Guest essay by Roger E. Sowell, Esq.5
Recently on WUWT, a post1 by Willis Eschenbach was made advocating the almost doubling of energy consumption worldwide, by increasing energy use per capita in the poorest countries. This post addresses the issue of increased energy consumption and poses a few questions. I say at the outset that I agree that improving the quality of life is an important goal, and energy consumption per capita is probably a good indicator of quality of life.
First, what do the following countries all have in common? Nigeria, Indonesia, Algeria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, Canada, and United Kingdom?
Each country is a major oil producer and exporter, but with Indonesia and UK experiencing decreased exports recently. The first seven countries all are, or were, a member of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.2 Yet, all but the last two, Canada and United Kingdom, have below-average GDP per capita, gross domestic product, according to the World Bank statistics.3
Second, while it is true that a correlation can be made between energy consumption per capita and quality of life, there must be something else at work that prevents the oil-rich countries Nigeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, and the others from enjoying that high quality of life. There are fundamental issues that prevent energy-poor countries from copying the success of another energy-poor country, Japan. Japan has essentially no natural energy resources, but found the means to import energy as oil, coal, and liquefied natural gas, LNG, to power its industry, commerce, and residences.4
Until some fundamental issues are resolved, simply increasing energy consumption in the poorer parts of the world will not improve the quality of life.
Among these fundamental issues are, in no particular order, economic system, a fair justice system, and the political or governing system. I don’t imply that I am an expert on any of these countries, or their economic systems, justice systems, or political systems. I have done a fair amount of study, and also have traveled to and worked extensively in five of the countries mentioned above: Indonesia, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and UK.
Perhaps the most important issue is the political system, for the justice system and economic system may depend on who is in power and the type of power exerted. It may be that a representative constitutional democracy is a favored political system. It may be that the degree of official corruption is a major factor. It may also be that civil discord is a major factor. Having a modest degree of government regulation to ensure fair treatment, but not an onerous burden, is surely important.
A fair justice system ensures that those with a legal grievance will be heard, and treated fairly according to laws that do not change on someone’s whim. Having a contract honored, or being allowed to bring a lawsuit for breach of a contract, are important issues. Having a means to collect on a judgment is also important, as it does little good to win a lawsuit, be awarded money as damages, and be unable to collect the money.
A brief anecdote to illustrate the importance of a justice system: during my time in law school, US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to an assembly of professors, staff, students, and guests. Justice Kennedy spoke on many things that night, but what I most remember is him telling us that he had met recently with members of Iraq’s judiciary. It was soon after the war to remove Hussein ended and Iraq was building up its new government and judicial system. According to Justice Kennedy, the Iraq delegation thanked him tearfully for bringing to the world the US Constitution and its many provisions for legal rights, especially the first ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. They intended to copy as much of those rights as they could into their new governing documents.
The economic system may be important, perhaps not as important as other issues. Economic systems in the oil exporting countries range from absolute monarchies to dictators to elected representative.
It is interesting to note that OPEC has existed for more than 50 years, having been founded in 1960, so ample time has passed to allow oil-rich countries to improve their standard of living. A few have, such as Saudi Arabia, but most have not. Clearly, other factors must be addressed besides access to basic energy, if the goal is to improve quality of life.
It is further interesting to note that even within a country with high energy consumption per capita, such as the United States, enormous differences exist between citizens and their energy consumption. It may be that energy per capita in the US is distributed according to a bell curve, with a few percent of the population consuming vast amounts of energy in their mansions, jet airplanes, and fast motorcars. Likewise, a few percent of the population are poor and have very low energy consumption. The majority of the population likely fall in the middle, with about average energy consumption. Clearly, again, other factors must be at work that prevent the poorest from achieving a better quality of life along with higher energy consumption even in an energy-rich nation like the US.
Citations
1 WUWT, article of August 21, 2013 “Double The Burn Rate, Scotty”
2 OPEC membership at www.OPEC.org
3 World Bank GDP per capita, 2012 data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
4 EIA data for Japan www.eia.gov
5 The author is an attorney in California, practicing in engineering, science and technology law. He is a frequent speaker on climate change, energy, and engineering issues. He worked worldwide as a chemical engineer in the energy industry with oil refining, petrochemicals, basic chemicals, and power plants. He blogs at http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com
“””””””…….jrwakefield says:
August 23, 2013 at 1:54 pm
“So before there was ANY biological source of any kind, just where did all that carbon come from ?
