Document Actions
The End of Oil book review
Book Review of The End Of Oil, by Paul Roberts.
Submitted by Ivan Urlaub, NC Sustainable Energy Association, ncseapolicy@mindspring.com.
Bookstore shelves are lined with futuristic, utopian-like illustrations of a decentralized, more democratic energy future based on clean, efficient and equitable technologies. I feel great after reading such books, especially the ones that woo me into falling in love with a silver bullet technological solution – like a romance novel for energy geeks. But, then I ask, ‘how do we get from Point A to Point Z?’ These books gleefully skip over how global society will transition from today’s dirty, war-torn, inefficient and expensive global energy system to a clean, secure, efficient and affordable sustainable energy future. The End of Oil, by Paul Roberts, is a refreshing departure from such lightweight fare.
Across 323 pages, seven continents, into laboratories, board rooms and backrooms and out to Saudi and Caspian oil fields, Roberts weaves a convincing argument that a crisis will likely be needed to move the United States to action. Reminiscent of Thomas Friedman’s journalistic style in Lexus and the Olive Tree, Roberts provides a valuable thinking exercise for his readers. He opens a series of windows into the minds and actions of the governments (primarily the United States) and corporations embroiled in the geopolitics of our energy supply. The bottom line: Our energy future is still in our hands, but not for long. The oil supply of more than 15 oil producing nations has already peaked, and trying to pump our way out of this situation only accelerates our global economy toward the cliff’s edge.
Current Trends Substantiate Roberts’ Analysis
This week, business headlines and front page articles declared persistently high oil prices are causing high inflation rates, poor corporate earnings and constraining consumer spending – the backbone of the American economy. How much of the negative impact of high oil prices is our own fault? General Motors and Ford’s bonds were recently reduced to junk bond status, a reflection of their inability to foresee consumer preferences shifting to more fuel efficient cars and light trucks. Foreign car companies are now taking market share from our short-sighted U.S. firms.
The world is running out of oil, and some parts of the world are running out of oil faster than others. Global oil supplies can be divided into two groups. First, oil provided by nationalized energy companies who make up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and those whose oil supply is provided by a small group of major oil corporations, known as the "oil majors." The United States and all other industrialized nations are in group two, and our collective oil supply will peak by 2010, if it has not already. But it isn’t just oil ...
When a Hummer or Ford Excursion passes you in the grocery store parking lot, do you get upset? Do you now why? Paul Roberts does, and the answer is the greatest global challenge facing modern humanity. Between us and alleviating poverty, world disease, providing potable water to all people and mitigating global climate change is our dependence on our current global energy system – oil, coal and natural gas.
The Big Picture is Very Daunting and Rife with Tough Choices
The End of Oil draws a complex, fairly well-integrated picture of the dynamics threatening our global energy system, and makes the case for acting now to innovate a broader range of energy technologies, generation methods and policies that will give the world a diverse, flexible and effective energy economy. To choose the right steps, our corporations and policymakers need a strategic roadmap that will give us confidence that the tough choices are the right choices. Roberts reminds us that for every reluctant policymaker, "there are leaders who are either brave enough to push for a new energy order or smart enough to see the political or economic advantage of moving forward." He focuses on four critical dynamics constraining how we choose to transition to sustainable energy:
1) Near-term depletion of oil, followed by other fossil fuel resources,
2) Climate change and environmental degradation from fossil fuel use,
3) Existing investments in our fossil fuel energy infrastructure, and
4) The increasingly unstable geopolitics of energy.
Roberts then lays out a credible array of alternative energy pathways for society to choose from. I think he is right – we cannot immediately deploy solar panels and wind turbines to eliminate oil imports, mitigate climate change, reduce our dependence on nuclear and natural gas and eat cake too. The transition to our sustainable energy future is going to require the use of bridges – bridge fuels and bridge technologies – that by themselves are not much better than what we use today.
Even if we act now to facilitate the development of our renewable energy resources, reduce our energy consumption and increase our use of alternative transportation technologies, these actions will take decades to have a significant impact on our fossil fuel dependence. Solar and wind are the fastest growing energy industries, at greater than 30% per year. However, it will be at least 10 years before they provide 10% of total global energy supply. The most obvious bridge that Roberts points to, and I agree, is increasing our access to and use of natural gas, while providing more robust incentives for improved energy efficiency, alternative fuels and renewable energy technologies.
