Some people have wacky ideas," the new Republican campaign ad alleges. "Like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's Senator John Kerry." Cut to a picture of men in suits riding bicycles.
Sadly, the accusation is false. Democratic presidential hopeful Kerry has been demanding that the price of oil be held down. He wants US President George W. Bush to release supplies from the strategic reserve and persuade Saudi Arabia to increase production. He has been warning the American people that if Bush doesn't act soon, he and Vice President Dick Cheney will have to share a car to work. Men riding bicycles and sharing cars? Is there no end to this madness?
YUSHA
Like the fuel protests that rose and receded in Britain last week, these exchanges are both moronic and entirely rational. The price of oil has been rising because demand for a finite resource is growing faster than supply. Holding the price down means that this resource will be depleted more quickly, with the result that the dreadful prospect of men sharing cars and riding bicycles comes ever closer. Perhaps the presidential candidates will start campaigning next against the passage of time.
But a high oil price means recession and unemployment, which in turn means political
failure for the man in charge. The attempt to blame the other man for finitude will be one of the defining themes of the politics of the next few decades.
This conflict was exemplified last month by the leader of the British fuel protests of 2000, Brynle Williams.
"I'm afraid to say I'm not very proud of what happened three years ago," he admitted in a
documentary broadcast on S4C on May 4. "We all want turbo-charged motors now ... but we must remember that it's some poor sod
at the other end of the world who ends up paying for it."
Five days later, on May 9, he told GMTV that he was ready to start protesting again. Self-awareness and self-interest don't seem to mix very well.
To understand what is going to happen, we must first grasp the core fact of existence. Life is a struggle against entropy. Entropy can be roughly defined as the
dispersal of energy. As soon as a system -- whether an organism or an economy -- runs out of energy, it starts to disintegrate. Its survival depends on seizing new sources of fuel.
Biological evolution is driven by the need to grab the energy for which other organisms are competing. One result is increasing complexity: a tree can take more energy from the sun than the mosses on the forest floor; a tuna can seek out its prey more actively than a jellyfish. But the cost of this complexity is an enhanced requirement for energy. The same goes for our economies.
They evolved in the presence of a source of energy that was both cheap to extract and cheap to use. There is, as yet, no substitute for
it. Everything else is either more expensive or harder to use. Without cheap oil the economy would
succumb to entropy.
But the age of cheap oil is over. If you doubt this, take a look at the BBC's online report yesterday of a conference run by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. The reporter spoke to the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol.
"In public, Mr Birol denied that supply would not be able to meet rising demand ... But after his speech he seemed to change his tune: `For the time being there is
no spare capacity. But we expect demand to increase by the fourth quarter by 3 million barrels a day.
If Saudi [Arabia] does not increase supply by 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year, we will face -- how can I say this -- it will be
very difficult. We will have difficult times.'"
The reporter asked him whether such growth in supply was possible, or simply wishful thinking.
"`You are from the press?' Birol replied. `This is not for the press.'"
So the BBC asked the other delegates what they thought of the prospects of a 30 percent increase in Saudi production.
"The answers were unambiguous: `absolutely out of the question;' `completely impossible;' and `3 million barrels -- never, not even 300,000.' One delegate laughed so hard he had to support himself on a table."
And this was before they heard that two BBC journalists had been gunned down in Riyadh.
The world's problem is as
follows. We now consume six
barrels of oil for every new barrel we discover. Major oil finds in
excess of 500 million barrels
peaked in 1964. In 2000, there were 13 such discoveries, in 2001 six, in 2002 two and last year none. Three major new projects will come
onstream in 2007 and three in 2008. For the following years, none have been scheduled.
The oil industry tells us not to worry: the market will find a way
of sorting this out. If the price of energy rises, new sources will come onstream. But new sources of what? Every other option is much more expensive than the cheap oil that made our economic complexity possible.
The new technology designed to extract the dregs from old fields
is expensive and doesn't seem to work very well, which is why Shell was forced to downgrade its anticipated reserves (other companies, under pressure from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, will surely follow). Extracting oil from tar sands and shales uses almost as much energy as it yields.
The same goes for turning crops such as rape into biodiesel. Nuclear power is viable only if you overlook both the massive costs of decommissioning and the fact that no safe means has yet been discovered of disposing of the waste. We could cover the country with windmills and solar panels, but the electricity they produced would still be an expensive means of running our cars.
Just as the oil supply begins to look uncertain, global demand is rising faster than it has done for 16 years. Yesterday morning, General Motors announced that it is spending US$3 billion on doubling its production of cars for the Chinese market.
Seventy-four minutes later, we saw the first signs of entropy: the International Air Travel Association revealed that the airlines are likely to lose US$3 billion this
year because of high oil prices.
The cheap carriers complained
that they could be forced out of the market.
If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain, our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse. This isn't very likely to happen.
Faced with a choice between a bang and a whimper, our governments are likely to choose the bang, waging ever more extravagant wars to keep the show on the road. Terrorists, alert to both the West's rising need and the vulnerability of the pipeline and tanker networks, will respond with their own oil wars.
"Every time I see an adult on
a bicycle," H.G. Wells wrote, "I no longer despair for the human race." It's a start, but I'd feel even more confident about our chances of survival if I saw Bush and Cheney sharing a car to work.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry