Just how crazy are these people?

Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen —  27 May 2022

It didn’t take much of a push, but the Climate Crazies have finally gone over the edge.  The ever-more-alarming climate bad-news cabal of journalists and media outlets have slipped off the playing field into a land far far away from the pressing realities of the real world.

I received this email alert today:

What blockbuster expose are they going to be discussing in their semi-secret cabal meeting on Twitter Spaces?

Revealed: the ‘carbon bombs’ set to trigger catastrophic climate breakdown

“Exclusive: Oil and gas majors are planning scores of vast projects that threaten to shatter the 1.5C climate goal. If governments do not act, these firms will continue to cash in as the world burns

by Damian Carrington and Matthew Taylor”

This shocking expose was published two weeks ago in The Guardian on May 11, 2022.  It is one of the most outrageous propaganda pieces I have ever read. Apparently, it was mostly ignored worldwide, getting only a tiny bit of mention in the like-minded alarmist press.   It failed to get even a mention on WUWT or other climate skeptic sites. 

So, Covering Climate Now  to the rescue!  This Columbia University-based climate-propaganda-pushing media group is a collaborative of media outlets, headed, as you may know, by The Guardian. 

I am listening to the Twitter Spaces conversation, which consists of the authors of The Guardian piece talking about how shocked they were to find that oil and gas industry leaders are actually still seeking new sources of oil and gas.  Joining in are propagandists from Covering Climate Now.  They are discussing how to bring governmental, legal and civil forces to bear in an effort to stop this expansion of oil and gas recovery.

Their main point so far is:  How can we, civil society, stop them?  Why are governments letting this happen?   How can we get a million people in the streets to protest?

They talk about how American gasoline prices are not subject to the laws of supply-and-demand – but are caused by rapacious oil industry actors.  They pooh-pooh the idea that the Russo-Ukraine War gas and oil shock and the embargo on Russian oil had anything to do with the rise of gasoline prices in the U.S. and that, of course, that Biden’s war on oil has nothing whatever to do with gasoline prices either. 

The CCNow propagandists cheer on the absolutely nutty notion from the UN Secretary-General António Guterres who said, at Seton Hall,  that “the graduates …. needed to be the generation that addresses the “planetary emergency of climate change.” And “Investing in fossil fuels is now ‘a dead end – economically and environmentally’. No amount of greenwashing or spin can change that. So, we must put them on notice: Accountability is coming for those who liquidate our future.’” ….  “So my message to you is simple: don’t work for climate-wreckers. Use your talents to drive us towards a renewable future.“

In the entire discussion at Twitter Spaces about fossil fuels and gas/oil production, not one single word was mentioned that indicated any awareness of what oil and gas are used for in today’s world or what the world would look like if we stopped oil and gas production tomorrow.  The reality that nearly all the products and conveniences, including homes, clothing, food, water, transportation, concrete, plastics, electricity, highways, railroads, hospitals, airplanes journalists’ laptops and even newspapers and news media outlets, would cease to function or exist, if oil and gas production were to stop. 

Yet, despite this obvious and undeniable fact, these cultist journalists happily skip to their computers to write stories meant to scare the general population into opposing all oil and gas production.

Europe is going to discover this coming winter what it means to live without Russian oil and natural gas. 

Towards the end of the “conversation”, the CCNow spokesperson said (paraphrased):  We encourage Climate Propaganda outlets, the over-500 of them,   to focus this coming week on the Food and Water Crisis  caused by Climate Change”.   CCNow, naturally, will supply stories for them to use, share or re-write allowing a widespread media cluster-bomb of mostly-false and misleading oh-so-alarming stories concerning the food and water crisis .  I bet these stories don’t feature:  “Too much food?”  “Record crop production?” 

CCNow supplies suggestions on the stories to write and references to use here.  And those reference?  All but one from the UN FAO. 

And thus goes the war against sanity and reality – stay tuned for a flood of media nonsense next week.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

It is not that there are not places in the world that lack adequate food (mostly for political reasons) or places that suffer from lack of potable water (mostly for political reasons).  It is rather that none of these problems is caused by climate change.  Some are caused by “climate + too many people” – too many people living in an area with a not-human-friendly climate – think the Horn of Africa or the Sahel.

That these media outlets are conspiring to produce the appearance of a Climate Crisis is not in doubt. The people involved are, for the most part, True Believers in the Climate Crisis Cult.  They worship the IPCC and people like António Guterres. 

They are not disinterested journalists doing their best to inform the public of all aspects and all sides of the climate controversy, without bias or personal agendas.  They are not dedicated to telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  The truth about climate and fossil fuels is their enemy.   They actively suppress the truth. 

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

4.9 51 votes
Article Rating
216 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 26, 2022 6:06 pm

The Grauniad would not dare criticize the People’s Republic of China, which is increasing coal use enough that what Western oil companies do is lost as a rounding error.

LdB
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 26, 2022 7:32 pm

They also don’t dare say the obvious to do what they want we would have to literally go to war with Russia and China to save the planet 🙂

Deano
Reply to  LdB
May 27, 2022 12:29 am

And don’t forget India which is ramping up coal and coal power plant production also.

CoRev
Reply to  Deano
May 27, 2022 6:04 am

Or Germany?

Last edited 1 month ago by CoRev
MarkW
Reply to  Deano
May 27, 2022 1:00 pm

Or much of Africa.

Simonsays
May 26, 2022 6:14 pm

I am surprised we don’t have more discussion about what oil is actively left.

The current estimates is we have about 1.5 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves. At current consumption of 35 billion a year, we have about 47 years worth of oil. New oil discoveries are no where near consumption <10 billion barrels per year. Yes we have heard it all before, and new technologies like fracking have boosted sohort term supply, but estimates are that there is only another 500million barrels of oil left to be discovered. At some point in the next few decades we are getting off oil if we like it or not. So when does the panic set in?

TonyL
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 6:24 pm

It was explained simply to me once. When proven reserves of *anything* pass 40 years supply or so, people stop bothering to look for more. Resource prospecting is hard work, it is expensive, and 40+ years is getting into “Futurama” type territory.

Simonsays
Reply to  TonyL
May 26, 2022 9:55 pm

The oil company reports themselves are raising this alarm. They are only finding 10-15% of new oil compared to what they produce. You are correct oil prospecting is expensive, hard work but 40 years is not Futurama in the oil industry, it takes decades to find, prove and bring online new wells.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 11:52 pm

It takes decades….. watch the silly film Campbell’s Kingdom. It’s about your level simple Simon.

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:24 am

I see you didn’t bother trying to understand the post you are responding to.
When proven reserves are greater than 40 years, oil companies spend less money looking for new oil.

whiten
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 10:51 am

Simonsays

Simon, congratulations.
I am glad and happy to see you evolve to this new variant of you.

More eloquent and less radical, congratulations, again.

🙂

cheers

Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 6:38 pm

First, you are underestimating reserves, which only counts economically viable reserves and at higher prices, more oil becomes economically viable. Second, you are low balling the amount of oil left to be discovered. Finally, there will be no panic if we wholeheartedly embrace nuclear power, especially if fusion can be made to work. This green crap the alarmists are pushing as the ‘solution’ to the non problem of a CO2 induced climate catastrophe is an existential threat to the free world and unless this ‘we must save the world by destroying the free world’ nonsense stops, there will definitely be a panic, and its already started.

Simonsays
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 26, 2022 8:11 pm

Economically viable reserves are the only ones that matter. The main point is we are discovering a fraction of new reserves each year compared to current consumption. In short supply is going backwards at a very fast rate. You could say that the C02 and oil supply issues are 2 sides of the same coin, the former I think is irrelevant as the latter will force the decarbonisation issue whether we like it not.
So I wondering at what point do we actually admit we have to find an alternate energy solutions to oil and gas. We won’t be driving diesel pick ups in 2100 unless it’s to a vintage car show.

cpratt@telusplanet.net
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 8:57 pm

Whatever happened to “oh my God we are running out of oil” screaming that went on in the 70″s? or the 80’s? Seems we just found more. The planet has been creating oil for a couple of BILLION years.

Simonsays
Reply to  cpratt@telusplanet.net
May 26, 2022 9:35 pm

The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 where supply shocks caused by war in middle East. It was not resolved by finding more, but it did spook the world about energy security..a lot of parallels to today. The planet created a limited amount of oil for millions of years (not billions).

Everyone is telling you (especially the oil.companies), we are in fast heading for what will be the last supply shock. It amazes me how ignorant people seem to be about this topic. I assume it because it 50 +years away, or we just think they said that before and they always find some. Sure there is plenty of oil, just not cheap oil. Our whole economy is based on cheap oil, and it’s going to run out in a generation.

Doonman
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 10:12 pm

So we need to use the oil while we can. Then the next generation can figure out what they want to do for their energy needs, just as every generation before us did.

People like you who think the world ends because of what we do with world resources now fail to convince. Because it has never worked that way, ever. The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. Wood did not disappear because people burned wood Everyone who thought we would all die in piles of horse manure because people all rode horses were wrong too.

Humans adapt. The world is not static and no one can predict the future.

Simonsays
Reply to  Doonman
May 26, 2022 10:30 pm

It’s not the next generation it’s going to happen in our lifetime

I am all in on using oil, but we are the generation using the last of it (by that I mean cheap, abundant oil). I keep asking the question why we aren’t taking this seriously, but are completely obessed with climate change, whilst the worlds whole economy is getting derailed by a small supply shock caused by Russia, what it’s going to be like when we have the real supply shock?

cpratt@telusplanet.net
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 7:35 am

Sigh – “its going to happen in our lifetime”??? Oil Reserves by Country:
#CountryOil Reserves (barrels) in 20161
Venezuela 299,953,000,0002
Saudi Arabia 266,578,000,0003
Canada 170,863,000,0004
Iran 157,530,000,000

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Simonsays
May 28, 2022 5:34 am

The “supply shock” is not caused by Russia, it’s caused by Eco-Nazi stupidity driving energy policies.

