Guest post by Alec Rawls
“President no longer worried about CO2!” That’s what the headlines should have read last week after Obama presented an elaborate argument that alternative energy is the only viable response to high energy prices without ever once mentioning CO2, global warming or climate change. Instead, he presented the need to lessen our reliance on oil purely as an economic imperative.
Back when he thought that global warming was a winning concern Obama used to acknowledge that his anti-CO2 policies were going to cause high energy prices (forcing them to “necessarily skyrocket“). Now he is trying to use the high energy prices that he intentionally caused as a reason to get away from fossil energy. But if we are no longer worried about climate, how about just undoing the anti-fossil-fuel policies that drove prices up in the first place?
Obama’s silence on climate is a testament to how thoroughly the alarmists have lost the climate debate in the eyes of the voting public. Obama can’t even mention climate change (never mind global warming), even in a speech about his own climate-driven policies.
To make his economic argument, Obama puts forward two glaring lies. Let’s take these whoppers one at a time.
The lie that we are already aggressively developing our fossil resources
From the President’s March 15th energy policy speech at Prince George’s Community College in Largo, Maryland:
Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. (Applause.) Any time. That’s a fact. That’s a fact. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs to a record high. I want everybody to listen to that — we have more oil rigs operating now than ever. That’s a fact. We’ve approved dozens of new pipelines to move oil across the country. We announced our support for a new one in Oklahoma that will help get more oil down to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
Over the last three years, my administration has opened millions of acres of land in 23 different states for oil and gas exploration. (Applause.) Offshore, I’ve directed my administration to open up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources. That includes an area in the Gulf of Mexico we opened up a few months ago that could produce more than 400 million barrels of oil.
So do not tell me that we’re not drilling. (Applause.) We’re drilling all over this country.
That’s chutzpah, bragging about opening up drilling in the Gulf after using the Deep Horizon spill as an excuse for wiping out the Gulf drilling industry with an illegal moratorium.
Everyone knows about the big anti-oil moves from Obama and the Democrats, like rejecting the Keystone pipeline and continuing to block drilling in ANWR, but if you want a picture of how systematic and extreme their anti-fossil-energy policies have been, take a look at the list compiled by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings. As soon as they got in the Obamatons started revoking all the permits that were in the pipeline: for exploration, for mining, for drilling, for building power plants. Everything was shut down to almost nothing, and that is the way it has stayed.
Speaker John Bohner put a few of the highlights onto a timeline along with gas prices. Cause and effect:
What about that record amount of oil production? From Tina Korbe:
Energy experts say the president’s rhetoric isn’t exactly forthright. It’s unfair for the president to take credit for record high oil production. Not only does it take oil three to five years to come online, which means the previous administration was responsible for approving the exploration and drilling permits that led to increased production, but oil production on federal lands actually declined from 2010 to 2011. Oil production on private lands is responsible for the increase.
She quotes CNS for the specifics:
As CNSNews.com has reported, oil production on federal lands declined in fiscal year 2011 from fiscal year 2010 by 11 percent, and natural gas production on federal lands dropped by 6 percent during the same timeframe.
In contrast, oil production on private and state lands accounted for the entire increase, reported the IER, as production was up 14 percent from 2010 to 2011. Natural gas also was up 12 percent from 2010 to 2011.
The energy boom from advances in fracking technology are so massive that Obama has not been able to suppress them entirely, but he sure is trying, and we know why. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu was up-front about this as recently as two weeks ago when he testified before the House Appropriations committee:
“Is the overall goal to get our price [of gasoline] down,” Nunnelee began. “No,” interrupted Chu, “the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy.”
Chu’s goal is less oil consumption, which of course requires higher prices, “to strengthen our economy.” (Note that Chu is a physicist, not an economist.) Chu has been saying for years that:
Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.
That’s $7 to $9 per gallon. Under duress he recanted last week and said that he no longer wants higher prices, but that just stripped away his last remaining virtue, which was his honesty.
Lie number 2: that America is energy poor, so there is not much we can gain by drilling anyway
Someone who knows absolute nothing about anything might find this Obama riff compelling:
There’s a problem with a strategy that only relies on drilling and that is, America uses more than 20 percent of the world’s oil. If we drilled every square inch of this country — so we went to your house and we went to the National Mall and we put up those rigs everywhere — we’d still have only 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Let’s say we miss something — maybe it’s 3 percent instead of 2. We’re using 20; we have 2.
Now, you don’t need to be getting an excellent education at Prince George’s Community College to know that we’ve got a math problem here. (Laughter and applause.) I help out Sasha occasionally with her math homework and I know that if you’ve got 2 and you’ve got 20, there’s a gap. (Laughter.) There’s a gap, right? …
We will not fully be in control of our energy future if our strategy is only to drill for the 2 percent but we still have to buy the 20 percent.
Obama’s 2% figure refers to “proven reserves,” and the smallness of this particular number is actually a measure, not of our resources, but of how little they have been developed. Investors Business Daily explains:
The U.S. has 22.3 billion barrels of proved reserves, a little less than 2% of the entire world’s proved reserves, according to the Energy Information Administration. But as the EIA explains, proved reserves “are a small subset of recoverable resources,” because they only count oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields.
We have very little “proved reserves” because we have developed only a small fraction of our resources into active fields. The relevant number to look at is the amount of oil we could produce if it were allowed, and here we are proverbial thousand pound gorilla. Again, from IDB:
We actually have the world’s largest fossil energy resources, and the “recoverable” part is rapidly expanding as the technology for extracting it advances. Estimates for technically recoverable shale gas reserves increased 134% in 2010, and we’ve hardly begun on shale oil. Then there are methane hydrates, which according to the Department of Energy contain “more energy potential … than all other fossil energy resources combined.”
In short, the United States, and the entire world, have only been tapping the planet’s most easily accessible fossil energy supplies, and even those are far from running out, while vastly larger resources wait in store. Obama’s claims about the impossibility of relying on fossil energy are a fairy tale for childish green adults who want to see themselves as saving the planet. They dream of going “forward” to windmills and absorbing solar radiation like a snake on a rock, yet none of them have enough confidence in the saving-the-planet part to even mention it anymore.
The war on CO2 is over! Tell the EPA!
Obama’s lies about fossil resources are just supporting lies. His big lie is his pretense that his anti-CO2 policies are not about CO2. So take him at face value. He has apparently surrendered his claim that CO2 is dangerous. From his energy-policy speech, it seems that global warming is no longer a motivating concern.
THAT is a big story. Quick, tell the EPA. With this change in the administration’s position there should be no more regulation of CO2 and Obama should rescind his promise to bankrupt the coal industry:
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
That war against coal is proceeding apace, every bit as much as Obama’s drive for higher gas prices. And all for nothing, since even Obama is no longer worried about CO2.
At some point—long before we run out of fossil energy—a cheaper source of energy will be developed and fossil fuels will go by the wayside. The only reason to interdict that natural progression and try to go backwards to wind and solar is a belief that fossil fuels imperil the planet. For that to be true, human effects on climate would have to dominate natural effects, a hypothesis that has already been falsified by 15 years of no warming. The only people who believe it at this point are the paid shills of our lavishly funded climate-alarm industry and their anti-capitalist allies. It has actually become unmentionable, which really does warrant some mention.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vangelv,
I don’t know which planet you are on. Please stop misleading people here. Shale Gas and Shale Oil are proven to be viable. This is FACT not hype. The only limitation is an economic one. At current oil prices shale oil is economic. At current North American gas prices – shale gas is not. At current European gas prices, shale gas is viable.
FWIW – both Shale Oil and Shale Gas are by FAR cheaper than both Solar and Wind power (about one fifth the cost). As any intelligent person can see, barring the discovery of a new cheaper energy alternative, shale gas and shale oil will play an increasing role in the energy supply mix (and conventional fossil fuels like coal and oil and natural gas will continue to play a dominant role).
Take off your tin foil hat!
vangelv, I don’t know which planet you are on. Please stop misleading people here. Shale Gas and Shale Oil are proven to be viable. This is FACT not hype…
Take a look at the SEC filings and see how producers who have been in business for nearly a decade still can’t self finance their production.
If shale gas were viable why is Chesapeake, the biggest promoter of shale gas, moving to shale liquids? Why can’t it self finance shale gas production? Of course, now that shale gas has failed miserably we are supposed to ignore that outcome and buy the same hype about shale liquids. Well, I for one prefer to be skeptical until I see the cash flows turn positive and see some of that massive debt paid down.
Let me note again that the scam is not fraud. The shale producers are using the rules that the SEC put into place properly and are not hiding anything. Anyone who can look at a financial statement, reads the notes, and listens to the conference calls can see exactly what is going on. But as with the housing bubble people choose to ignore the reality and place their faith in narrative. (Just like AGW people that Anthony likes to point out.)
Dr. Lurtz says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:44 am
…Watch for a CRISIS that will cause the unlimited issuing of Execution Orders [all ready happened??]….
_______________________________
Your a day late and a dollar short. The EO’s have been issued for a long time and Clinton gathered them all up into a nice neat package. A decidedly wacky extremist site has the actual EO numbers and a brief description of the orders listed : http://www.angelfire.com/hi/TWA800/clintoneo.html
(Ain’t seach engines wonderful?)
Torgeir Hansson says:
March 19, 2012 at 9:39 pm
“Hey guys! Isn’t it great to see that the Administration already is coming off its CAGW stance? I predicted this at least two years ago. Mr. Obama should be welcomed to the fold, not reviled as a liar.”
Please don’t take this the wrong way: You may not be familiar with one P.T. Barnum, a Circus operator from an earlier era who said “There’s a Sucker born every minute”. Not long after, a Vaudevillian performer-turned-movie actor named W.C. Fields, taking note of Barnum’s observation, said “…and two to ‘take care’ of him.”. While I admire ‘optimism’ as a personality trait, Mr. Obama is here to ‘take care’ of you.
For confirmation, just look at the careful calibration (changes in) of his rhetoric, and ABOVE ALL the repeated attempts to defer what will be politically disadvantageous to a point in time that will be after an election. . . so that implementation of The Agenda will not get him tossed out. Be very, very suspicious . . .
Many here seem to not like Obama (and he’s not perfect), but when you hold your nose and vote you can’t seriously consider one of the current crop of brain dead Republican zombies.
vangelv says:
March 20, 2012 at 8:37 am
But if they do not you still will not be able to produce shale gas economically and all but the best shale oil targets will lead to losses. That is the reality as it is, not as you may wish it to be.
==================================================================
Vangely, that doesn’t make any sense. The Canadians are, at this moment moving their sand oil by train down to the U.S. Now, if they can dig in frozen ground and use essentially the same technology to gain oil, and move it by rail and still profit, don’t you imagine with less distance and an easier environment that we could do likewise? The fact of the matter is, unless we remove the obstacles, no one will know for sure.
But, it is besides the point. There is no alternative. And, there won’t be for years to come, with the limited exception of the natural gas we’ve found around the world. So, regardless of your beliefs, we’ll get the oil, sooner or later, and it will be viable, because there is no alternative. Eventually, cost and demand will force the exploitation of the oil, and then you’ll see that all of this stammering and bluster about peak this and that was nothing but a heavily propagandized Malthusian talking point.
Vangely, that doesn’t make any sense. The Canadians are, at this moment moving their sand oil by train down to the U.S. Now, if they can dig in frozen ground and use essentially the same technology to gain oil, and move it by rail and still profit, don’t you imagine with less distance and an easier environment that we could do likewise?
Please pay attention. I do not question the economics of tar sands production because the established producers can make a profit at the low prices that they are getting. Eventually, when a pipeline is built to British Columbia and the producers can get the world price for their oil they should do much better.
It is the economics of shale that is the big problem right now. Shale gas producers have already abandoned the idea of making a profit from their activities and are trying to desperately convince speculators that shale oil will be different. For some it may be but I doubt that the average shale oil well will be profitable. There certainly is not much evidence of that so far.
Let me note that I can be convinced if I see data that shows that I am wrong. But I have yet to see that data so far. Other than a few unique situations I do not see shale liquids as very promising at this time. And as I pointed out often, shale gas is a huge problem.
The Oil Commodity market, like all markets, is an illogical, emotionally driven institution. Write a story about a Saudi pipeline busting and watch the panic. Remember about 3 years ago crude went to $150. There was no shortage, only speculation. If these speculators heard that the US was doubling it’s drilling permits, I submit, the price of crude would plummet.
If oil is “the energy of the past”, shouldn’t we sell it now while the price is still high?
Torgeir says:
I never suggested any such thing. Chu has been perfectly clear that he sees raising gas prices is essential to SAVING our country and the world. Please, in your quest to support and embrace Obama, do not misrepresent what other people are saying. It’s pretty trollish behavior, posing as someone who wants to give the benefit of the doubt while grossly mis-stating what other people have said.
On the point itself, if you recognize that “European governments tax oil to regulate behavior, just like we tax cigarettes to regulate behavior,” why do you have difficulty accepting that the Obama administration is doing the same thing, not with taxes, but with their manipulation of prices by curtailing domestic energy development? They have been perfectly up front about this being their plan, and all of their actions have been in accordance with this plan. They want high energy prices in order to force people to use less oil, which they see as necessary to save the world from CO2.
Now that the high prices are proving to be politically costly, they are pretending that they did not create them on purpose and they are hiding their anti-CO2 motivation, but if they really were no longer concerned about CO2 they would remove the artificial restrictions on domestic energy development.
Vangel seems to be looking at the issue in terms of his own investment experience, focusing on the issue of profitability:
But profitability does not tell the tale. If producers are not making money, it is because the glut of supply has driven natural gas prices down to the level of production costs. Markets always experience such fluctuations. Just ask farmers. In a good growing year, nobody makes any money because the glut of supply makes the bottom fall out of market prices.
The criterion to look at is production cost. That is what underlies the industry supply curve. For a given market price, that energy will be supplied that can be sold for more than the cost of production (plus, in long run equilibrium, a margin for “normal profits”). The higher the market price, the more sources of supply become profitable and come on line. As its price reflects, shale gas has some of the cheapest production costs. Thus it most certainly is economically viable. But energy is a segmented market. Natural gas does not compete directly with oil and gas. Over time, low natural gas prices will cause change-overs from other energy sources (my mother just changed out her oil fired furnace for a gas furnace), but within its own market, a flood of producers into the industry can easily drive supply up and prices down to the point where no one is making money. The least efficient such producers will be driven out, reducing supply and driving prices go back up to where the producers that remain are making “normal profits.”
Doesn’t seem fair to the capitalists does it? They do all this great work providing the energy that everyone needs, and the reward they get is that their own efforts systematically bring their own profits down. But that’s the beauty of the system. It doesn’t cater to the capitalists. It uses the capitalists to serve society, “as if by an invisible hand,” in the famous words of Adam Smith. Sorry that Vangel’s investments are not paying off the way he hoped, but it is NOT a sign that shale gas is not viable. Rather, it is SO viable that the expansion of supply quickly drove prices down and took away most of the profits. Well, capitalism can indeed be unfair, because it does not take fairness into account. It’s all about efficiency, which is why we should let it work.
“Sun Spot says:
March 20, 2012 at 10:03 am
Many here seem to not like Obama (and he’s not perfect), but when you hold your nose and vote you can’t seriously consider one of the current crop of brain dead Republican zombies.”
We might not want to go down “Specific Political” paths on this site – it would be counterproductive.
Let’s just say that many, many people would find that “… brain dead Zombies” remark offensive.
At least “Zombies” are fictional. Marxists, Fascists, Communists, One-Worlders, Welfare-Staters and various Totalitarian Wanna-bes exist in the real world.
Sun Spot says:
March 20, 2012 at 10:03 am
Many here seem to not like Obama (and he’s not perfect), but when you hold your nose and vote you can’t seriously consider one of the current crop of brain dead Republican zombies.
__________________________________
I am very much dreading having to make a selections among them. Holding my nose is not going to work, I need to invest in a Scott air pack….
James Sexton says:
March 20, 2012 at 7:10 am
“Your talking points have already been addressed. The reason why we haven’t exploited the oil that’s there is because of the same enviro-nutjobs that are blathering so much about CO2.”
This country has had falling oil production over almost every of the last 40 years (with the exception of 7), no matter which Administration was in charge. But in your mind it’s all the fault of the all-powerful “enviro-nutjobs.”
There are plenty of posts on this thread that present you with a far more nuanced reality. My simple point was that decline in U.S. oil production seemed to be party-neutral, and I think that stands up to scrutiny.
Gail Combs says:
March 20, 2012 at 9:16 am
“I live on a dirt road in the back end of nowhere the nearest civilization is 15 miles ~ a 30 mile round trip so that is about a two day journey for a pony and cart unless the animal is very fit. (This was part of a discussion on another board). I have done 20 -30 mile carriage drives and it leaves me and my animals half dead the next day…
I feel like George Clooney in Three Kings, trying to explain that “bullion is not the little cubes you put in hot water to make soup.”
Gail, we are talking macro-economics here. Reducing oil consumption is encouraged on a macro scale. Driving causes accidents, pollution, etc. It’s expensive to society.
If you live 30 miles up a dirt road, by all means, take the car. No one is begrudging you that.
Alec Rawls,
>>Natural gas does not compete directly with oil and gas.
Diesel can be chemically created from a number of feed stocks. As I posted earlier, Shell in Louisiana is making money converting natual gas to diesal. The more we move to diesel in transporation, the better it is for energy supply stability.
When the UK and Polish natural gas fracking comes on-line, things are going to get very dicey for the Russian Federation.
The ability to replace directly Russian gas and to convert a portion of that Natureral gas to diesel means a double shock to Russian finances. Gas to diesel places a cap on the up side of crude oil prices as Russian direct income from natural gas is under the most pressure from lower cost supplies.
RobRoy,
The larger the share of world energy supply from politically stable areas. The lower the total risk premium speculators can demand.
That is why oil & gas shale are hugely important to our political near future. The less cash there is available to politically unstable regimes from POL. The more stable the world political environment and the better economic development in stable areas of the globe.
Just do the math. 20 Billion barrels of proven reserves, at US consumption of 40mbbl/day will last less than two years. (world wide consumption was 80mbbl/day in 2010, US consumption was half, and half of the us consumption (20 MBBL/day) was domestically produced). Simply to replace imported oil from canada, venezuela, mexico, nigeria and the middle east would exhaust our proven reserves in four years – assuming we could build 40,000 500BBL/day wellheads in any reasonable amount of time.
If the 400B BBL “technically recoverable crude” can be economically recovered (which I wouldn’t bet on), that will last 26 years.
From the Oil Drum:
In the good areas of the Bakken, with higher porosity and lots of fracture permeability, the recovery might range as high as 5% to possibly 15%. Typically only a few areas, or “sweet spots,” will have recovery this high. Outside the sweet spots, recoveries are likely to be much lower; the reservoir quality will deteriorate, with lower porosity, lower permeability, and fewer fractures, and/or thinner beds of reservoir rock. In these areas, recovery will probably be less than 5% of the oil in place, and in some areas less than 1%. Estimating recovery factor in shale reservoirs is more an art than a science; only after several years of production, and with very good data, can a reliable range of recovery be estimated.
In the less favorable and thinner areas of the reservoir, even though it might be technically possible to recover 1% or 2% of the oil in place, the risk may be too high to for an operator to be willing to spend $3 to $5 million or more, with no assurance that the well will pay out. In this case the “technically recoverable” reserves might be 1% of oil in place, but the economically recoverable reserves are 0% if an operator is not persuaded to risk capital to drill a well.
If the 800B BBL”oil shale” can be economically recovered (i.e. EROEI > 1), that will last 52 years.
The “undiscovered resources” estimate is pure imagination, and anyone who _relies_ on it for policy purposes is insane.
Assuming zero growth in US consumption.
There are 950 wells in nodak producing 90k bbl/day (100bbl/day per well average).
Here’s the criteria to judge them by:
=====================================================
“GOD, give us men! A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office can not buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor; men who will not lie;
Men who can stand before a demagogue
And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking!
Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog
In public duty, and in private thinking;
For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds,
Their large professions and their little deeds,
Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps,
Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.
Josiah Gilbert Holland”
Torgeir Hansson,
You are wrong about everything, aren’t you? You say:
“Reducing oil consumption is encouraged on a macro scale. Driving causes accidents, pollution, etc. It’s expensive to society.”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with oil consumption. It is there to be used, and it makes life much easier and better for everyone. It is not “expensive to society”, it clearly benefits society.
Windmills are expensive to society. Classifying CO2 as a “pollutant” is expensive to society. Wasting $billions on the runaway global warming scam is expensive to society. But hey, maybe you’re teleconnecting from an alternate universe. That would explain your upside down view of reality.
Alec Rawls says:
March 20, 2012 at 10:38 am
“Please, in your quest to support and embrace Obama, do not misrepresent what other people are saying. It’s pretty trollish behavior, posing as someone who wants to give the benefit of the doubt while grossly mis-stating what other people have said.”
This is getting juvenile.
Torgeir Hansson says:
March 20, 2012 at 11:39 am
This country has had falling oil production over almost every of the last 40 years (with the exception of 7), no matter which Administration was in charge. But in your mind it’s all the fault of the all-powerful “enviro-nutjobs.”
There are plenty of posts on this thread that present you with a far more nuanced reality. My simple point was that decline in U.S. oil production seemed to be party-neutral, and I think that stands up to scrutiny.
======================================================
Well, sure, it’s party neutral, because the nut-jobs remain nut-jobs regardless or what party is in control of the Oval office or congress. As Obama has rightfully claimed, production is up now. Why? Because it’s profitable in the places we’re allowed to drill. But, why bother with the nut-jobs, legislative, and regulatory headaches presented by the U.S. when you can drill without the difficulties elsewhere. But, notice, now that the prices are spiking, we’re producing more. If anything, this points to artificial costs associated with the previously mentioned headaches thwarting production. But, when the profitability exceeds the headaches, they try to drill here as well.
Speaking of nut-jobs…. you should see what a wonderful job they’ve done with the Keystone oil…… this is why production is in a general decline in this part of the world. Greens Cause More CO2 Emissions And Victory For The 1% The madness they cause.
… and look at the damage Demos wreak for the periods they ARE in office (as the dems seem to consistently get the repubs to play a game of “go-along to get-along”); I had never realized this before Turgidsson, thanks for point this out and making this case …
You’re right Turgid, repubs need to grow spines and actually become the opposition for a change.
.
Smokey says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm
“You are wrong about everything, aren’t you? You say:
“Reducing oil consumption is encouraged on a macro scale. Driving causes accidents, pollution, etc. It’s expensive to society.”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with oil consumption. It is there to be used, and it makes life much easier and better for everyone. It is not “expensive to society”, it clearly benefits society.
This is the sad part about these discussions. Anyone—ANYONE—with half a brain and economics 101 knows that there are externalities, or costs to you, Smokey, to automobile use and petroleum use in our society. Yet you, because you own a computer and an internet connection, can join the discussion, even if you do not have the first clue of what you are talking about. Everybody KNOWS that cars and heaters are great things to have. I love my car. I love the smell of gasoline. I love driving fast. Yet it doesn’t mean that I don’t know there are costs to society from it.
“Ouch”
(Schedule a ‘Take a Contraction to Lunch Day’; make it “you’re” and yul [sic] be just fine…)
.
Torgeir Hansson –
Daily Kos?
Democrat Underground?
Crooks and Liars?
Huff Po?
From where do you hail (blog wise)?
Want to ‘hang’?
.
There’s been some pathetic kvetching here about this article and the discussion being too political. Well, so? The issue we’re beating our heads against a wall is primarily a political one, although I could see an economist or two here argue quite convincingly that it’s economic first.
The science, we all know, is important. But the science is not the rreal issue. Given how rickety the CAGW claim is, we all know there is sufficient argument to at least put enough doubt to it to slow down the panic decision-making we’ve been subjected to. Yet, curiously, that’s not what’s happening; people are still frightened, governments are making costly and destructive policies, and fantastic sums of money are being sucked away into the pockets of shadowy corporations and activist groups.
Science and facts will not reverse any of this. Try and provide an easily-understandable and bullet-proof piece of evidence tomorrow that unquestionably proves that CAGW is utterly and totally false…and it will have zero impact on the day after. The subsidies will continue, the regulations will tighten, Greenpeace and WWF will go on harvesting their tribute from corporations and the media will ladle-out the same memes. Science has next to nothing to do with this current disaster, except to serve as a fancy decoration, a snazzy PowerPoint presentation tarting-up decisions already made. This is why the focus needs to be on the political.
Here, in Canada, we’ve been lucky in that respect. We have possibly the best government in our history, a majority Conservative government which among other things has been quietly taking on the Warmists and the crypto-socialists with excellent economic and social results. But we can’t do it alone. With UK’s pseudo-conservatives and watermelons, Australia in the clutch of a demented Labour administration and the US under a horrific government not even it’s worst enemies could dream up, Canada can only go so far before it starts pissing-off the big guys. So, yes, by all means, let’s argue the politics…even rudely, if need be…because it’s the politics that are destroying our economies, busting our societies, enriching and empowering nations that hate us and leading us and our children into nightmarish, pre-industrial levels of servitude and poverty.
The highest purpose of any ‘economy’ is to find the most efficient use of the available resources. One can not stimulate an economy by moving towards less efficiency. Moving towards less efficiency always has a detrimental impact on an economy.
Sometimes, it may be wise to move towards less efficiency to avoid an undesirable consequence of that efficiency. For example, if the efficient use of fossil fuels resulted in catastrophic climate change, it may be desirable to move towards another energy source. Such a move will damage the economy, because it is less efficient, but may still be wise.
Of course, fossil fuels are not and can not cause catastrophic climate change. The reality of this is (and always has been) apparent to anyone with eyes to see. So the logical thing for Obama to do is stop his war on fossil fuels, since there is no threat from fossil fuel use that comes anywhere near outweighing its benefits. Instead, he has decided to wage a war on the economy!?!?
This war on the economy is two-fold: 1. damage the economy by raising the price of oil through restriction and regulation, and 2. force us to use less efficient forms of energy to accomplish the same things.
He may be lying about the availability of fossil fuels, but the real gall in his stance is the idea that we must destroy our economy is order to safeguard it. Obama is invoking the economic fallacy of the broken window and expects the country to forget that it is a fallacy. Are we really that stupid?
Wait…don’t answer that.