From American University via Eurekalert, professor Matthew Nisbet demonstrates that the impact of peak petroleum on public health may be a way to unite conservatives and liberals in an effort to move away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy.
Peak Oil & Public Health: Political Common Ground?
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 8, 2011)—Peak petroleum—the point at which the maximum rate of global oil extraction is reached, after which the rate of production begins to decline—is a hot topic in scientific and energy circles. When will it occur? What will the impact be? While geologists and economists debate the specifics, American University School of Communication professor Matthew Nisbet believes peak petroleum and the associated risks to public health may provide an opportunity to bring conservatives and liberals together in the move toward alternative forms of energy.
“Somewhat surprisingly, conservatives are more likely to associate a major spike in oil prices with a strong threat to public health,” said Nisbet—an expert in the field of climate and energy communication. “This could present a gateway to engagement with conservatives on energy policy.”
In a forthcoming peer-reviewed study at the American Journal of Public Health, Nisbet and his co-authors find that 76% of people in a recent survey believe oil prices are either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to triple in the next five years. A dramatic spike in oil prices is a commonly recognized outcome of peak petroleum.
Even more telling is that 69% of respondents believe a sharp rise in oil prices would be either “very harmful” (44%) or “somewhat harmful” (25%) to the health of Americans. According to the survey, strong conservatives were the most sensitive to these possible risks, with 53% believing that a spike in oil prices would be “very harmful” to human health. Similarly, in a separate analysis of the data, those who were strongly “dismissive” of climate change (52%) were the most likely of any subgroup to associate a sharp spike in oil prices with a negative impact on public health.
According to Nisbet and his co-authors, this creates a challenge and an opportunity for the environmental and public health communities. Peak oil and energy prices are often talked about in terms of economic and environmental impact, but rarely as a public health concern. Nisbet argues that his findings show reason to reframe the debate.
“These findings suggest that a broad cross-section of Americans may be ready to engage in dialogue about ways to manage the health risks that experts associate with peak petroleum,” said Nisbet. “Peak petroleum may not currently be a part of the public health portfolio, but we need to start the planning process.”
The study was co-authored with Edward Maibach of George Mason University and Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 11th Hour, and Surdna Foundation.
####
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh, come now. Can we say “push poll”?
Cap-n-trade will hit coal long before it puts a dent in oil. This article is just plain stupid.
Since peak oil is still several hundred years off, I say that it is foolish to waste anytime worrying about what it’s affects will be.
The technology available in 200 years will be so different from what we have today that we can’t even predict what our abilities will be.
The technologies that will solve the problem of peak oil won’t even be invented for another hundred years or more.
It is just shocking how ignorant these people are of conservative thinking. Of course higher oil prices will be harmful to actual people. Of course. These people must draw their ideas of what a conservative likely believes by reading the Daily K@s.
Where’s the evidence of peak oil? Oil prices will rise but it wont be because of a shortage – it will be because of unnecessary taxes.
One can never compromise with socialists on anything. They want the destruction of personal liberty and will do anything, lie cheat steal and murder in order to do it. Any thing they say and do is just a pretext for accomplishing their goals, as are all the agendas they push. They don’t care about the availability of energy, why do you think they always push energy sources that can be proven to be economically unusable, and any source that shows promise is resisted. Poor starving cold people are much easier to manipulate.
so “if” peak oil happens it would drive prices up … wow, I could have told you that without funding … but since we won’t be hitting peak oil for decades if not long I wouldn’t worry too much about it today …
the “peak” oil pundits act like we won’t produce any oil once we hit the “peak” … as if on that day all hydrocarbon fueled activities “must” switch to something else …
this is nothing more than a fund raising study aimed at getting their snout into some nice “healthcare” funding dollars …
I do worry about oil depletion — although, after having been told for more than forty years that we only have a decade or two of oil left, I’ve got to admit this worry has been somewhat relegated to the back burner. But this study is pretty much pointless. Of course a lack of oil is going to adversely, and catastrophically affect our health — without it ambulances can’t run, medical equipment can’t be made, food prices will soar, and we end up with Victorian-era health care.
I hate public opinion poll “studies.” They show nothing more than what the public “believes” to be true, often carefully guided by the design and wording of the poll itself.
Triple in price? Who knows, but not likely. I have changed my views on what peak oil is and means in light of recent events. Make no mistake, peak oil has already happened, 2005. That was the highest flow rate so far. It did not increase up to the price spike of 2008 because it could not. Then we had the economic collapse. High oil prices very likely was the prick that popped the bubble, so says a number of studies, which I agree with. But what this shows is Economics dominates, not flow rate.
Hence as oil prices rises because of lack of flow and increased demand, we have a collapse and demand drops, price drops. We are witnessing a second round of this as oil was well over $100 in the spring, now around $82 because of expected second dip into recession.
This is the new reality. The economuy recovers, demand increases, price of oil rises as it is unable to meet the demand, and we go into another recession. This could go on for decades as we slowly ratchet down. Each rise lower than the previous high as oil flow slows.
China and India are the wild cards, as they consume ever more petroleum, taking up the slack caused by Western recessions, making future oil supply lower with each recovery.
Hence, triple of oil prices may never happen, even as flow rates drop due to depletion, as the economy has a threshold above which recessions are triggered, and the price falls. Demand destruction does not happen directly because of lack of supply, but lack of economic ability to pay for oil even at today’s price, hence demand falls.
The past was a growth phase triggered by ever increasing supply of oil. The future will be the opposite, shrinkage of the economy over decades.
So I guess we now need to not only freak out about CAGW in 100 years but also peak oil production. Hmmm… Sounds like this is a concession to the fact that there is no CAGW so now we need to stop using oil because we are going to reach peak production. Just when should we focus on the present and not what might be 100 years from now?
When will it occur?
Never.
What will the impact be?
Non-existent.
Why?
Because you can make way more money tricking the world than running an honest business.
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
“In 1970, the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production. Last Year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest single oil producer, and is now set to completely dominate global oil production and sales for the next century.”
http://www.rense.com/general75/zoil.htm
So…let’s go along the path of the peak oil argument. Prices rise; the price rise is anticipated. Economy shifts to substitute sources of energy. Persons/companies who anticipate such demand shifts, and are leaders in said substitutes, do well. What about this path requires government intervention? Why is this a political issue?
It is the government, not the oil companies it demonizes, that is solely to blame for our high energy prices. It is simple supply and demand: artificially restrict the supply, and prices skyrocket. The government, controlled by anti-American enviros, is the reason for $3 – $4 gas and escalating electricity rates. There is plenty of oil available, if the government would just get out of the way and stop restricting the supply.
“Since peak oil is still several hundred years off, ”
Do not confuse geological peak with other peak oil scenarios. Peak oil is not about how much is in the ground, of which there are “several hundred years”. Peak oil is about flow rates (how fast it can be extracted) and ERoEI (the energy needed to extract it). Indeed oil will last hundreds of years more, but not at our current flow rates required to meet demand, let alone future demand due to economic growth. There is also politcal peak oil, where one or a few other countries start to secure more of their own demand needs at the loss of the rest, like the US. So the US could hit peak oil (supply) before China does because China is securing more oil, taking off the table what is available for us. There is also economic peak oil, where because of recessions, countries are unable to pay for petroleum products. It’s not clear cut, quite complex with a number of dimentions at play. Geological peak is not the issue.
ERoEI is also very important. In the 1960’s ERoEI was 100:1. Today the average for all oil fields is about 25:1. Official numbers from the Alberat Tar Sands is 6:1 for the in situ mining operation. Studies published shows that society needs at min 3:1 or 4:1. Under that and oil extraction takes more energy out of society than we get out of the oil, essentually meaning we have literally run out of oil, regardless of what is still in the ground.
Technology? Wishfull thinking. Studies have been done on that too. There is no indication that new technology has increased flow rates, or extracted more from fields. Once tertiary processes are started on a field, the field is in terminal decline.
Peak Oil is another subject for the Worrying class to go after, nothing more. The USGS has been predicting that oil will run out for over a hundred years now, and this catastrophe is always, just like CAGW, comfortably enough in the future such that it will be worrisome, but also easily forgotten once the due date has come and armageddon fails to take place.
And if these people would take more than ten seconds to study the economics of the issue, they would realize that oil prices going up would be a good thing, at least in their view. Alternatives to oil in energy and textiles/plastics would become more viable on the margins and start to be used. They’d get all the hemp and ethanol and biodeisel they could want if oil prices went up. Solar would look great for some applications.
But as lefties typically do, they want subsidizing and malinvestment in alternatives, no for people to simply start using them naturally and on the margins as they become more viable as an alternative to oil as the latter’s price goes up. They don’t seem to realize that artificially pushing the price of alternatives down guarantees overuse of both oil and alternatives, and misuse of both in applications where they aren’t truly sustainable.
Mark Wilson says:
The problem is Mark that we can’t increase production now, the Saudi’s can’t squeeze anymore increase of production out of their current facilities and that is what peak oil is. Not being able to increase the rate of production to meet demand.
There are many energy solutions out there, only a few are good ones. Hydrocarbons are still abundant. Even if standard petroleum production falls, there is still shale oil (e.g. Bakken) and natural gas. Nuclear energy is another good solution, although we can do better using it.
The price of energy and competition will naturally find the solutions we need. Command economies are never going to find the most beneficial solutions, since the planners are not objective. The free market is the most democratic process around, allowing all consumers to make independent choices based on their own needs and views. Unfortunately, the free market is almost dead, especially regarding energy.
“There is plenty of oil available,”
Let’s have a look at the Bakken deposit, as it is an excellent example of what I’m refering to. Google it and look at the geology. Bakken is an in situ deposit of light sweet crude. It is deep in very tight shale. The expectation is the MOST that will ever be extracted is 1% of what’s in the ground. Flow rates, because of the geology, will be very very low, no where near enough flow to compensate for depletion rates at other US deposits. The US has maybe 30-50BB available to extract. Sounds like a lot, except for the fact that the US comsumes 7BB a year. So the deposits that have yet to be tapped would last 5 to 7 years, assuming they can be flowed fast enough. Of course, they never will be flowed fast enough. The faster you attempt to flow a field, the LESS over all oil you get, and the shorter the life of the field.
Peak oil…not likely anytime soon. The higher the price of oil goes, the more product that becomes economically feasible to produce. Supply and demand forces keep the price from becoming too high at any particular moment in time. Only government intervention in the market can cause peak oil.
For instance, who thought the oil sands in Alberta would ever produce the amount it produces today? In the US we have the Bakken formation in No. Dakota, the Eagle Ford shale in Texas, the Brown Dense Smackover formation in Arkansas and Louisiana, Niobrara shale in Colorado and other western states, deep-water discoveries in the Gulf, Tuscaloosa Marine shale in Louisiana and Mississippi, huge deposits in Alaska, and need I continue with the huge new shale gas deposits? Higher prices and new techniques have increased the amount of oil that is recoverable, putting off peak oil for decades, if not longer. Were it not for the government, the US would be energy independant. Anytime it wishes.
Did not presidential candidate Obama say several times during his campaign that he thought the price of oil should be significantly increased? What is the likelihood Obama intends to try to make the survey outcome become reality;
He has not said anything other than he intends to peak the oil by government action.
Intervention by gov’t is intentionally ‘peaking’ oil. It is not the free market. The free market has strong forces countering any ‘peaking’ if it is not intervened.
John
The entire peak oil idea is a myth. There are VAST amounts out there – easily thousands of years of supply.
I’ve never understood Peak Oil theory, to be honest. Either it says something completely obvious and uncontroversial – that finite resources are finite and will become more scarce over time – or it says something worth talking about which I’ve somehow missed.
Richard Wakefield: your
Make no mistake, peak oil has already happened, 2005.
Nope. Global oil production in 2005 was about 85 million bbls/day. This year its 87 to 88 million per day. Oil production has increased, and more importantly, OPEC has about 5 million per day of withheld production now, vs about 3 million in 2005.
We are not at peak oil. Not even close yet.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1&cid=&syid=2005&eyid=2011&freq=M&unit=TBPD
“need I continue with the huge new shale gas deposits? ”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8212