Climate believer
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 12:09 am

“The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 where supply shocks caused by war in middle East.”

I think cpratt might have been referring to the “peak oil” theory first proposed by the geologist M.K. Hubbert in 1956, that predicted we would be running on dwindling reserves of oil from as early as the 1970’s.

This was clearly a miscalculation and an underestimation of the evolution of technology.

Whether cpratt meant that or not, I think it is worth pointing out that todays estimates as you stated, are just the next in line of many previous estimates that have been proven wrong or at least wide of the mark.

Maybe this time they’re right, but predicting the future has been a notoriously tricky affair.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Climate believer
May 27, 2022 9:48 am

… geologist M.K. Hubbert in 1956, that predicted we would be running on dwindling reserves of oil from as early as the 1970’s.

It should be noted that the prediction was for conventional oil, pooled in structural traps. The technology to extract it was relatively simple.

While we are still using oil, the method to obtain unconventional oil is a technological innovation not unlike what is being pursued for fusion energy. Had there been some fundamental barrier to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, then Hubbert would have been right.

Until a technological innovation is demonstrated, it resides in the realm of science fiction. Which means, it may never be realized. We have to work with what we have, not what we would like to have.

Are well-paid athletes and Hollywood actors contributing to solving the problem of reliable, unlimited cheap energy?

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:28 am

Your ignorance of history is as profound as your ignorance of economics. Despite your claims otherwise, the oil problems of the 70’s was resolved by finding more oil.

BTW, we had 40 years worth of proven reserves back in the 70’s. Using your illogic, we should have run out of oil 10 years ago. Yet lo and behold, we still have 40 years of proven reserves.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  MarkW
May 28, 2022 10:52 am

And 40 years from now, we will probably still have “only” 40 (more) years worth of proven reserves. Due to the expanding ability to find and extract more oil.

Drake
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 9:33 pm

So Simon, we have, by your count, 47 years to find additional OIL, but you want to do the alternatives NOW, when there is no ability to do so with current and currently prospective technology, and there is NOT 47 years worth of necessary PROVEN nasty mineral reserves for the crap “renewable” infrastructure.

Simonsays
Reply to  Drake
May 26, 2022 9:47 pm

Not by my count, there are plenty of places you can look it up if you don’t believe me. But I started with why nobody seems to talk about this? Who cares about C02 in 2050 or 2100 if we have run out of cheap oil.
That’s a real existential threat, not some theoretical global temperature rise based on computer models. The maths is quite simple we consume 35billion barrels a year and only found 5billion. We are running out of “cheap” oil.
What we do about it I dont know, but 47 years is probably not long enough to solve the problem.

Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 10:30 pm

There are about 500 years of coal left, which, if nothing else, can be converted to oil and gas.

I know Chevron oil chemists. They say the source rock (oil shale) has about 10 times the oil in reservoir plays and fields.

So, I don’t see us running out of economically viable petroleum liquids for the foreseeable future.

Steve Case
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 27, 2022 1:57 am

Here’s Wikipedia on South Africa’s SASOL

Meab
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 27, 2022 9:16 am

This is the point that SimpleSimonsays is missing. There are other sources of oil available at a modest increase in cost. I’ve seen estimates of 150 years worth in oil shale. That’s uncertain, it could even be longer, but no matter what it turns out to be, running out of oil is far into the future. We have the time needed to manage a transition to nuclear and its ability to power the manufacture of synthetic fuels.

We don’t need to kill people by over reliance on unreliables.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 27, 2022 9:51 am

I believe that the 500 year estimate for coal is based on current consumption rates. If it has to replace oil and gas, it will be consumed far more quickly.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 2:53 pm

True enough, Clyde, though far more may be an overstatement.

The USEIA says the US has 470 years of recoverable coal reserves. They don’t estimate undiscovered seams.

The rest of the world has about 4+ times the US total. So, I don’t see a problem with running out of petroleum products any time soon.

Given large amounts of nuclear energy in the future, we could even manufacture the petroleum we need from CO₂ and electrolysis hydrogen.

PCman999
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 31, 2022 11:14 am

And I’m sure there will be some subsidy coming soon to marry coal and ‘green hydrogen’ to make the latter viable, sort-of.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 10:34 pm

Simon,
I don’t wish to get into the middle of an ongoing exchange but would make a couple of observations.

  1. You are concerned about running out of oil before the end of the century and ask: What will we do for energy? Well if such a situation ever came around we would introduce nuclear power as fast as was needed to maintain civil society.
  2. You ask what do we do when we run out of cheap oil? The answer to that question is being developed right now because energy prices are no longer cheap in the West so you won’t have long to wait for an answer.
Simonsays
Reply to  Rod Evans
May 26, 2022 11:59 pm

Hi Rod, we will never out of oil, as Pat pointed out there is coal to oil conversion, oil shale. But the question is will they ever be economically viable. I doubt it, well certainly not to produce petrol for average motorist.

Nuclear is the answer for electricity security and maybe hydrogen production off that, ,but its not cheap and will take decades to put that in place. So the question is when do start?

The current experiment in oil prices are good wake up call, but it is only a minor supply side shock. It can/should be resolved fairly quickly (this time) as we can dip into the reserve of 1.5trillon barrels. And that’s the point, we are not topping up the reserve as fast as we are using it.

Steve Case
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 1:55 am

Here’s Wikipedia on South Africa’s SASOL

Richard Page
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 4:44 am

“Will they ever be economically viable?” – the less of it there is, the more people will be encouraged to find economically viable ways of extracting it.

Simonsays
Reply to  Richard Page
May 27, 2022 5:41 am

That makes absolutely no sense. Its a demand/supply equation. You can’t make it more economically viable to produce something as there is less of it.

Say oil is totally Uneconomic at $200 a barrel, it doesn’t matter if you have trillions of barrels of potential supply, unless you can produce it less than $200 it is still Uneconomic. And that’s the problem, we have used all the low hanging fruit and soon will.only have oil that is Uneconomic to drill.

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:32 am

If you actually bothered to understand economics and the oil industry, it would make absolute sense.

The problem is that you have decided that you are going to panic and you won’t let anyone talk you out of it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Page
May 27, 2022 9:57 am

Your unstated assumption is that devoting time and throwing money at a problem will insure that it will be solved. We have a good track record, but that does not translate to an assurance that all problems can be solved, particularly when one of the constraints is economic viability.

We have known for a long time that there is gold dissolved in sea water. However, nobody has found a way to extract it at a profit.

Richard Page
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 1:33 pm

Hence my use of the term ‘encouraged’ not ‘automatically successful by spending more money.’ Eventually we’ll hit the law of diminishing returns but not for a good long time.

stewartpid
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:48 am

Simon my petroleum geology prof told the class that Canada’s oil sands would never be profitable and that u would have to move an impossible amount of sand each day to get at the oil. And yet here we are 45 years later and the Canadian oil sands in-situ and mining operations are producing about 4 million barrels of oil a day.
The future is a tricky thing.
My best friend in geology asked me why I would go into oil (he chose gold) when it would be all gone in the 1980’s. I had a great career and the industry is still going strong 14 years after I retired.

Richard Page
Reply to  stewartpid
May 27, 2022 1:33 pm

Heh mine told me the exact same thing!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 1:07 pm

Dipping into the reserve is not the only (or desirable) solution to an oil supply shortage. Increased production is. We were, quite recently, a net exporter. That can happen again — easily.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 28, 2022 5:41 am

As soon as we boot LGB and his acolytes in Congress.

CoRev
Reply to  Rod Evans
May 27, 2022 6:15 am

Rod Evans, “You ask what do we do when we run out of cheap oil? The answer to that question is being developed right now because energy prices are no longer cheap in the West so you won’t have long to wait for an answer.”

Much of these price increases are due to the addition of renewables to the world’s grids. Fossil fueled electricity sources do not need renewable sources, but renewable sources REQUIRE fossil fueled backups.

Adding renewables to a grid ALWAYS raise the cost/prices for electricity.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 1:21 am

Simon says,
There are vast areas of Australia where oil and gas exploration is prohibited by law for various reasons, mainly political.
These areas are not counted in future reserves. Many are not well explored.
This is but one example of reasons why you have to be careful in understanding reserves and their rates of change. Geoff S

Simonsays
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 27, 2022 3:31 am

Geoff, are you saying there is a massive reserve of oil undiscovered in Australia? Seriously, have you got some geoglists who would back that up or is it just wishfull thinking. I deal in facts, not hypotheticals.

Dean
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 5:25 am

If you want to deal in facts then have a serious read of any of the Codes used to define Resources and Reserves and think about what Reserves and Resources actually are estimating.

You have gotten all excited about a hypothetical and when people present you with facts you discount them.

What Geoff means is that large areas in Australia which have produced oil and gas in the past are locked up because of a political decision. So they cannot be explored and add (potentially) to the Resources and Reserves of oil and gas AT PRESENT. If exploration was allowed then it is likely that those formerly producing areas would have some economic deposits.

All it would take would be a change in law. That is why you really need to understand what Reserves actually mean.

Simonsays
Reply to  Dean
May 27, 2022 5:55 am

OK, Do you think this great undiscovered oil field will be on the scale of millions or billions of barrels. Lets say its one of the largest fields ever discovered with 35billion barrels … that’s 12 months world oil supply.

Keep buying lotto tickets you got more chance of winning.

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:35 am

Do you think this great undiscovered oil field will be on the scale of millions or billions of barrels. 

