文章 Articles

Blind faith in oil growth

Britain's future prosperity has been hardwired to the rising use of transport fuels, without a thought for the supply drying up, writes George Monbiot. Such belief could bring the economy crashing down.

Article image

Motorised transport is a form of time travel. We mine the compressed time of other eras -- the infinitesimal rain of plankton on the ocean floor, the settlement of trees in anoxic swamps -- and use it to accelerate through our own. Every tank of fuel contains thousands of years of accretions. Our future depends on the expectation that the past will never be exhausted.

The energy white paper, or policy document, that the British government published on May 23, 2007, talks of new taxes, new markets, new research, new incentives. Anyone reading the report’s chapter on transport would be forgiven for believing that the government has the problem under control: as a result of its measures, we are likely to see a great reduction in our use of geological time.

Buried in another chapter, however, and so far missed by all journalists, there is a remarkable admission: "The majority (66%) of UK oil demand is derived from demand for transport fuels which is expected to increase modestly over the medium term." To increase? If the government is implementing all the exciting measures the transport chapter contains, how on earth could our use of fuel increase?

You won't find the answer in the white paper. It mysteriously forgets to mention that the government intends to build another 2,500 miles of trunk roads and to double the capacity of our airports by 2030. Partly to permit this growth in transport, another white paper, published on May 21, proposes a massive deregulation of planning law. There is no discussion in either paper of the implications of these programmes for energy use or climate change. There are plainly two governments of the United Kingdom, one determined to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel, the other determined to raise it.

What happens beyond the medium term is anyone’s guess. But it should be pretty obvious that more roads and more airports will mean that our rising use of transport fuel becomes hardwired -- the future health of the economy will depend on it. So the government must have examined this question. If our economic lives depend on continued growth in the consumption of transport fuels, it must first have determined that such growth is possible. Mustn't it?

I phoned four government departments -- trade and industry, transport, environment, communities and local government -- in the hope of finding this assessment. But it does not exist. No report has ever been commissioned by the British government on the issue of whether or not there is enough oil to sustain its transport programme.

Instead, both the white paper and the civil servants I spoke to referred me to a book published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), set up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) after the 1974 oil crisis. This in itself is odd. On every other issue that might affect the United Kingdom’s security or economic growth, the government conducts its own assessments. But in this case it relies exclusively on one external source. This reliance seems even odder when you read the IEA's book and discover that it's as polemical as my columns.

Before it presents any evidence, the book dismisses people who have questioned future oil supplies as "doomsayers". It announces that it has "long maintained that none of this [the possibility that oil supplies might be reaching a peak] is a cause for concern". Though it expects the global demand for oil to rise by 70% between now and 2030, and though it anticipates that output from the world's existing oilfields will decline by about 5% a year, it is confident that new supplies will make up the difference.

It bases this assessment on the finding that "the level of remaining reserves of oil has been remarkably constant historically, in spite of the volumes extracted each successive year". As the IEA must know as well as anyone else, this is partly because the level has been forged by members of Opec, the oil producers' cartel. The quota assigned to a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries reflects the size of its reserves. All members have a powerful interest in exaggerating their reserves in order to boost their quotas. The IEA admits in another report that Saudi Arabia has posted a constant level of reserves (260 billion barrels) over the past 15 years, despite the fact that it has produced over 100 billion barrels in the same period. Where has the magic oil come from?

But it is the liars of Opec on whom the agency's optimism relies. The growth in global demand will be met, it says, by a 150% increase in oil production from the Middle East by 2030. What if this oil doesn't materialise? It is a question the IEA raises then rapidly drops. "Because of the uncertainties over the respective amounts of resources and reserves, it is difficult to predict the moment of peak oil, when production might be expected to start to decline. Estimates range from today to 2050 or beyond." Isn't that reassuring?

I should point out that peak oil is not like climate change. There is no consensus among scientists about when it is likely to happen. I cannot state with confidence that the IEA's assessment is wrong. But a report published in February by the US department of energy shows how dangerous it is to rely on a single source. "Almost all forecasts are based on differing, often dramatically differing, geological assumptions ... Because of the large uncertainties, it is difficult to define an overriding geological basis for accepting or rejecting any of the forecasts."

The report then publishes a long list of estimates by senior figures in and around the oil industry of a possible date for peak oil. They vary greatly, but many are clustered between 2010 and 2020. Another report, also commissioned by the US department of energy, shows that "without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented". The disasters invoked by the peaking of global oil supplies can be avoided only with a "crash program" beginning 20 years before it occurs. If some of the estimates in the department of energy's report are correct, it is already too late.

The IEA believes that this crisis will be averted by opening new fields and using non-conventional oil. But these cause environmental disasters of their own. Around half the new discoveries the agency expects during the next 25 years will take place in the Arctic or in the very deep sea, between 2,000 and 4,000 metres. In either case, a major oil spill, in such slow and fragile ecosystems, would be catastrophic. Mining non-conventional oil, such as the tar sands in Canada or the kerogen shales in the US, produces far more carbon dioxide than drilling for ordinary petroleum. It also uses and pollutes great volumes of fresh water and wrecks thousands of acres of pristine land. "In the long-term future," the IEA says, "non-conventional, heavy oils may well become the norm rather than the exception." If our future growth relies on these resources, we commit ourselves to ever-growing environmental impacts.

We don't need to invoke peak oil to produce an argument for cutting our use of transport fuel. But you might have imagined that the UK government would have shown just a little curiosity about whether or not its transport programme will bring the economy crashing down.

 

George Monbiot is a best-selling author and environmental journalist. He is currently visiting professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University. In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/

Copyright Guardian News & Media Ltd 2007

Homepage photo by Pbo 31

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

我很高兴看到英国政府内部的两个部门相互斗争。我自己亲身经历过这样的事情,同属英国环保局的气候变化小组的政策被废物利用小组反对,前者主张引用私有公司的资金将全国的可以预防的,可以再利用,可降解和可以在循环的废物焚烧成绿色温室气体(见www.frontofpipe.net).石油巨人壳牌也通过试图与世界“对话”做过同样的努力(见www.shelldialogues.com).他们愿意将得分最高的公众提出的问题摄制成电影。他们对我的朋友Adrienne问题的回答表示,他们并不相信会出现对石油需求的高峰,他们相信科技的发展可以帮助他们实现以“对环保和社会责任方面负责”的方式供给石油。由于我的工作是在世界对石油进一步依赖的前提下获利,我可以完全理解这样的观点,但是我发现政府和壳牌的观点一致这一点非常有趣。我也同时希望听到壳牌如何对我的问题给与回答:那就是如何制定对气候负责的市场解决办法,根据不断累积的二氧化碳气体带来的危机制定相应的化石能源的价格,并奖励提高能源效率和可循环物。我的问题指明这一方是可以克服全球性的瓶颈看法,认为只要有充分的强制性手段就不需要限制温室气体的排放。我的问题被排在在壳牌的问题排名第一位,所以他们不能无视这个问题。但是他们却把它“改”成一个宽泛的气候变暖的问题,并用不相关的观点把用“前卫”或者“有效性”等观点来回答。至今为止,英国政府和石油商业公司都在忽视我的建议,也许这也证明了它击中了要害。见www.blindspot.org.uk
James Greyson

Oiling the wheels of government

I love the idea of two UK governments working against each other. I've experienced this even within one government department, DEFRA where the climate team is opposed by the waste team, who are busy installing Private Finance Initiatives to turn the nation's preventable, reusable, compostable and recyclable wastes into greenhouse gases by incineration. See www.frontofpipe.net.

The oil giant Shell have also been running a "dialogue" with the world - www.shelldialogues.com. They offered to film answers to the highest rated questions asked by the public. Their answer to my friend Adrienne's question explained that they don't believe in peak oil because they expect technology to help them "supply the hugely increasing demand for energy in socially and environmentally responsible ways." Coming from a sector which profits from extending global oil dependence this is no surprise but it is interesting to hear how Shell's view and government views sound identical.

It was also interesting to hear how Shell treated my question which proposed a market-based solution for climate, charging premiums on fuels according to the risk that they end up as accumulating CO2 and then investing premiums on energy efficiency and renewables? My question said this might overcome the global bottleneck of agreeing sufficiently tough mandatory caps on emissions since caps would not be needed. My question was at the time the highest rated of all questions so Shell could not ignore it, but they did "rephrase" it into a general climate change question which they answered by irrelevant points about being "forthright" and "efficient". So far both the UK government and an oil business are ignoring my proposal - so perhaps it's on the right track! See www.blindspot.org.uk
James Greyson