main group of protesters seem to be pointing to non-religious arguments. In my mind, this raises the question: Is it ethical to refuse environmentally non-threatening energy from wind turbines, but live a lifestyle that demands the consumption of fossil fuels?
This is an especially interesting question when you consider that the protesters must (or at least should) have some idea of the damage that is caused by the extraction, transportation, and use of those fuels. Whether it is the damage associated with the essentially inevitable oil spills, the death of coal miners, the removal of mountain tops, or the indirect damage caused by emissions, leading a fossil fuel based lifestyle results in tangible damages to the environment and human lives. Admittedly, it is unlikely that all of these damages can be avoided in every case. Furthermore, I understand that even believing and understanding the damages caused by such a lifestyle does not mean that individuals can change their lifestyles alone. However, in a case such as the Cape Wind project where an obvious solution has been presented, is it ethical to protest and obstruct the process beyond ensuring that due diligence has been pursued?
Along the same lines, I have to question if forced to make the choice, whether Cape Wind protesters would choose to have an oil rig 40 miles off their coast or a wind farm a few miles off their coast. While it is unlikely that the protesters will ever have to make that decision, it raises another interesting ethical notion. That is, by refusing the wind farm, protesters are making a commitment to use other energy sources (assuming that they are not planning on going off the grid), which invariably means that the environment will need to be damaged off some other coast or mountain range. That does not seem fair when they have a different option.
Thus, when it comes down to a choice between the tangible damages caused by off-shore oil and the artificial damages caused by off-shore wind, I assert that off-shore wind is the ethically superior choice. Thank you for your time.
Sean Diamond
This week I turned in my last piece of non-dissertation coursework, so I thought that it might be a good time for some guilt-free blog writing time. In order to keep up with some news-worthy issues, I thought I would point to two articles from last week. The first article discusses recent a step forward in the approval process for the Cape Cod off-shore wind farm and some of the public backlash that has accompanied the news. The second article announced that Florida Governor Crist has removed his support from off-shore oil drilling projects after witnessing the devastation caused by the recent BP off-shore oil volcano. The juxtaposition of these two articles makes me wonder which is the better off-shore option: oil drilling or wind farms.
Given the recent awareness raising that the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been able to offer as an argument against off-shore drilling, it seems hard to believe that there will be much public support remaining by the time this catastrophe plays out. At the very least, it seems likely that new and current drilling projects will be under much closer scrutiny regarding their safety procedures and "fail-safe" devises. After this disaster it seems reasonable to say that if off-shore drilling projects are going to continue, additional safety measures will have to be part of the minimum price of doing business.
The next question in this discussion has to be what are the concerns surrounding off-shore wind farms. It seems that the primary concern for any wind turbine project, which is echoed in the first article, is the aesthetic interference with the natural landscape. In the article, one of the more ethically credible of those arguments is that of the "coastal Wampanoag tribe, which requires unobstructed views of the sunrise for sacred ceremonies". (As a note, I consider this more ethically credible than financially-based arguments such as the detriment to tourism.) It seems reasonable that wind farm projects should try to avoid impinging upon religious ceremonies. However, I would like to question where the ethical balance lies. The main group of protesters seem to be pointing to non-religious arguments. In my mind, this raises the question: Is it ethical to refuse environmentally non-threatening energy from wind turbines, but live a lifestyle that demands the consumption of fossil fuels?
This is an especially interesting question when you consider that the protesters must (or at least should) have some idea of the damage that is caused by the extraction, transportation, and use of those fuels. Whether it is the damage associated with the essentially inevitable oil spills, the death of coal miners, the removal of mountain tops, or the indirect damage caused by emissions, leading a fossil fuel based lifestyle results in tangible damages to the environment and human lives. Admittedly, it is unlikely that all of these damages can be avoided in every case. Furthermore, I understand that even believing and understanding the damages caused by such a lifestyle does not mean that individuals can change their lifestyles alone. However, in a case such as the Cape Wind project where an obvious solution has been presented, is it ethical to protest and obstruct the process beyond ensuring that due diligence has been pursued?
Along the same lines, I have to question if forced to make the choice, whether Cape Wind protesters would choose to have an oil rig 40 miles off their coast or a wind farm a few miles off their coast. While it is unlikely that the protesters will ever have to make that decision, it raises another interesting ethical notion. That is, by refusing the wind farm, protesters are making a commitment to use other energy sources (assuming that they are not planning on going off the grid), which invariably means that the environment will need to be damaged off some other coast or mountain range. That does not seem fair when they have a different option.
Thus, when it comes down to a choice between the tangible damages caused by off-shore oil and the artificial damages caused by off-shore wind, I assert that off-shore wind is the ethically superior choice. Thank you for your time.
Sean Diamond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)