Yes, and more

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2022 10:01 am

That sounds like wishful thinking. ‘Elephants’ have always been rare.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 1:03 pm

it’s not wishful thinking, it’s a good understanding of geology.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  MarkW
May 28, 2022 7:51 am

MarkW,
Please try to avoid guesswork.
An increase in reserves comes from exploration, not from guessing.
Years ago we were approached by spoon bender Audi Geller who offered to use our bizjet to fly over Australia, looking out the window to mark a map with locations of new resources. For a consulting fee that was bigger than mine.
Meanwhile, we with our science and feet on the ground found several new green fields mines under wheat fields, grazing land and largely unoccupied bush. Big ones. But we did not know their value until a lot more study was done, in satisfaction of rules for reporting to stock exchanges. Wishful thinking not allowed, ditto data adjustment or homogenisation. Geoff S

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Dean
May 28, 2022 7:39 am

Dean,
Yes, thank you for added understanding. Geoff S

Simon Derricutt
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 5:56 am

Simonsays – you might have missed the point that oil and gas exploration requires financing, and the current Green ethos is to deny them that finance. In fact anything to do with fossil fuels is being denied finance because it is being regarded as potentially stranded assets.

Thus the reason we’re not finding enough future reserves is because we’re not looking for them, and the reason we’re not looking is because it can’t get the finances.

There are always alternatives. They tend to cost more, which is why they aren’t yet being done. Coal can be used to produce both gaseous fuels and liquid fuels. Currently, USA nuclear aircraft carriers can produce aviation fuel for their jets from water and CO2 from the air, using nuclear power. There’s even the possibility that politicians will at some point realise that the predictions of Thermageddon have been wrong for years and that they can’t significantly alter the rate of climate change, and thus allow both the finance and permits for new exploration for fossil-fuel resources. There’s a massive amount of Methane Hydrates in the ocean, that would be better used than allowed to dissipate unused.

There may even be better ways of producing energy based on recent theory.

As Kip said at the start, though, the main reasons for fuel shortages and famines are political. That’s also the reason for the high prices, since the shortage in supplies is political and the price responds to that because our energy-use is largely inflexible. Technically, we can fix the problems, but we need to stop holding the engineers back.

Simonsays
Reply to  Simon Derricutt
May 27, 2022 6:08 am

Simon.

Go and read the oil industry reports. They are spending billions looking for oil and all are reporting the same thing, there is not much to find. New technologies can produce some fuel, but we cannot replace 35billion barrels a year with any of those.

I am not talking about short term shortages caused by war and politics but what we are being told by the industry will happen in 47 years. Maybe wuwt readers have become cynical to accept facts, but these are not computer predictions but simple facts of how much oil we consume vrs how much we have left.

Simon Derricutt
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 6:59 am

Simonsays – figure what all that oil is used for now, and what can be (either now or in that far future) substituted by something else.

For transport, liquid fuels are the most convenient, but we can use compressed gas instead and there really is a whole lot of Methane Hydrate around under the sea. Not the best solution, but usable with current technology and with little modifications.

Though I really don’t expect fusion to become useful for generating power in my lifetime, it is good at producing neutrons that could then trigger fission, making a very compact nuclear power solution possible with very low nuclear waste production – like molten-salt reactors it would extract the available nuclear energy so well that the nuclear waste would be safer than the ores in less than a century, thus no real nuclear waste disposal problem. Figure on units to power a car or truck around equivalent to the current ICE size, and fuelled for a year with a few grams of fuel. The possibility of this method is pretty obvious, and it just needs to be developed.

Thus the use of oil for energy production can be substituted. It’s use a a chemical feedstock can be substituted by various vegetable oils in some cases, or by direct synthesis if your energy input is cheap enough. If you have that compact nuclear engine, energy will be cheap, so synthesis will be economic – it’s already done on those warships because the nuclear power is effectively free (fuel cost in nuclear power is less than 5% of the total cost). If you want more Uranium or Thorium than is easily mined, there are bacteria (and some types of plastic) that will absorb it from the sea and concentrate it, so you can effectively mine it from the sea.

There are also ways of producing energy that are currently considered impossible by most right-thinking scientists, but with good experimental results. Cheaper by far than nuclear and with no pollution. By the end of this year we’ll see if the predictions are right, and whether it really is possible.

Basically, we’ll find alternatives. Faced with a wall, if we’re clever we’ll jump over it rather than run into it.

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:34 am

Don’t know about Australia, but I do know that there are massive reserves in the Gulf of Mexico as well as off the US Pacific and Atlantic coasts that are locked away due to politics.
And don’t get me started on ANWR and the Alaskan northern slopes.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Simonsays
May 28, 2022 7:31 am

Simon,
I stated facts. You inserted hypotheticals.
I have done some oil exploration, not much, but enough to confirm that there are many, many expert petroleum geologists who have much better understanding of the hypotheticals that worry you.
I am confident that they can discover, develop, market, innovate, invent at a cost and a rate that satisfies the demands of society while managing whatever resources Nature gifted to us.
A major impediment is the never ending barrages of ignorance from largely uneducated politicians, bureaucrats and now, greedy elites with visions of global dominance.
Simon, you should be asking for answers from them, not from technically advanced industry operators who already spend too much time on diversions like fake existential crises. Geoff S

cpratt@telusplanet.net
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 7:38 am

I guess we had better start using it quicker to use it all up

Oil Reserves by Country
#CountryOil Reserves (barrels) in 2016
1Venezuela 299,953,000,000
2Saudi Arabia 266,578,000,000
3Canada 170,863,000,000
4Iran 157,530,000,000

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:30 am

Just because you aren’t the only one spewing this nonsense, is not evidence that it isn’t nonsense.

PCman999
Reply to  Simonsays
May 31, 2022 11:12 am

the problem has been solved many times over.

Like it has been pointed out to you, there was only about 40 years worth of oil left in the mid-1950’s, then the same was said in the early 1970’s, and I believe the same was said in the early 80’s during the Iran-Iraq war, and so on.

Each time that happened, when oil prices shot up for awhile, there was another spurt of discoveries or already known but difficult to recover resources moved to the viable column.

I’m not sure what else you expect needs to be done. Governments are already wasting billions in fusion research on huge devices that will never be economically viable or accepted (I’m sure GreenPeace is getting it’s anti-fusion slogans ready). Also wasting billions on subsidizing the roll-out of hundreds of unreliable weather dependent turbines and solar panels that will need way too many batteries to be realistic.

Are you saying you want more of this kind of government brain trust involved in finding ‘alternate sources of energy’? Do you really expect them to succeed?

Private individuals and companies are already looking in every nook and cranny, so nothing else to be done there – it’s self regulating, then higher the current energy prices, the more they look.

So what exactly are you asking for?

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:26 am

Once again you demonstrate that not only do you not understand what you are talking about, you don’t want to.
You still wish to believe that proven reserves are all the oil that we know about.

Janice Moore
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2022 1:44 pm

I don’t think SS believes any such thing. I think SS is doing his level best to keep the pro-AGW/peak oil voter base shored up, in case any of them read this thread. SS needs to keep peak oil going because he has money invested in a non-viable fossil fuel/fossil fuel-powered substitute ….. Solar? Electric vehicles? Wind? All of the above?

kwinterkorn
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 3:34 pm

We all agree that you should panic and use less fossil fuel-based energy.

The rest of us will let the markets work. Energy will be produced.

Probably a major investment in nuclear will be called for in the next few decades. New designs are intrinsically safe and so-called nuclear waste is not a problem—-except as politics intervenes abd promottes hysteria.

A return to coal to produce the electricity needed for homes, industry, and cars would also work alongside nuclear.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Simonsays
May 28, 2022 5:31 am

Hint: Since wind and solar “energy” (using the term loosely) are 100% dependent on “fossil fuels” for their existence, they are NOT “alternate energy solutions.” They are just less efficient, less practical, much more expensive, and much more environmentally destructive ways to get energy from “fossil fuels.”

So if you believe your own “peak oil” panic retread, you should be campaigning against wind and solar to stave off an earlier onset of the supposedly imminent energy “shortage.”

Forbes
Reply to  Simonsays
May 28, 2022 12:33 pm

The reserves are not economically viable when proven reserves are over-invested, over-capitalized beyond what can be exploited/recovered in about seven years (14% ROI).

PCman999
Reply to  Simonsays
May 31, 2022 10:57 am

“Economically viable” depends on the price of the resources and the level of technology. So expect to see the amount of recoverable reserves increase dramatically if this period of >$100/barrel oil and crazy gas prices increases.

Alternate energy sources are constantly being searched for, though most of the successes involve alternate locations of oil and gas!

The pickup of 2100 might be powered by electricity stored in batteries (for the superior torque of electric motors, not any fake environmental concern) or by LNG or ethanol, synthetic diesel made from coal and NG, or even good old fashioned diesel, but we don’t have to worry about it now, people are always looking for more resources.

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 6:45 pm

There have always been 45 years +/- 10 years of proven reserves.

* “Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s
laboratory!”–advertisement for “Kier’s Rock Oil,” 1855

* “. . . the United States [has] enough petroleum to keep its kerosene
lamps burning for only four years . . . ”
–Pennsylvania State Geologist Wrigley, 1874

* “. . . although an estimated two-thirds of our reserve is still
in the ground, . . . the peak of [U.S.] production will soon be
passed–possibly within three years.”
–David White, Chief Geologist, USGS, 1919

* ” . . . it is unsafe to rest in the assurance that plenty of
Petroleum will be found in the future merely because it has been in the
past.” –L. Snider and B. Brooks, AAPG Bulletin, 1936

Simonsays
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
May 26, 2022 8:28 pm

I dont see much relevance in quotes from 100+ years ago, especially since they are all before the discovery of the Saudi oil feeds.

New oil field discoveries are at there lowest levels since 1946 and they are way below the current consumption rate.

To get oil supply to last 1 extra year, we need to find 35billion new barrels, we found less than 5billion last year. As the consumption rate increases we just keep sucking the wells drier faster.

cpratt@telusplanet.net
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 8:59 pm

Simple Simon met a pie man going to the fair. The Pie Man said to Simple Simon let me sell you this codswallop. Simple Simon said ok, The end

Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 10:35 pm

New oil field discoveries are at there lowest levels since 1946 and they are way below the current consumption rate.

Forbes, December, 2018: “America’s Oil And Gas Reserves Double With Massive New Permian Discovery

Simonsays
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 27, 2022 12:10 am

I had seen that before and dont know why it is not counted as proven reserves. Probably will be in the future. The discovery was 46 billion barrels of shale oil. Enough to supply the world for about 15months. Not much in the scheme of things but great for America.

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:40 am

If you would slow down and actually listen to those who know more than you do, you would know why this discovery is not currently counted as proven reserves. It’s been explained more than once above.

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:38 am

I have never seen someone work so hard to avoid seeing the obvious.

You are in great panic over the fact that we only have “47” years of proven reserves, and that we aren’t finding much more.

Multiple people have shown you that for as long as there has been an oil industry, proven reserves have hovered in the 35 to 45 year range, and that whenever reserves get to the top of that range, oil companies reduce how much they spend on exploration and development.

For some reason you have decided that you and you alone understand this situation and you aren’t willing to listen to those who know more than you do.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2022 10:18 am

You are in great panic over the fact that we only have “47” years of proven reserves, and that we aren’t finding much more.

Are you an economic geologist? Simonsays isn’t alone on the concerns. The oil industry is at the cutting edge of the use of supercomputers and geophysics because ever since Spindletop oil has been getting more difficult to find and extract.

Actually, he is in a ‘panic’ that new reserves aren’t being found at a rate to replenish what is used annually.

A reasonable person goes to the grocery story when they start getting low on food used daily. They don’t wait until they run out, and then find out that hoarders have emptied the shelves at the store.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 1:06 pm

With proven reserves being at and near record highs, it isn’t in the least bit surprising that oil companies have cut way back on both searching and developing new sources.

That has been explained over and over again. Unfortunately some people are only happy when they are panicking about something.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 2:00 pm

Clyde? Is that YOU? I have a feeling our normally calm, data-driven, logical, well-informed, Clyde Spencer has been hijacked on this thread. 😲

Simonsays
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 11:19 pm

Thanks Clyde you summarised what I was trying to get across far more clearly than I have. I am just amazed that so few people.on this site seem to miss the point that net zero might actually really mean zero. I would dismiss the whole thing except this is what ALL the major oil companies are writing in there annual reports. It’s the directors executing their fiduciary responsibility warning shareholders that they are running of oil. They don’t write that stuff for the fun of it.

Harves
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 29, 2022 3:17 am

“A reasonable person goes to the grocery story when they start getting low on food used daily. They don’t wait until they run out, and then find out that hoarders have emptied the shelves at the store.“

But they probably wouldn’t go the the store if they had 47 years supply in their pantry, eh?

Newminster
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
May 27, 2022 5:45 am

And let’s not forget Sheikh Yamani’s dictum in the middle of the 1970s crisis:-
The Stone Age didn’t come to an end because we ran out of stones, and what we might call the Oil Age is not going to end because we run out of oil.”

Mankind is ever inventive; it’s what we do best. What we also do — all too well — is fall for the blandishments of snake-oil salesmen.
There is no more a climate crisis now than there ever has been in the past (in reality, probably less of one). If we use our natural resources sensibly — instead of, for example, taking a relatively safe and energy dense gas and using it to create a gas which is more dangerous and less energy-dense using a process whose major by-product is CO2, the very substance we are jumping through this pointless hoop to eliminate — and we apply our innate ingenuity then we will have adequate reserves of all the essential materials we need. Not to mention ways of using them we have not yet thought of!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
May 27, 2022 10:06 am

The last quote is fundamentally true. It is all about extrapolating trends, which has been discussed at length here with regards to temperature predictions.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 2:19 pm

Whoever is using Clyde Spencer’s name, you aren’t fooling anyone. While that last quote might be, simpliciter, “true,” it was said in 1936 to make a DIFFERENT POINT than what Dawg was making. In 1936, the author of that quote was advising to not “rest” or stagnate in tech development. Dawg is making the point that because tech development is NOT stagnant, our current approach to fossil fuels is not “unsafe.”

In other words, Dawg’s quote supports the fact that there is NO reason to “panic.”

Last edited 1 month ago by Janice Moore
Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 7:15 pm

Oh God. Peak oil rears its ugly head again. Go away.

Simonsays
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 26, 2022 9:14 pm

This is not about peak oil. Peak oil is when production peaks and then permanently declines. We can keep ramping up production for decades, it unfortunately just brings the deadline forward.

This is about consumption and new oil discoveries. We currently consume 35billion barrels a year. For us not to run out of oil we need to discover 35billion barrels a year. Year in, Year out forever. I can’t any geoglist or oil company who is forecasting that. At best they are discovering 10-15% of what they pump. Last year we only discovered 5billion barrels. That’s a problem.

The argument that we have more viable oil reserves as the price goes up is correct but is capped by the law of diminishing returns. (That will be Peak oil and then production will fall) .That’s a problem.

50 years of economically viable oil reserves with no new discoveries gives only the next generation to solve that problem.

Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 10:42 pm

We currently consume 35billion barrels a year.”

USEIA: “In 2021, the United States consumed an average of about … 7.22 billion barrels of petroleum.”

Off by a factor of five. You don’t seem to have your facts straight, Simon.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 26, 2022 11:54 pm

Never does.

Simonsays
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
May 27, 2022 12:56 am

Do you have an example of fact that is not correct?

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:42 am

Your complete mischaracterizations of proven reserves and oil exploration activities as a starter.

Simonsays
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 27, 2022 12:55 am

The World consumes 35billion barrels per year.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 27, 2022 10:26 am

The world consumes 35,442,913,090 barrels of oil as of the year 2016, equivalent to 97,103,871 barrels per day.

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:41 am

Actually, it is about peak oil. You have declared that we have already reached it and you are panicking.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 10:22 am

I think that a point worth making is that the longer the industry fails to meet the replenishment rate, the harder they will have to work to make up for the years they missed the target.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 28, 2022 9:34 am

The industry is finding 4 – 6 times enough to keep “known reserves” at 40+ years, according to the information you’re panicked about.

Seems there is a 100% correlation between being an alarmist and being innumerate.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Simonsays
May 28, 2022 9:27 am

You already acknowledged 40+ years of “known” reserves, so finding 2.5% each year is sufficient to maintain that 40+ years of “known” reserves. You just said they are finding 4 – 6 times as much.

You can’t even do arithmetic.

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 7:40 pm

First off, proven reserves just means oil that is economically recoverable at current prices and technology. Total reserves are many times larger.

Even if your worst fears were true, having 50 years of oil left means that there is no need to start panicking for at least another 30 years.

Simonsays
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2022 8:50 pm

Exactly … economically recoverable oil is all that matters. We have extracted or identified nearly all the economically viable reserves.

Once we have used that then all that is left is Uneconomic oil. We can use some of that oil if we are willing to pay more, but the law of diminishing returns will cap that, $150, $200 or $300 a barrel who knows, but given we have built a whole economic system on the reliable supply of cheap oil, we better start planning for it running out.

There not my worst fears there just the current facts we have 47 years of supply and we are not discovering much new (cheap) oil. I dont think we can rework the whole worlds economy by waiting around for 30 years and doing it in the last 20.

cpratt@telusplanet.net
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 9:01 pm

We have been running “out of oil” for 100 years. The planet has created this oil over a couple of BILLION years Simon. We won’t run out unless the earth springs a leak and it escapes into the atmosphere.

MarkW
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:44 am

I don’t know where you have gotten the nonsensical idea that economically recoverable using current technology and prices, is the only thing that matters.

Beyond that, the notion that we have discovered nearly all of the “economically recoverable” oil that there is, is so stupid it leaves me speechless.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 7:42 pm

Answer:

“Panic” will not happen. As supply shrinks below demand, the price goes up — gradually.

Then (as noted by CO2INE, above), consumers switch to less costly alternatives (which, as TL noted, at 40 + years out is Futurama, for human ingenuity is a wonderful and unpredictable thing).

Did you REALLY need me to inform you of all this?

**********

In case you see just plain old Simon 😉, please pass this along:

TRUMP 2024 FOR ENERGY SECURITY!

😀

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Simonsays
May 26, 2022 11:17 pm
Simonsays
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 27, 2022 3:33 am

can they produce 35 billion barrels a year?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 27, 2022 10:32 am

Under some circumstances, such as supplying fuel for Rommel’s tanks, the cost can be ignored. However, if Porche can’t make its synthetics competitive with conventional fuels, nobody will buy it. That is what is meant by “economically viable.”

michel
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 12:41 am

I’m unusual here in thinking you may be right about oil, it may be that over the next 50 years we fail to replace reserves, which will lead to the price gradually rising till many uses become uneconomic. It has been a 100 year bonanza of cheap and dense energy, and its led most obviously to a transport revolution as well as to one in how we heat buildings.

The question is what conclusion to draw from this. I suggest two:

One, industrial society will adapt. If you talk to British people in their seventies or eighties about how life was like in the immediate post war period, you’ll hear about very low oil consumption lifestyles. Few cars, lots of walking and cycling, and homes mostly heated by solid fuel or coal gas. And lots of woolen clothing.

Second is, whether or not oil and gas are going to run out, the current climatist agenda of moving to wind and solar and electric heat and EVs is not viable.

This is a really fundamental point. People often make the argument that oil will run out therefore build wind farms. Its completely illogical. Even if it will run out, even if there is no replacement from coal or nuclear, the agenda of electrify everything and generate power from wind and solar is not going to work.

However little oil there is, there is not going to be enough storage to make wind and solar work.

Simonsays
Reply to  michel
May 27, 2022 2:28 am

Hi Michel, amazing it took so many posts for someone to get it. I am surprised however you are getting up votes where I am go down. Whatever. I keep coming back to my original question , why is this not being discussed. Climate change is simply a theory with little or no emperical evidence. Oil supply is simple mathematics, reserves + discoveries – consumption = 47 years.

Can we adapt to consumption lifestyle, I hope so, but the current generation of snowflakes are not going to be happy when they can’t uber to a nightclub and told.put on a woollen.jumper.

Agree the climate activist solutions are bonkers. Wind mills and solar panels are not going to get us to the 22nd century.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 4:29 am

Simon says,
One problem you are having here, if you’re not aware, is that there’s another frequent commenter with the screen name Simon on WUWT. He’s an ardent left-winger, true believer in the Climastrology cult. I expect some commenters assume his premises when evaluating your comments.

But the main problem you have is that you underestimate vastly how much potential supply is out there that becomes economically viable with new technology and marginally higher market price. Apartheid South Africa and before them Nazi Germany were able to maintain their economies with synthetic fuels from coal. They would not have done so if crude oil had been available, but were still able to do so when it was the least cost way to get fuel that was open to them.

Ultimately it is obviously true that fossil fuels are a finite resource, but their depletion is beyond the lifespan of today’s newborns.

Simonsays
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 27, 2022 5:18 am

Thanks Rich. I blame my parents being called Simon. Bit like being named Karen.

I am not underestimating the amount of new supplies. The figures I quote are not mine but the industries figures. Nobody is reporting we have heaps of new oil. So do you know of a secret stash of oil? (By oil I mean cheap oil, having trillions of barrels of oil at $200/ $300 a barrel is pointless in our economy. It’s like having coffee at $25 a cup, what’s the point if only the rich can afford it).

The problem is the scale, the world uses 35bilion barrels a year and you cannot replace that with new discoveries of easily accessible reserves. Look at the new oil discoveries 2021. They are chicken feed compared to what we need.
https://energycapitalpower.com/top-global-oil-discoveries-in-2021/

Coal or synthetic oil cannot replace that oil at scale. We would literally have to mine an extra tens of billions tons of coal to.convert to oil. We only mine about 9 billion tons today. That solution is about as beliveable as windmills and solar can replace base load power.

Our economic foundations are built on cheap energy (primarily oil) and as we see today the smallest supply shock has massive impacts that looks like tipping us into a world wide recession.

The best facts we have to date is 47 years to find a solution. I can’t understand why we even discuss climate change, it’s irrelevant when compared to the oil supply issue.

Simon Derricutt
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 6:24 am

Simonsays – the rate of advance of technology is exponential, and whereas I grew up with a single coal fire in the house and woolly jumpers (as Michel speculates above) the difference over those 68 years or so will probably happen in 30 years or less. It took less than 70 years from the Wright brothers to landing on the Moon.

There will be several alternatives invented for energy supply in future. Maybe compact fission engines, possibly even fusion, maybe something else more exotic. However, we’ve always found an answer before, and I’d expect that in 40 years the whole energy outlook will be completely different. People are working on these things, so solutions will be found.

This isn’t blind faith that a solution will be found, but based on knowledge that various things are in fact possible, that such things have been tested, and that it’s largely a matter of time before they get sold. No need to worry about energy in future, in fact, but more about the energy supply between now and maybe a decade in the future.

Mr.
Reply to  Simon Derricutt
May 27, 2022 8:36 am

Yes my money is on exponential reduction in size of reactors, as happened with computers.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mr.
May 27, 2022 10:42 am

What do reactors have in common with solid-state electronics that would make them amenable to miniaturization?

Mr.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 12:45 pm

Wasn’t just the boards that got reduced in size, it was power supplies, fans, servos, buses, etc etc

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Mr.
May 27, 2022 12:52 pm

Most of those are incremental manufacturing inovations not NEW MATERIALS providing new and better performance in much smaller space.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 12:46 pm

Miniaturizing heat generation results in much higher heat per unit area. Raising the heat generation to a larger value this way in nuclear will need order of magnitude newer and better materials.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon Derricutt
May 27, 2022 10:40 am

People are working on these things, so solutions will be found.

That is a belief, an assumption, not a known fact. There is a high probability that you are right. But, what happens if you are wrong? What are your contingency plans?

There is an old saying that the best generals plan for the worst case scenario, and hope for the best.

Simon Derricutt
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 28, 2022 4:21 am

Clyde – at this moment Rolls-Royce have designs for small modular nuclear reactors (300MW range) that can be effectively mass-produced. This simplifies the approval process – once one is approved,the rest to the same design will be and all you need is the planning approval to place one. Most of the cost of building a nuclear power station is conforming with red tape (that changes over time, too, as people find new objections) so nuclear power would become much cheaper. There’s also the problem that most politicians want the biggest one in the world so they gain some cachet from that, which leads to difficulties because you’re pushing the bounds of what people are set up to make, which again makes things more expensive, longer to complete, and subject to unexpected delays from scale-up problems. Toshiba and Hitachi have had 5-10MW reactors that can be trucked in and installed for years now.

Maybe a few big power-outages will convince the politicians that ordering a number of these would be a good idea.

On the more-exotic ways of making energy, I’ve been following the people doing the experiments and asking questions. Some of them will be very public before the end of this year, others will take a while longer. One was publicised in 2015 with a kickstarter funding attempt, but it seems few people realised the implications (not actually new physics, but looking at a term that was ignored in old equations because of an experimental effect that was unexpected). One was on arXiv in 2018, and has since been developed and gets a test in space in a few months. Again, largely regarded as impossible in theory, but replicated and developed to the point of expecting to be able to sell them in September this year. It’s real physics, and now a real technology. Just needs further development, and using the thruster to build a motor.

So my bet is that the exotic ways of getting energy very cheaply will work, but the backup plan is that we have a few thousand years-worth of nuclear energy which will still be cheap energy relative to today. Could be cocked up if someone starts WWIII and knocks us back to pre-industrial, since all the easy ores and fossil fuels that enabled our Industrial revolution are long gone, and only a high level of technology enables cheap-enough energy and materials to be made to have another try at restarting.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Simonsays
May 28, 2022 9:55 am

The supply shock is Eco-Nazi policies in action, not an actual shortage of oil or gas.

We aren’t “running out,” they are deliberately doing everything they can to choke supplies.

Dean
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 5:33 am

“Oil supply is simple mathematics, reserves + discoveries – consumption = 47 years.”

You completely miss the impact of “change in technology” on that equation.

IF we never make any more discoveries or develop a technology to unlock more oil then the price will gradually increase and several things will happen.

People will be more careful about how they consume oil – the lower value uses will stop being done and oil demand will decline.

Alternatives to oil will become more attractive and begin to be used, reducing oil demand.

People will dust off the huge number of known oil deposits which needed higher prices to be economic and bring them on stream.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dean
May 27, 2022 10:00 am

Yes exactly right.

Just one example. Consider that many cars in the early 70s got 15 miles per gallon and most cars today get 30 miles on the same gallon. And that’s with degraded crap ethanol blended in plus all kinds of pollution controls sapping performance.

You could drive the same distance for the same cost at double the price at the pump.

Of course you have to adjust for inflation to compare real costs. If gas (petrol) cost $0.36/gal in 1970 with the CPI index at 38.8, and the CPI in 2021 being 271 then 1970$0.36 = $2.52/gal in 2021. Now accounting for twice the fuel efficiency, it basically cost the same to drive a mile in 2021 at $5.04/gal as it cost in 1970 in real terms.

So $4.60/gal today is actually cheaper per mile driven in real terms than the situation in 1970.

We know that hybrids can still increase fuel efficiency. We have big SUVs that we probably don’t really need. Another doubling in gas cost might still be able to be absorbed while maintaining the cost per mile driven.

Similar efficiency gains have been seen across many areas. Waste is still in the system to be squeezed out.

Another point that Simonsays is missing is that high cost supply doesn’t enter the market until there is demand for it after all the lower cost supply has already entered the market. If it did, it would unbalance supply and demand, driving down the price to the point where the most costly supply would have to be sold at a loss.

You don’t need to double the price to double the supply. There could be a glut of oil at costs only marginally higher once the lower cost competition is gone.

Yes I understand that it’s more complex than the hypothetical ideal supply and demand curves. When government interference discourages production, stops banks from lending to finance exploration, and talks about banning fossil fuels, that adds risk that can cause suppliers to forego profits that would normally drive up supply.

Bottom line there, dump Brandon and let the good times roll again.

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 27, 2022 1:10 pm

Over the decades I have noticed a trend in automobile advertising.
When gas prices are high, the ads trumpet fuel economy.
When gas prices are low, the ads trumpet horse power.

michel
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 6:06 am

79 year old British acquaintance, and spoke to him. Cooking was coal fired, a range which they filled and emptied twice a day. When he was old enough he shared the work. A large hod of fuel and a big shovel full of ash. It helped heat the house and did some hot water.

Heating otherwise was a stove in the main room which, unusually, ran a couple of rads upstairs. Most houses at this time, he says, had unheated bedrooms.

There was just about no civilian flight, few cars. He recalls walking along B roads and being passed only by occasional cars, and also cycling along roads which were pretty much deserted.

He dressed in wool flannel pants year round, wore a wool sweater in the winter. He recalls Marks and Spender having lots of sweaters out in trays in their clothes stores.

Baths once a week, at most twice, and an electric water heater in a storage tank for when the range didn’t supply enough.

Long distance, anything over a bike ride, was trains or buses.

Simonsays
Reply to  michel
May 27, 2022 6:18 am

Can’t say that is how I picture the 21st century. My dad after the war fed the family by hunting wild rabbits. Don’t think we have enough rabbits to go back that.

Mr.
Reply to  michel
May 27, 2022 8:37 am

LOOOXURY!!!

Mr.
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 8:32 am

Simon, even climate carpetbagger governments like Canada and UK are putting millions into support for development of SMRs.

No great fanfare about this, because I suspect they totally agree with your last sentence.

But reality bites . . .

DonK
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 4:17 am

Simonsays: Basically you probably have a point.