Diamonds, and graphite are most certainly not biological, so purely geological processes are and were capable of processing carbon, just like any other mineral.”
What carbon? Precambrian rocks have little free carbon, a few graphite deposits, and diamonds with a known, sort of, origin. How do those relate to methane and oil formation?
Every oil formation has trace mineral markers which can be traced back to the source rock, which in every case is a biological deposit of some kind. Read the book Oil 101. It’s explained nicely and clearly………””””””””
So carbon, which forms more chemical compounds than any other element, is not capable of forming any such compounds without biological activity.
And I would think any rock resulting from biological sediments, would in the process of formation, be easily permeated by oil and gas produced elsewhere. And I’m not surprised that oil samples contain traces of the rock they were extracted from. I would be surprised if oil did not contain such traces.
But if as you say, it IS produced by biological activity, then of course it is a renewable source; unless biology is planning to stop any time soon.
So humans may have been using fossil fuels for 5,000 years, and nature has been making them (biologically) for 5 billion years. ?
I don’t wish to disrespect patriotic US readers who claim that they have the magic formula, but the issues are a bit more complex than some of them claim. The connection between a particular model of government and prosperity is by no means clear cut. In terms of prosperity measured by GDP per capita, according to the World Bank, eight countries have a higher GDP per capita than the US (I usually use the CIA Factbook, but it is playing up. From the last time I checked this metric, it is not substantially different there.) Several have GDP per capita more than 50% higher than the US.
These countries include several constitutional monarchies – principally in Scandinavia and Europe – a couple of Westminster parliamentary systems (Canada and Australia) and authoritarian Singapore.
Some of these countries have extensive natural resources, including energy resources, and some don’t.
What they do have in common is stable, reasonably fair and predictable governance. It is not so much the form that matters as the substance.
There are other important elements such as education levels and the framework for enterprises to prosper and grow, but individually those things do not necessarily bring the inhabitants a good lifestyle. Someone above mentioned Russia as an example of an educated population which is not seeing much flow-on from it.
Culturally, tribalism in all its forms is fatal for sustainable economic prosperity for the masses. We were all tribal once, and overcoming that is a huge barrier to people in all of the poorest countries. By tribalism I mean not only warring tribes, but the internal culture of the dominant leaders, their families and cronies monopolising all the spoils. We never quite get rid of it anywhere, but minimising it is central to economic progress.
As Willis and many others have demonstrated, the limits to global prosperity are not physical. There is plenty of food, land and energy to go round. Culture is what matters most, IMO. That is why the Chinese and Indians, who have strong mercantile roots in their cultures, have finally been able to get ahead. And it is why much of the aid that goes to places like Africa and Afghanistan is wasted, and why the Saudis would probably still be living in tents if it wasn’t for the oil.
george e. smith on August 23, 2013 at 11:21 am
Really? Currency inflation would have changed the rate, but not. Here, it has been relative stable for many years – 1 NOK : 1.12-1.17 SEK. As the Swedish currency have become stronger compared to many other strong currencies like EUR, GBP and USD, the same is valid for the Norwegian currency (during the last finance crise, both countries manage to stay out of the worst, in Sweden due to the right-wing economics, not sloppy/utopian left-wing ditto …).
Still, costs and salaries in most cases are higher in Norway, inspires Norwegian companies to outsource to Sweden (where I work – in mechanical production, we have several Norwegian costumers, not only due to low costs, but Swedish workers are known to be more productive …). Despite high freight cost, still it’s cheaper to produce here.
Sorry to say, if traditional currency inflation “rules” really worked, the USD would have been of very low value today, due to the huge amount of both electronical money and genuine bills available world wide … (Have you seen the US million dollar bills with Obama’s mug …? 😉 )
Regarding the oil, in Norway they have announced severeal times that they have reached “peak oil”, but quite soon after each time, they discovered a new rich oil field …
richard verney on August 23, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Obviously, we have not found ourselves in the same places … (Standard of living – do not compare newer parts of Oslo or other “major” city with the rest of Norway!)
If Norway had invested in proportion as much money as Sweden did into infrastructure and other useful stuff to society, they had found themselves on the same level …
If you’ve ever traveled by car in both countries, you know that it is the contrary to what you say. (Refering to road quality. Did you drive on the “right” side of the road?) It’s just one of many details, which you obviously missed …
But it isn’t all bad, because money are invested into projects, that will change most to the better.
@ur momisuglyPaul Jonas, M. Courtney, Craig Loehle. I am Not arguing that Eschenbach is wrong in his recent post. Far from it, I state my agreement explicitly in the opening paragraph.
@ur momisuglyBernd Felsche, Paul Schnurr. Does it matter if energy resources doubled, or prices are halved, such that GDP increases, while the structural issues identified in this article remain in place?
Even if an energy breakthrough occurs, that dramatically increases energy resources and decreases the price, would impoverished countries enjoy the benefit of that breakthrough? Consider, just as examples, nuclear reactors that can be built and safely operated at one-tenth the cost of building one today, or the much-discussed thorium reactors, or a way to cheaply store solar energy, or a cheap but safe form of nuclear fusion, or ocean current power, or some bright inventor figures out how to deploy a power plant at the ocean floor where his heat source is a thermal vent into the Earth’s crust and his heat sink is the very cold ocean water a few hundred feet away. Would any of this make any difference in the lives of billions who now are in poverty due to the reasons put forth above?
Probably the greatest source of energy on the Earth is the continents drifting apart, if anyone ever develops a way to produce power from the several continents that are spreading apart at the mid-Atlantic ridge. The water is deep, and very cold, and the movement is very small. But, the ridge seems to extend for 9,000 or 10,000 miles. That energy source might be considered inexhaustible, even if not renewable. We hear from alarmists that energy stored is x-number of Hiroshima bombs, but I wonder how many bomb-equivalents are going untapped along the ridge.
@ur momisugly Fabi at 4:53 am: absolutely correct. Bingo. Japan is a prime example that native energy resources do not matter, nor does the price of imported energy. Perhaps other examples include Switzerland, South Korea, Hong Kong, or Singapore.
For those who pointed out that I did not discuss many other important factors, I agree. This was not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of the multitude of issues that lead to poverty even in the midst of incredible energy wealth such as oil and natural gas.
@c1ue, and the three points you disparage.
First, I did address the issue of “time.” OPEC has existed for 50-plus years. It is not “time” that is the problem.
Second, I did not disagree with Eschenbach. Please go back and read what I wrote. I stated explicitly that on this point, I agree with Eschenbach. I pointed out Japan as proof positive that having domestic energy resources is not a prerequisite.
You seem to believe that this article was written as a rebuttal. It was not. It is intended to show exactly what it does show: that even if more energy is found, or cheaper energy is found, it will not likely be used by the countries with severe structural issues.
@ur momisuglyRud Istvan, you might be interested in my Peak Oil speech, in which your points are rebutted. Briefly, far faster than oil and gas have been consumed as a planetary resource. This has occurred in spite of OPEC controlling the price of oil to the inflation-adjusted equivalent of its 1980 price.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/speech-on-peak-oil-and-us-energy-policy.html
@ur momisuglyharrywr2, and the heating/cooling degree days argument. Even within the same locale, such as Southern California, there are vast differences between the energy consumption of the rich and the poor. One does not need to drive very far to see this, out here. The same is true in almost every country and city I’ve seen, for example New York City, Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Cleveland, London, Rome, Madrid, and many others.
@ur momisugly mellyrn: Regarding your tautology criticism, what I wrote was “A fair justice system ensures that those with a legal grievance will be heard, and treated fairly according to laws that do not change on someone’s whim.” You have selected only a portion of the quote, in order to change the meaning. Please read the entire sentence.
@ur momisuglydp, where you state “you make a ridiculous mistake.” No mistake was made. My point, as I stated earlier, is that many structural issues must be overcome.
As to your point about the superiority of the English-speaking world, I wonder what the renaissance Dutch would think of that, and modern Germans, and modern Japanese? I’ve been in all three countries and did not hear much English spoken.
@ur momisugly George e. smith, and the justice system. I tried to give only a few examples of a fair justice system. Going to court, having a case based on laws that don’t change arbitrarily, and being able to collect on a judgment are merely parts of a fair justice system. I could go on and on, but I will not elaborate on this point. As to your personal loss, a good attorney would advise his client about the likelihood of recovering any damages, before he goes to court. I will say, though, that the US justice system is not perfect, but it beats almost any other system from other countries. Legal scholars argue over this, so I won’t belabor the point.
@ur momisugly mikerossander, this article is not a rebuttal. Please see my earlier comment on this point.
@ur momisugly Blade, who is not impressed. I have stated before, and state here again, that if anyone can build a nuclear power plant that costs the same as, and is as safe as, a gas-fired combined cycle plant, then I’m for it. It is bordering on criminal behavior to allow such high-priced electricity production when there are far better alternatives. And yes, I’m all for having attorneys file lawsuits to force nuclear power plant owners to build the plants according to the existing laws. I think any rational person would also want that.
But, perhaps you find it desirable to increase everyone’s power bill because a nuclear plant sounds cool, or chic, or some other smug reason. I don’t. I want the elderly, and poor, and those just barely getting by to have the cheapest, safest, and most reliable power that our technology can provide. Nuclear power as currently built in the US just does not make the cut.
I recommend you read up on the Shoreham plant. Its emergency evacuation plan did not comply with the laws. That is why it was not allowed to start. Perhaps you would prefer that the attorneys go play golf, and the Shoreham plant be operating then develop a leak or radiation discharge, and watch the fiasco develop as millions of people try, but are unable, to evacuate?
No, thanks. I’ll take the attorneys and the lawsuits to force the owners to comply with the laws. If the construction costs go up a bit, then build it right the first time, and don’t put one next to a major multi-million population city.
@Rud Istavan, the comment above should read: Briefly, technology for finding and producing oil and gas has progressed far faster than oil and gas have been consumed as a planetary resource. This has occurred in spite of OPEC controlling the price of oil to the inflation-adjusted equivalent of its 1980 price.
SAMURAI I had to look this up:
Obama: “The Planet Will Boil Over’ If Africans Are Allowed Car”
Obama version of how the world works:
Reagans version on how the world works:
WOW. This is one of the most intelligent and interesting discussions that I have read in a long time. It makes me feel much better about the future knowing that there are so many people that can still think. Its no wonder why WUWT is number one.
“So carbon, which forms more chemical compounds than any other element, is not capable of forming any such compounds without biological activity.”
Not complex hydrocarbons. Kerogen, the precursor to oil, has chemical characteristics similar to lipids. Again, read Oil 101. Great book.
“This was not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of the multitude of issues that lead to poverty even in the midst of incredible energy wealth such as oil and natural gas.”
This may be nit picking, but “lead to poverty” is incorrect. I would say that poverty is the normal state of humans, has been since we became, well, human (when ever you want to peg that.) I would say that oil and gas has lead us out of poverty. Even poor countries are less impoverished than they were 100 years ago. Trickle down effect.
Energy generation is the most important issue.
Burning coal produces many orders of magnitude more “work” than people do. Nuclear energy produces many orders of magnitude more energy than coal.
Some day, we will find another energy source other than chemical-reaction based ones like coal/oil or a weak nuclear force based ones like fission nuclear energy or a gravity based ones like hydro.
It’s only a matter of time and a matter of when the next 20 year old genius finds the solution.
“But if as you say, it IS produced by biological activity, then of course it is a renewable source; unless biology is planning to stop any time soon.”
But the rate of formation of organisms into oil is very slow, millions of years needed. Again, in Oil 101 the author looks at oil fields and explains when they were formed, and why. Generally periods of “global warming”, when the planet naturally cycled into warmer times. That meant much more biological activity. Hence a warmer climate is a better climate for the biota! Dont tell Gore!
As for abiotic, how come there are no oil fields in Precambrian rocks? Not one oil field came from rocks older than 450myo.
Tribalism, or the more delicate Clanism accurately described by Mark S Weiner in Rule of the Clan. He is a constitutional lawyer and it is not an easy read but he makes some good points as he describes societies as different as Iceland and South Sudan as they progress from Clanism to individualism or, as he calls it from”Status to Contract”.
Yes, you made a serious mistake and back it up with a denial. And you failed to improve on Willis’ point which I think was your original point if your subject line is to mean anything.
They are not on your short list of energy exporters. Try to stay in scope.
Two of your three examples do not have a good record in the 20th century for playing well with neighbors, so soon we forget, eh, and Germany in particular is the nation that elicited that wonderful quote from the Iron Lady. Oh – and the royal Dutch family sought refuge from Germany in England – the first English speaking nation. Why would that be?
Your shout. Actually, don’t bother.
Jrwakefield says:
I drool at your list, if only it would happen… True Utopia.
=========================
There is no Utopian society. The limited form of government I described does increase individual freedom, but with that freedom comes increased individual risk and personal responsibility. The $1.75 trillion the US spends on the compliance costs of rules, regulations and mandates is almost entirely replaced by: product liability laws, insurance companies establishing strict conditions for coverage, and private-sector rating agencies. The FDA, FAA, EPA, Consumer Protection Agency, etc., don’t exist. It’s up to the individual to take the responsibility for their actions.
Market forces, class-action suits, the press, etc. will eventually reduce unscrupulous companies and individuals, but there is increased risk involved; caveat emptor replaces massive rules and regulations.
There will also be virtually no public welfare system, Social Security, public healthcare. Each individual is responsible to save money, provide for his families retirement and purchase low cost catastrophic private sector health insurance, with minor medical costs paid out of pocket. If someone is irresponsible and doesn’t do those things, then people will only have private sector charities, private-sector free clinics, family members, friends, local churches, etc., to rely on.
Education is primarily private funded with local municipalities able to fund local public schools through local sales taxes and private donations.
The upside to all this is that people will have 10’s of thousands to millions of dollars/yr of increased disposable income from much lower taxes and lower costs of living due to the elimination of trillions of regulation compliance costs and banks will have $trillions/yr in additional credit reserves to lend out by everyone saving for their own retirement.
Obviously, those in society unable to physically or mentally provide for themselves will have to be cared for by privately funded institutions.
Such a society could only exist with high ethical and moral standards. People that are lazy, irresponsible and reckless will live a pretty meager existence.
SAMURAI says: @ur momisugly August 23, 2013 at 9:00 pm
There is no Utopian society. The limited form of government I described does increase individual freedom, but with that freedom comes increased individual risk and personal responsibility….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I remember something like that from the 1950’s. If a family fell on hard times the churches (Yes plural) and neighbors helped. Vagrants were taken to the county farm where they had a roof over their head and food but in return were expected to provide labor if they were able to. Small businesses were every where from the immigrant who spoke little English and took in wash and sewing to Grandma’s butcher shop. Companies saw people as an investment and expected that an employee would work and grow with the company for 30 years or more. People didn’t lock the door because these were communities not strangers living in the same building who never spoke to each other.
Yes there were major problems. Blacks and women were second class citizens and the community was always looking over you shoulder. We had major pollution problems and safety problems in some factories too. But I am not so sure the ‘Cures’ put in place (red tape and bureaucracies) aren’t a heck of a lot worse than the problems. Or there were not alternate better solutions like criminal trespass for pollution control.
@dp, I have no need to shout. Your repeating a falsehood does not change its character of being false. It appears that most other commenters grasp the point, in fact, some expanded the point by including many other factors that prevent some countries from life-improving energy consumption. In time, perhaps you too will get the point.
Nice try on the English-speaking mis-direction. Thatcher could use it in her context, and I used it in mine. Can you refute the facts that the Dutch, Germans, and Japanese do not speak English as a native tongue? Can you deny the positive contributions of the Dutch Rennaisance? And did you note my careful use of the word “modern” for Germany and Japan? The war was over almost 70 years ago. Let’s examine their contributions to the world in these past 65 years or so. Or, are you so hate-filled you will never get past WWII?
Stefan says:
August 23, 2013 at 4:04 am
I think we are still scratching our heads over how and why the West managed to free itself from feudal systems with mythic-membership tribes, serfdom, and etc
Sorry I am late to conversation,
But the one thing to me seems the US culture did and no matter what it was .and like it or not:
They took the bull by the horn, (got to the Moon)
No time , (we are going to do it anyway, Apple, MS, Google, FB and go on)
And see you later ( all of the above and then some!).
Tyranny will get you no where, I am not a genius but the USA Constitution of A Democratic REPUBLIC is the only working model!
“According to Justice Kennedy, the Iraq delegation thanked him tearfully for bringing to the world the US Constitution and its many provisions for legal rights, especially the first ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. They intended to copy as much of those rights as they could into their new governing documents.”
I wonder if the members of that delegation know what contempt one of the major parties of this country has for the Constitution, and most of those ten amendments? The party that finds those documents a nuisance in their drive to centralize control of all facets of American life.
A contempt that Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts sometime share, whenever the Constitution gets in the way of their personal policy preferences. Would that our own “leaders” shared the reverence for the Constitution shown by those Iraquis, and the post-Soviet Poles and Czechs before them.
Blade says:
August 23, 2013 at 2:38 pm
“I disagree with most of the commenters praising this article.
I have him pegged as a typical anti-nuke kook ”
You got that right, friend.