It looks like the U.S. Congress sees the writing on the wall. The Federal Energy Bill passed into law earlier this month gave the Federal Government full domain over where new liquified natural gas (LNG) receiving terminals will be built, because too many states have been opposing natural gas without providing an alternative solution. Nuclear is not an alternative. It will take 10 years to bring a new nuclear plant on line, we still do not know how to deal with the waste, and it dramatically reduces our energy security through threat of terrorist attack.
The Bush Administration’s solution to climate change is to capture the carbon from burning coal, through Integrated Gasified, Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants, to build new nuclear power plants and invent better hydrogen fuel cell cars. All of which can be sold to countries like China and India. Coal, nuclear and fuel cells put the United States in direct economic competition with oil and natural gas resources from OPEC nations and Russia. Meanwhile, the U.S. missed the boat on solar, wind and hybrid cars. If the U.S. invested heavily in developing alternative energy technologies, we would merely be competing with oil and natural gas dependent countries in Europe and Asia.
Roberts discusses in great detail that to meet our growing energy demand in a carbon-constrained world will require significant technological advancements that will not happen until we create a global carbon marketplace. What will it take to move our politicians to create a carbon marketplace and develop an energy strategy for our future? Taking his cue from the 2002 meeting of the National Intelligence Council’s "Geopolitics of Energy in 2015" workgroup, he walks the reader through what could be one of the most accurate predictions of our energy policy future. As a result of repeated supply disruptions, more energy conflicts between nations and a growing impatience for military intervention to secure energy supplies, sustained high oil and natural gas prices, more extreme weather events, and individual states and nations taking action to curb fossil fuel dependence and global warming, corporations and politicians will adopt a more balanced energy strategy. This strategy will include a 100-year carbon budget and emphasize energy efficiency and low- and no-carbon fuels and energy technologies.
The End of our Traditional Energy Paradigm in North Carolina
Roberts challenges us to answer the question, "where is our energy going to come from in the future?" One thing for certain, which future energy path we choose to pursue is constrained by the footsteps we have already taken.
In 2000, a NC household earning $10,000 per year paid 18% of their annual income to electric utilities, compared to 3% for households earning $50,000 or more. Now in 2005, gasoline is at an all-time high, natural gas has since tripled in price, and coal has almost quadrupled! High energy prices are foreshadowing a serious and prolonged energy poverty crisis not just in the developing world, but right here in North Carolina. Can our state, nation and world supply enough energy to meet demand while maintaining our quality of life, improving life for 2 billion people living on less than $2 a day, mitigating climate change and increasing our energy security? Our markets and government policymakers must start working together now on a mix of more efficient fossil fuel technologies, reduced carbon emissions and most important of all, alternative fuels and renewable energy resources.
I recently spoke at a NC Utilities Commission public hearing on Progress Energy’s requested annual electric rate increase of 15% for industrial customers and 9% for residential. Their reason? Central Appalachian coal purchased by Progress and Duke has jumped from $26/short ton to over $65/short ton in just three years! Primarily representatives of low-income citizens appealed to the Commission to do something to control our energy prices. But what can the NC Utilities Commission do? North Carolina’s investor-owned electric utilities imported about 98% of the resources to generate our retail electricity in 2003, and are showing no signs of changing without government intervention.
This year, our state legislature proposed more than 20 unique bills that would take direct or indirect steps toward a more sustainable energy future for our state (download the 2005 Legislative Guide). A handful of those bills will likely pass into law. It is a start. Unfortunately, global energy dynamics leave North Carolina’s policymakers no choice but to eventually pass all of these bills. If we fail to embrace a more sustainable energy path, we resign our state to exorbitant energy prices, greater energy poverty, more of our young men and women going to war in new places like Nigeria, Venezuela, and other Middle East nations, and dirtier air and water. Worst of all, we could lose the quality of life we worked so hard for. If we fail to provide our State with an alternative to rising fossil fuel prices, those ‘expensive’ environmental regulations may soon find their way to the chopping block. The Bush Administration started its fossil fuel-friendly assault on the environment on their first day in office.
[Paul Roberts will be speaking on September 21st at the McKimmon Center, during the Refueling America Workshop – see below for more details.]
Submitted by Ivan Urlaub, NC Sustainable Energy Association, ncseapolicy@mindspring.com.
Bookstore shelves are lined with futuristic, utopian-like illustrations of a decentralized, more democratic energy future based on clean, efficient and equitable technologies. I feel great after reading such books, especially the ones that woo me into falling in love with a silver bullet technological solution – like a romance novel for energy geeks. But, then I ask, ‘how do we get from Point A to Point Z?’ These books gleefully skip over how global society will transition from today’s dirty, war-torn, inefficient and expensive global energy system to a clean, secure, efficient and affordable sustainable energy future. The End of Oil, by Paul Roberts, is a refreshing departure from such lightweight fare.
Across 323 pages, seven continents, into laboratories, board rooms and backrooms and out to Saudi and Caspian oil fields, Roberts weaves a convincing argument that a crisis will likely be needed to move the United States to action. Reminiscent of Thomas Friedman’s journalistic style in Lexus and the Olive Tree, Roberts provides a valuable thinking exercise for his readers. He opens a series of windows into the minds and actions of the governments (primarily the United States) and corporations embroiled in the geopolitics of our energy supply. The bottom line: Our energy future is still in our hands, but not for long. The oil supply of more than 15 oil producing nations has already peaked, and trying to pump our way out of this situation only accelerates our global economy toward the cliff’s edge.
Current Trends Substantiate Roberts’ Analysis
This week, business headlines and front page articles declared persistently high oil prices are causing high inflation rates, poor corporate earnings and constraining consumer spending – the backbone of the American economy. How much of the negative impact of high oil prices is our own fault? General Motors and Ford’s bonds were recently reduced to junk bond status, a reflection of their inability to foresee consumer preferences shifting to more fuel efficient cars and light trucks. Foreign car companies are now taking market share from our short-sighted U.S. firms.
The world is running out of oil, and some parts of the world are running out of oil faster than others. Global oil supplies can be divided into two groups. First, oil provided by nationalized energy companies who make up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and those whose oil supply is provided by a small group of major oil corporations, known as the "oil majors." The United States and all other industrialized nations are in group two, and our collective oil supply will peak by 2010, if it has not already. But it isn’t just oil ...
When a Hummer or Ford Excursion passes you in the grocery store parking lot, do you get upset? Do you now why? Paul Roberts does, and the answer is the greatest global challenge facing modern humanity. Between us and alleviating poverty, world disease, providing potable water to all people and mitigating global climate change is our dependence on our current global energy system – oil, coal and natural gas.
The Big Picture is Very Daunting and Rife with Tough Choices
The End of Oil draws a complex, fairly well-integrated picture of the dynamics threatening our global energy system, and makes the case for acting now to innovate a broader range of energy technologies, generation methods and policies that will give the world a diverse, flexible and effective energy economy. To choose the right steps, our corporations and policymakers need a strategic roadmap that will give us confidence that the tough choices are the right choices. Roberts reminds us that for every reluctant policymaker, "there are leaders who are either brave enough to push for a new energy order or smart enough to see the political or economic advantage of moving forward." He focuses on four critical dynamics constraining how we choose to transition to sustainable energy:
1) Near-term depletion of oil, followed by other fossil fuel resources,
2) Climate change and environmental degradation from fossil fuel use,
3) Existing investments in our fossil fuel energy infrastructure, and
4) The increasingly unstable geopolitics of energy.
Roberts then lays out a credible array of alternative energy pathways for society to choose from. I think he is right – we cannot immediately deploy solar panels and wind turbines to eliminate oil imports, mitigate climate change, reduce our dependence on nuclear and natural gas and eat cake too. The transition to our sustainable energy future is going to require the use of bridges – bridge fuels and bridge technologies – that by themselves are not much better than what we use today.
Even if we act now to facilitate the development of our renewable energy resources, reduce our energy consumption and increase our use of alternative transportation technologies, these actions will take decades to have a significant impact on our fossil fuel dependence. Solar and wind are the fastest growing energy industries, at greater than 30% per year. However, it will be at least 10 years before they provide 10% of total global energy supply. The most obvious bridge that Roberts points to, and I agree, is increasing our access to and use of natural gas, while providing more robust incentives for improved energy efficiency, alternative fuels and renewable energy technologies.
It looks like the U.S. Congress sees the writing on the wall. The Federal Energy Bill passed into law earlier this month gave the Federal Government full domain over where new liquified natural gas (LNG) receiving terminals will be built, because too many states have been opposing natural gas without providing an alternative solution. Nuclear is not an alternative. It will take 10 years to bring a new nuclear plant on line, we still do not know how to deal with the waste, and it dramatically reduces our energy security through threat of terrorist attack.
The Bush Administration’s solution to climate change is to capture the carbon from burning coal, through Integrated Gasified, Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants, to build new nuclear power plants and invent better hydrogen fuel cell cars. All of which can be sold to countries like China and India. Coal, nuclear and fuel cells put the United States in direct economic competition with oil and natural gas resources from OPEC nations and Russia. Meanwhile, the U.S. missed the boat on solar, wind and hybrid cars. If the U.S. invested heavily in developing alternative energy technologies, we would merely be competing with oil and natural gas dependent countries in Europe and Asia.
Roberts discusses in great detail that to meet our growing energy demand in a carbon-constrained world will require significant technological advancements that will not happen until we create a global carbon marketplace. What will it take to move our politicians to create a carbon marketplace and develop an energy strategy for our future? Taking his cue from the 2002 meeting of the National Intelligence Council’s "Geopolitics of Energy in 2015" workgroup, he walks the reader through what could be one of the most accurate predictions of our energy policy future. As a result of repeated supply disruptions, more energy conflicts between nations and a growing impatience for military intervention to secure energy supplies, sustained high oil and natural gas prices, more extreme weather events, and individual states and nations taking action to curb fossil fuel dependence and global warming, corporations and politicians will adopt a more balanced energy strategy. This strategy will include a 100-year carbon budget and emphasize energy efficiency and low- and no-carbon fuels and energy technologies.
The End of our Traditional Energy Paradigm in North Carolina
Roberts challenges us to answer the question, "where is our energy going to come from in the future?" One thing for certain, which future energy path we choose to pursue is constrained by the footsteps we have already taken.
In 2000, a NC household earning $10,000 per year paid 18% of their annual income to electric utilities, compared to 3% for households earning $50,000 or more. Now in 2005, gasoline is at an all-time high, natural gas has since tripled in price, and coal has almost quadrupled! High energy prices are foreshadowing a serious and prolonged energy poverty crisis not just in the developing world, but right here in North Carolina. Can our state, nation and world supply enough energy to meet demand while maintaining our quality of life, improving life for 2 billion people living on less than $2 a day, mitigating climate change and increasing our energy security? Our markets and government policymakers must start working together now on a mix of more efficient fossil fuel technologies, reduced carbon emissions and most important of all, alternative fuels and renewable energy resources.
I recently spoke at a NC Utilities Commission public hearing on Progress Energy’s requested annual electric rate increase of 15% for industrial customers and 9% for residential. Their reason? Central Appalachian coal purchased by Progress and Duke has jumped from $26/short ton to over $65/short ton in just three years! Primarily representatives of low-income citizens appealed to the Commission to do something to control our energy prices. But what can the NC Utilities Commission do? North Carolina’s investor-owned electric utilities imported about 98% of the resources to generate our retail electricity in 2003, and are showing no signs of changing without government intervention.
This year, our state legislature proposed more than 20 unique bills that would take direct or indirect steps toward a more sustainable energy future for our state (download the 2005 Legislative Guide). A handful of those bills will likely pass into law. It is a start. Unfortunately, global energy dynamics leave North Carolina’s policymakers no choice but to eventually pass all of these bills. If we fail to embrace a more sustainable energy path, we resign our state to exorbitant energy prices, greater energy poverty, more of our young men and women going to war in new places like Nigeria, Venezuela, and other Middle East nations, and dirtier air and water. Worst of all, we could lose the quality of life we worked so hard for. If we fail to provide our State with an alternative to rising fossil fuel prices, those ‘expensive’ environmental regulations may soon find their way to the chopping block. The Bush Administration started its fossil fuel-friendly assault on the environment on their first day in office.
[Paul Roberts will be speaking on September 21st at the McKimmon Center, during the Refueling America Workshop – see below for more details.]