As others will point out, proven oil reserves are not an especially good indicator of how much recoverable petroleum remains. And it’s perfectly possible to convert coal — which is quite abundant — to liquid fuel. It’s a bit expensive, but not outrageously so. At a guess maybe $2.50-$5.00 a gallon(at the pump) in current dollars. Mostly it just entails a lot of infrastructure investment that won’t be made until it is clear that new sources of conventional petroleum are going to be more expensive than coal to liquid.

On the other hand, “current consumption” ignores the fact that the developing world — roughly 80% of humanity — would mostly love to consume more energy if only they could afford it. Lots more energy in fact. Most of them probably would opt for indoor plumbing, central heating and air conditioning, two SUVs and a bass boat in back of the yurt/hut. Increasingly, they do have a choice. It will be decades if not centuries before all of humanity is energy satiated. But that’s the way things seem to be headed.

My GUESS is that eventually — over the course of the next few centuries — humanity will burn every BTU of fossil fuel. Hopefully before then some other energy source will mostly replace hydrocarbons and will be cheap of enough to support manufacturing liquid hydrocarbons for the few applications like jet aircraft that may always need hydrocarbons from “dirt” and air. What energy source? Not wind. Too unreliable. Maybe solar. But only in the tropics? At least it sort of works even on cloudy days.

But what about climate change? What everyone seems to ignore is that the paleo evidence is quite clear. The current geologic timeframe — Pleistocene/Holocene — is the coldest or maybe the second coldest time in the past 600 MILLION years. Mostly, the Earth has been much warmer in the past. Life has handled more warmth (and more CO2) just fine in the past.

Simonsays
Reply to  DonK
May 27, 2022 4:32 am

Donk, not sure the point you are trying to make. But the point you raise about the developing world 80% of humanity is interesting. The western world got its massive boost in development off the back of cheap energy. They will never have that chance as there won’t be any cheap energy to be had. At least a warmer earth will be a good thing as we will require less energy to survive.

DonK
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 6:17 am

Simon: Sorry, you’re right. I wasn’t especially clear.

My points:

. Neither estimates of available hydrocarbons nor estimates of future demand are very good. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can really get very far trying to use them as a basis for analysis.

. There are quite large reserves of hydrocarbons that can be converted to liquid fuels at prices higher than we are used to, but that surely are affordable.

. The only reasons for not continuing to exploit hydrocarbons are a largely specious concern about climate change and the fact that someday we actually will run out of hydrocarbons.

. But “someday” looks to be centuries away, not decades.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DonK
May 27, 2022 10:52 am

… but that surely are affordable.

What that means is that your discretionary income is reduced and you spend money on energy that you might rather spend on other things like a new roof, car, boat, or a college education for your kids.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 2:25 pm

You are CLEARLY not our Clyde Spencer. Ugh. You are using his good name to promote NONSENSE, now. The cost of petroleum would go up….. then, substitutes become economically viable….. many, many, years from now. This is NO reason to “panic” and short-sell petroleum, etc.. The current tech makes oil what will now give you the most discretionary income — and for the foreseeable future.

Simonsays
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 27, 2022 11:27 pm

I like this Clyde

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simonsays
June 1, 2022 1:02 pm

Heh. Of course. 🙄😏

Dean
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 5:19 am

We pretty much have about 30 to 40 years of reserves for most minerals.

Its that way because it costs a lot of money to invest in finding more reserves, and the NPV of production so far into the future is less than the NPV of doing the exploration, studies and getting permits now and over the next ten years or so.

Plus the large risks associated with such long term projections. Who knows what technology would be developed.

Reserves change all the time, it is important to understand that they are not ALL the oil (or whatever mineral you are discussing) which has potential to be economic. Resources are a good indication of that which has potential.

I did a project in 2003 looking at world gas reserves and at that time the US had about 3 years of reserves. Then they developed horizontal fracking technology…….

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 5:24 am

“Estimates are that there is only another 500million barrels of oil left to be discovered”.

Did they use a crystal ball? If the oil hasn’t been discovered, how do they know if it’s there are not? What a dumb statement.

Simonsays
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
May 27, 2022 6:14 am

Sorry typo, 500 billion is the estimate. Remember the oil companies have been scouring the world for over a 100 years, there’s not many areas left where they think large oil.deposits can be found. All the low hanging fruit has been taken.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
May 27, 2022 10:58 am

Many times areas can be excluded because they aren’t suitable for the development of oil — think granitic or volcanic mountains. Of the remaining areas, probability assessments, based on similar geology that has produced oil, can be helpful. Thus, potential resources can be useful to constrain what the reserves might be. However, unless a hole is drilled, it can’t be shown to be a reserve.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simonsays
May 27, 2022 6:17 am

“At current consumption of 35 billion a year, we have about 47 years worth of oil.”

I’ll be happy to let the good times roll for another 47 years. By the end of that time we wil have found alternatives. Taking that much time will allow a “transition” that doesn’t destroy our economies and societies.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 27, 2022 11:05 am

By the end of that time we wil have found alternatives.

Shall we call you Tom Pollyanna? That is in the same class of belief systems as the alarmists who tell us we have 8 years left. No proof!

Assume that the alarmists manage to destroy the industrial civilization we currently enjoy. With most of the easily accessible energy and mineral resources gone, it would be very difficult to bootstrap ourselves back to where we are now because we wouldn’t have cheap, abundant energy available.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 2:31 pm

My, my. What a vile, word-twisting, tongue you have “Clyde Spencer.” Tom Abbott CLEARLY meant “will LIKELY to have found alternatives.” The conjecture about AGW is not even plausible — no data proves it and, in fact, there is anti-proof (CO2 up greatly, warming not; failed GCM’s, etc.).

On the other hand, history (start with Malthusianism) is FULL of evidence that supports Mr. Abbott’s assertions. As Scott Adams wrote re: his “Law of Slow-Moving Disasters:”

Simply stated, my observation is that whenever humanity can see a slow-moving disaster coming, we find a way to avoid it. Let’s run through some examples: …  

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/20/dilbert-becomes-skeptical-of-climate-change-disaster/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 28, 2022 2:42 am

Thanks, Janice. 🙂

I’m not sure what Clyde thought I was referring to, but I posted my response up thread.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 1, 2022 1:04 pm

🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 28, 2022 2:38 am

“Shall we call you Tom Pollyanna? That is in the same class of belief systems as the alarmists who tell us we have 8 years left. No proof!”

How much coal is available to us, Clyde? More than 47 years worth, is the answer. There are alternatives available now and there is plenty of proof of that.

I think you jumped to a wrong conclusion.

Brian
Reply to  Simonsays
May 29, 2022 1:09 pm

Reserves are dependent on the price of the commodity. When potential oil and gas sources become profitable to produce they become (proven) reserves. I’ve worked in the oil & gas industry for 50 years and we have always had about 45+/- worth of oil reserves remaining…

May 26, 2022 6:20 pm

Unfortunately, most of the oil and gas projects these crazies are flipping out about are not in America, at least not until a sane administration comes back in power.

One small correction.

“Their main point so far is: How can we, civil society, stop them? … “

Should be,

Their main point so far is: How can we stop civil society?

davidmhoffer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 26, 2022 10:36 pm

Oh they totally missed their own point.

All civil society has to do to stop the oil companies from producing oil is to stop using it. If civil society is on side with them, then there’s no need to do anything to stop the oil companies.

Editor
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 26, 2022 11:41 pm

Exactly.

dk_
May 26, 2022 6:42 pm

Coordination? It seems to be coming from Davos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhQfFQsl4Vw

clipe
May 26, 2022 6:59 pm

On a related note with original title.

The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Last edited 1 month ago by clipe
Rich Davis
Reply to  clipe
May 27, 2022 4:39 am

What a load of codswallop

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 27, 2022 8:49 am

Consider the source

markl
May 26, 2022 7:25 pm

It supports the narrative, what more needs to be said.

Richard Page
Reply to  markl
May 27, 2022 4:48 am

Whose narrative? Biden’s been doing the rounds, begging for more oil and gas to be produced and, when the oil and gas companies step up, the church of thermageddon goes bonkers and accuses them of a secret conspiracy to kill us all. Somebody needs to get Biden and his cronies in a room with the thermageddonites and bang their heads together!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
May 27, 2022 6:34 am

You are assuming the Biden administration is reasonable about oil and gas. They are not.

The obvious solution to current high gasoline prices is for the government to implement an “Operation Warp Speed!” for oil and gas production. The government should do all it can to encourage production. As much as possible, as fast as possible.

This would bring gasoline prices down even in the shortterm, as long as everyone thought the government was serious about increasing oil and gas production. Increase the supply and the price comes down and that applies worldwide as the U.S. can make a significant increase to the worldwide supply if it makes the effort.

Unfortunately, the current leadership of the United States is locked into a self-imposed war on oil and gas, and so the only real, longterm solution to our current high gasoline prices and subsequent high inflation: increasing oil and gas supplies, has been taken off the table by the Biden administration because of their delusional views about CO2.

The demonization of CO2 is being used to destroy our economy and our society. The Left is on the attack on all fronts, and CO2 demonization is one of their tools for powergrabbing.

We can’t expect much relief from our current problematic situation until the Democrats lose political power. They screw up everything they touch.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Bob
May 26, 2022 7:40 pm

I am telling you guys there is only one way to deal with these crackpots. Whole countries need a power generation carbon holiday. All fossil fuel and nuclear generators need to not supply energy to the grid. That doesn’t mean they are shut down but that they are idled. Give fair warning so everybody knows what is coming. I know you all think this is too radical but in my view it is the only way to reach the common consumer. The radical greens don’t give a damn about you and me the energy consumer. Most consumers get all their info from the mainstream media, they will never be exposed to the information here at WUWT. The radical greens and their supporters control the mainstream media. Nothing will wake consumers up except no power. It will be most effective if all consumers realize that all they have to do is ask for power and it will be available to them. It would only have to be done once except for places like New York and California and frankly I am tiring of those people.

AndyHce
Reply to  Bob
May 26, 2022 8:29 pm

Even if that was possible, it would be absolutely useless. I once pointed out to a true believer that many “dedicated green” places around the world, from Australia to California, were quietly installing medium sized diesel powered generating stations, with little publicity or disclosure, because it has become starkly apparent that wind and solar won’t keep the grids up and running. The response was a sudden divergence from
‘how terrible fossil fuels are’ to
‘a major installation of diesel powered generation is ok because it will only continue until there is enough wind and solar’.

Bob
Reply to  AndyHce
May 27, 2022 3:28 pm

Yes Andy but just think about the consumers nation wide being faced with this choice. Diesel generators could be used privately but no power provided to the grid. So the affluent can have power but the average consumer is out of luck. All the consumers need to do is say we want dependable, affordable, reliable and accessible energy and bam the grid is back up and life goes back to normal. I don’t see how this could be a problem to pull off. We already have systems in place for scheduled brown outs.

MarkW
May 26, 2022 7:44 pm

Stop the presses, oil companies continue to be oil companies.

Janice Moore
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2022 7:50 pm

And, oh how BLESSED we are that they are!

Petroleum products = FREEDOM (and fun, too! 😀).

Surrr
May 26, 2022 7:45 pm

And this is why all these climate alarmists are pushing 3rd world countries into the hands of the CCP. These poor countries have a choice, stick with the woke Western climate cultists and stay poor forever, OR join up with the CCP and they guarantee that these 3rd world country’s will be poor no more. Really hard decision for them…NOT!
The West is Dead helped along by the woke left.

AndyHce
Reply to  Surrr
May 26, 2022 8:35 pm

The CCP learned their trade from the World Bank which has a long history of exchanging needed monetary help for WB control of major natural resources. As is most likely the case with CCP ‘help’, many of these countries ended up with crushing debt and no way to develop their own economies.

Jim Veenbaas
Reply to  Surrr
May 27, 2022 1:02 am

Truer words were never spoken. They won’t stop oil production, just oil production in the west. Hell, we’ve basically stopped all new fossil fuel production in the west already. The rest of the world will move forward, while we become more marginalized.

colin p
May 26, 2022 8:02 pm

nice you mention the war. is it possible to estimate how much CO2 is released from MLRS and large calibre mortars? Greens give a pass not only to China, but Russia as well. Not to mention Gazprom and Lukoil are never in their sights.

Richard Page
Reply to  colin p
May 27, 2022 4:53 am

All munitions release CO2 as a by-product but I have no idea how you’d go about estimating the amount released – we have few intelligence sources in Ukraine and reliance on both Russian or Ukraine intelligence is merely an exercise in frustration and ignorance.

Cam_S
May 26, 2022 8:11 pm

Oh no!
Carbon bombs are causing monkeypox!
– – – – – – – – –

Monkeypox isn’t the disease we should be worried about
Climate change is likely to exacerbate the rapid spread of viruses and pathogens as humans encroach on the natural world

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/25/monkeypox-disease-climate-change

Julian Flood
Reply to  Cam_S
May 27, 2022 12:17 am

Don’t forget to mention that the MPox is being spread by aircraft under the control of Big Pharma. Most aircraft contrails are thick and white and fade quickly but the MPox biotrails don’t fade, they spread out into thin veils that cover the whole sky.

Biotrails. You know it makes sense.

JF

Julian Flood
Reply to  Julian Flood
May 27, 2022 12:19 am

Well, as much sense as most things nowadays.

JF

Rich Davis
Reply to  Julian Flood
May 27, 2022 4:46 am

Careful there, JF. You just created evidence for the Ministry of Truth that the crackpot climate deniers on WUWT are also chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Some sarcasm is best to tag.

MarkW
Reply to  Julian Flood
May 27, 2022 8:52 am

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. There are people here who actually do believe stuff like that.
Remember the people who were trying to destroy 5G cell towers because they believed the towers were responsible for the Wu Flu.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2022 11:22 am

The modern equivalent of burning witches at the stake.

Peta of Newark
May 26, 2022 9:10 pm

Quote:” They actively suppress the truth.

No they don’t.
They don’t even know what they are doing, they don’t know that they are reading from a comic book, of super disasters, of fantastical happenings and super heroes who can swoop down from out of nowhere and fix whatever is wrong.

It is very telling that Clark Kent worked, in his day-job, at a newspaper.
And that they themselves are co-writing that comic-book. Nice positive feedback and who doesn’t love positive feedback
Ma Nature for one.

But ain’t that a dream come true – starring in your own book/story/film AND saving the world while you’re about it. And being a babe-magnet while doing it.
want want want

Who said it: “Don’t attribute to malice what can first be ascribed to stupidity
To cut a long story short, soil erosion leading to nutrient-free food, causes stupidity.
but you knew that

If anyone wants to attribute malice – pray tell what initialised that?

John Larson
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 27, 2022 4:06 am
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint
Layor Nala
May 26, 2022 9:14 pm

This is as bad as the New Zealand Prime Minister announcing on her US tour that she is fighting ‘disinformation’ in social media on one hand, but forgets to comment on the disinformation she is pushing on climate change. It is probable that she won’t read the excellent groupthink paper by Booker. That paper shows unequivocally that anthropogenic climate change is the biggest hoax ever. It describes Al Gore shutting down. the Senate conversation. See p.11 of the paper.

high treason
May 26, 2022 10:40 pm

Europe has another 5 months until things get really cold. The Ukraine issue should be well and truly settled by then. I suspect that the mid terms on November 8th will be the beginning of the end of the madness. With the tactics of the election cheats being revealed in 2,000 Mules, it will be more difficult to cheat than before. If the election is monitored very closely, cheating may be thwarted- perhaps threats of charges of treason being laid upon those that are monitored committing electoral fraud.The death penalty is available to deal with those found guilty of treason in Military courts.
The next 5 months is going to be filled with every kind of desperate tactic from the Deep State criminal cabal. There will be no conscience applied-no tactic is out of bounds. They are desperate that the People do not wake up to how they have been lied to and plundered for centuries.
We live in very interesting times.

fretslider
May 26, 2022 11:47 pm

Ah, a Carrington event…

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Loydo
May 26, 2022 11:57 pm

“Exclusive” straw man alert, false premise alert, whatever it is it’s exclusive bs.

“…nearly all the products and conveniences,… would cease to function or exist, if oil and gas production were to stop.”

…if they were to stop over night maybe, but nobody thinks that’s possible or even desirable.

Cite someone who thinks its desirable to cease fossil fuel production over night.

Climate believer
Reply to  Loydo
May 27, 2022 4:44 am

Stopfossilfuels.org are literally trying to turn the taps off overnight and collapse society.

“Fossil fuels bring comforts and elegancies to a minority, but at great cost to everyone. Life will be better in a post carbon world.

“Collapse” sounds scary, but it simply means rapid simplification of a society, and will actually increase quality of life in the long term. Such simplification is unavoidable; our way of life is unsustainable, its complexity dependent on ever increasing supplies of dense energy.

Responding to the myriad problems of globalization, bureaucracy, sprawling infrastructure, and empire, many people are proactively working toward collapse in their efforts to localize food, water, construction, energy, education, economics and decision making.” 

fretslider
Reply to  Loydo
May 27, 2022 4:52 am

Cite someone who thinks its desirable to cease fossil fuel production over night.

Among quite a few, Extinction Rebellion; and these people…

Industrial society has had decades to transition voluntarily from fossil fuels and their known hazards, but is too addicted to give them up. It’s time for an intervention: we must physically shut off the flows ourselves. “

Stop Fossil Fuels: Why We Must, How We Can

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
May 27, 2022 8:55 am

Talk to the people who are demanding that we go zero carbon by 2030.

There are a lot of you nut cases out there.

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
May 27, 2022 3:13 pm

The strawman gets whacked around a bit more by his eager cheerleaders, but Kip is too afraid to explain himself. Disingenuous, gutless doubt-mongering.

Loydo
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 28, 2022 2:30 am

Troll = anyone outside the echo-chamber

michel
May 27, 2022 12:23 am

In which the Guardian reports on a study showing that closing down the fossil fuel industry will lead to huge losses for individuals in the UK and the US. Its the usual ‘stranded assets’ claim: no-one will buy or use coal, gas or oil, so all those balance sheet assets and the companies themselves become worthless.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/26/people-in-us-and-uk-face-huge-financial-hit-if-fossil-fuels-lose-value-study-shows

The curious thing which you may notice is that there is no mention of who exactly is going to abandon these fossil fuels. No mention of China and India. It really doesn’t matter much what the UK and the US do about gas and oil, not that either one are going to be able to phase them out. At least not with the current plans they have.

Even if they did, there would still be a huge market for them in other countries, and the balance sheet assets would still be valuable.

It reminds one a bit of the Guardian’s campaign to get everyone to sell their fossil fuel shares, a couple of years back. Had no effect, as anyone with the slightest financial literacy could have told them.

michel
May 27, 2022 12:59 am

Kip, excellent piece. Yes, the Guardian piece about ‘carbon bombs’ was completely hysterical.

There is an interesting development at the moment in the UK. After announcing the Net Zero proposal (see Net Zero Watch – News on net zero), which is basically move power generation to wind and at the same time electrify everything including heating and transport, the British Government was suddenly confronted with rising oil and gas prices, and to Do Something is levying a so-called windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

But there is a twist to it, if I have understood it correctly. The levy can largely be avoided or mitigated by investment in increased production.

The polite fiction among climatists now (both in the UK and Germany) is to talk about fossil fuels as being in transition. The argument that is gradually getting traction is that we need them for the time being, while we perfect the transition to wind and solar. Coal, yes, fine for now, its only in transition. Oil gas and nuclear likewise.

Its becoming possible to see the way this may work out. I am being a bit hopeful, because episodes of crowd madness rarely work out so benignly, but it may.

The claims about climate disaster will continue, every heat wave or storm will prompt more howls of anguish from the Guardian. But under this cover, life and energy will carry on as now, with continued exploration, discovery and exploitation. All this will be excused as the necessary steps to a transition which will perpetually be postponed.

The things to watch in the UK are:

  • the proposed ban on gas powered cars in 2030
  • the proposed ban on the sale of oil-fired boilers in 2026

If the benign scenario does start to happen, these things will be postponed on the grounds that of course climate, but a bit later than we had wanted.

It will be St Augustine redux: ‘Lord make me good. But not yet!’

michel
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 27, 2022 1:51 pm

The important ban is on oil fired. The current plan is that from 2026 you will be unable to install them. Whether its new build or replacing an old one. Heat pumps will be mandatory if you are off the gas grid.

Gas is a bit more flexible. From 2035 gas will be banned in new build. But I have not yet come across any plans to ban replacement of gas boilers with new ones, even after that.

There’s a simple reason for this. 80% of houses in the UK are heated by gas. Many of them will find it impossible to install heat pumps, and those whose houses will accept them will find it cripplingly expensive – with the added insulation and replacement of radiators.

So I think policy on gas is not so much a marker. They can put off any decisions on that for at least 5 years. Oil heating however, they are going to have to make a decision in the next year or two. And cars probably in the next five years.

I think they will blink. But that may be optimistic!

Pete Bonk
May 27, 2022 1:01 am

Someone suggested the energy companies go full John Galt for a couple of days. I’m sure it’s very tempting, but will never happen. You may not like your power company, but they take their responsibility seriously.

michel
May 27, 2022 1:17 am

Another classic of illogicality from the Guardian today.

With the weather changing dramatically across the world, will politicians finally take the climate crisis seriously? With a concerted effort, there could still be time.

The author then goes on to lament that the Government hopes of building lots of nuclear power stations is going to happen if at all far slower than they are talking, and he concludes:

A protest via my MP brought a measured response from Greg Hands, the minister responsible for energy policy. He said provided reactors were value for money and technically sound, the government’s target for nuclear projects was to give one a final investment decision this parliament, and two in the next – so maybe three building starts by 2030. On current trends that means one reactor possibly ready by 2040 and two others much later. Far too late to heal the climate.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/may/27/there-could-still-be-time-to-fix-climate-but-not-with-uk-nuclear-plans

The implication is that UK energy policy could have some effect on global climate and weather. That this is too late to ‘heal the climate’, but that something could be done in the way of UK emission reduction that would be in time.

Its a sort of madness. One, of course weather is not changing any more than it always has, and even if it were, there’s no evidence of any link to warming.

Two, the UK is just not a player in global emissions. 450 million tons out of 37 billion globally. China installing, this year, more coal generation than the entire UK generating capacity, and installing twice as much as the UK’s total energy generation next year.

The illogicality, the inability to just look at the numbers, is astounding.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  michel
May 27, 2022 6:57 am

“The illogicality, the inability to just look at the numbers, is astounding.”

It really is. The impossiblity of the task is smacking them right in the face but they refuse to acknowledge it.

Jim Gorman
May 27, 2022 4:30 am

I wish some of these people would simply look down at their keyboards and ask themselves just what are the keys and case made of. When the figure that out, maybe they need to learn what the feedstock is for that material.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if we had to go back to ivory and wood. I wonder where that material would come from and at what environmental degradation might occur.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
May 27, 2022 5:47 am

Just how crazy are these people?

I’m afraid an adjective escapes me.

mkelly
May 27, 2022 5:52 am

If we can figure out how to extract it we have 3000+ years of energy available in methane hydrates.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  mkelly
May 27, 2022 11:33 am

Do you have a citation to support that claim? I thought that nobody had even yet figured out how to extract it without it sublimating at the surface. Right now, methane is the poster child of the alarmists who “want to do something.” There is that political hurdle. And then there is the issue of environmental disruption. Politicians, at the behest of their environmental constituents, might put the hydrates off limits, as in Australia.

Tom Abbott
May 27, 2022 6:07 am

From the article: “Climate Crimes Investigator, Amy Westervelt and Daniel Ribiero”

Lol!

It just keeps getting more ridiculous.

David Elstrom
May 27, 2022 6:17 am

OMG! Oil and gas companies pursuing normal (and valuable to normal people) work—against the demands of the Climatista Death Cult!

H. D. Hoese
May 27, 2022 7:16 am

Somebody should dig up a picture of the sad looking crazy ones with the “The End is Near” street corner signs. There used to be sidewalk photographers taking pictures to sell to likely looking walkers, might be one in their collection somewhere. Maybe one in a sociologist’s work.

John Garrett
May 27, 2022 7:22 am

Just how crazy are these people?

Kip,
The answer to your question is: “Very.”

RevJay4
May 27, 2022 7:35 am

To answer your question, “just how crazy are these people”, the word “crazy” does not adequately describe them.
Think of any cult in the past and you have the answer to the question. “Insane” is the word I prefer cuz it implies a deeper disturbance in their psyche. There may be no cure for the depth they have reached in their illness. Think a pathology which refuses to respond to obvious reality checks backed by facts and data. Ripe candidates for mental institutions of the past, which should be brought back post haste just for these types of delusional people.
Side note: I was told when I was in elementary school had 40 years of oil left in the ground before the world would run out. I was 7 or 8 years old at the time. I’m 80+y.o. now. Still pumpin’ the black gold outta the planet today, aren’t we? With new reserves discovered all the time.
Climate change=weather. The AGW nutjobs need to be dealt with summarily.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RevJay4
May 28, 2022 2:55 am

“Think of any cult in the past and you have the answer to the question. “Insane” is the word I prefer cuz it implies a deeper disturbance in their psyche. There may be no cure for the depth they have reached in their illness.”

I think it is going to take at least a decade of cooling to snap most of these people out of their CO2-caused Climate Change spell. I imagine there will still be some who hang onto their CO2 delusions even after a decade of cooling.

It sure has been a cool start to this year around here.

Diogenese
May 27, 2022 8:28 am

At some point Rosneft , Saudi aramco and others will buy the likes of BP, Exxon , royal Dutch shell for pennies on the dollar then refuse to appear in US courts .

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Diogenese
May 27, 2022 9:53 am

What if fossil fuels were actually renewable and they didn’t actually come from fossils.The myth that we only have 47 years left of cheap oil is just that, a myth.Organic material such as Algae can be converted into green oil so to speak but you would still have CO2 emissions. That is what is really bothering folks like Simple Simon.

Olen
May 27, 2022 10:09 am

Let me guess, these people are not working class or not working at all and if they are don’t drive their own car. Or as in the article are they that stupid. My guess is they are band wagon types seeking a purpose for their lives and attention for that. The only way to look at them is they are clueless of the results of their worries and see no problems for themselves. In other words despicable.

Olen
Reply to  Olen
May 27, 2022 10:10 am

Despicable for what they would do to others.

John Garrett
May 27, 2022 11:18 am

In respect of “Covering Climate Now” one of its two founders and current Executive Director is Mark Hertsgaard.

Hertsgaard’s father was an anchorman at a Baltimore television station in the 1960s and was generally thought to be a bit wacky (the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree). His son, Mark Hertsgaard, is an aging hippie and likely took one too many tabs of acid in the course of his mostly wasted life.

The “Covering Climate Now” website lists the following as its funders (the usual delusional suspects):

Covering Climate Now has been made possible by generous grants from Actions@EBMF, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Michaux Family Foundation, One Earth Fund, Park Foundation, Rockefeller Family & Associates, Rockefeller Family Fund, Schumann Media Center, Taylor Family Charitable Fund, and Wayne Crookes. The fiscal sponsor for Covering Climate Now is the DC-based 501c3, The Fund for Constitutional Government.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Garrett
May 27, 2022 1:49 pm

Looking down the list one finds out, once again, that these climate activists are being funded by big oil. Hypocrites.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 28, 2022 2:57 am

A dangerous pack.

Gary Pearse
May 27, 2022 12:29 pm

KIP
“They actively suppress the truth.”

Author of the Ist Amendent didn’t think it would be necessary to expand on the ‘freedom to do what’ idea. After all it was written for reasonable people. I think Guardian/Columbia University signing up the world press to monopolize the news on totalitarian climate is actionable under this amendment. They deliberately flood the world press and are assisted by deplatforming of the daylight side of the competition. Surely to conspire with the world press to promote only one side restricts the intended purpose of the amendment.

Where the hell are the legal beagles. Are they all alligned to takedown Exxon and prosecute sceptics? Tell me why such a case wouldn’t be a slam-dunk. There are also laws against companies conspiring to control their industry, products, prices….

Steve
May 27, 2022 1:00 pm

It makes perfect sense once you realize the cultists have a death wish, but lack the courage of their convictions …

ResourceGuy
May 27, 2022 4:04 pm
John in Oz
May 27, 2022 4:09 pm

How can we, civil society, stop them?”

The pro-CAGW protesters and their ilk are definitley not civil in their activities.

We would be in deep doo doo should we all emulate their version of ‘civil society’.

George Daddis
May 28, 2022 1:53 pm

As a graduate of Seton Hall (4 years in the Prep and 1 semester in the college) I’m embarrassed they had to reach down for Guterres as a speaker.

James Bull
May 29, 2022 12:52 am

Errm wasn’t Pedo Joe just telling big bad oil Co’s that they had to Drill, Drill, Drill or he’d be after them with a big stick because the price of fuel was too high?
Talk about tying yourself in mental knots, these people and their mind games are so far out there they’ll be able to help NASA sort the coms problem they’ve got with Voyager.

James Bull

Brian
May 29, 2022 1:04 pm

Thanks for yet another article on the climate crazy amongst us. They seem to be everywhere with about the intellect of a brick!

%d bloggers like this: