The problem isn't Peak Oil. It's just plain OIL

It seems to be very hard for some people to 'get' what the problem with fossil fuels really is. Daniel Yergin, Mr Peak-Oil-What-Peak-Oil? in person, is apparently in Davos for the annual jamboree in which all those clever people who got us in the current mess celebrate how clever they are.

Mr Yergin thinks Peak Oil is a long way off. A lot of other people in Davos would agree, I suspect, though whether this is a matter of superior knowledge, judgement or self-interest I would not like to say.

But what does it matter how far away Peak Oil is? Assume that it is close, or has even arrived. The contradiction between falling supply and massively accelerating growth (courtesy of China, India, etc.) will create an equally massive economic crisis. But what if we assume that Peak Oil is far off, as Yergin argues. What then? We syphon billions of barrels of the stuff up the surface and burn it into CO2? Yes, that's exactly what we do.

As various people have now noted, we cannot afford to burn more than a small fraction of even the fossil fuels at our disposal now, let alone any additional future supplies - not because of its economic price but because of its environmental consequences.

So, Peak Oil is a huge problem. But so is the oil continuing to flow.

To put the matter in a nutshell, the problem is not Peak Oil. It's just plain Oil. A uniquely valuable and important commodity, but one for which we haven't even begun to really pay.

Those who cannot remember the past...

Three decades ago, the Carter Administration tried to pass legislation to establish an energy policy for the USA. Writing in Wednesday's FT Energy Source, Philip K. Verleger - then Carter's Director of the Office of Energy Policy at the U.S. Treasury - claims that the current Obama administration hasn't a hope of getting his global warming legislation through. The reasons: arrogance, ignorance of the substantive issues, and failure to recognise the power of pork.

For Verleger the implications are clear, and in the light of recent events in Congress (and Copenhagen, because, whatever the scorn within which Europeans treat US politics, this is by no means a uniquely American problem) I find it hard to disagree. Here are Verleger's closing words:

"Many of the veterans of the Carter battle have quietly exchanged emails and
phone calls as the Obama legislation awaits its fate. The consensus opinions are
these:

1. None of the people putting the Obama energy policy forward understood the
   problems they would face in Congress.
2. The bill’s supporters (”greens”) are less aware of history than we were in
   the 1970s, if that is possible.
3. The legislation’s passage is unlikely absent an outside precipitating
   event.

It will be difficult to take effective action on emissions even when every
American accepts global warming as fact. Concerns regarding economic security
are far greater than those over climate impacts 10 or 20 years in the future.
Tragically, individuals pushing such actions - the representatives of various
NGOs covered in this blog, for example - do not understand history, the concerns
of voters, or the workings of Congress.

The battle is lost."

For those of us for whom the problem of global warming is, as energy was for Carter, the Moral Equivalent of War (MEOW!), it's a depressing insight.

Tax breaks for accelerating Peak Oil

Yesterday's Financial Times includes an article by their Energy Editor, Ed Crooks entitled 'Tax breaks to lure oil and gas sector'. It reported that tax allowances of up to £160m per field will be made for developing an area west of the Shetland Islands that probably includes more than 2 billion barrels of oil.

Tax breaks on oil wells? What sense does this make? Oil companies are some of the richest on the planet, and subsidising them to drill is doubly stupid - in a world fast approaching (passing?) Peak Oil, this is foolish short-termism, and in a world that cannot afford to burn more than a small fraction of its remaining fossil fuels before it trips us into irreversible global warming, paying them extra to make sure it happens is simply bonkers.

So why are they doing it? It's a hard region to develop, so if the UK government wants oil money to continue flowing into the economy, they have to bribe oil companies to bring it here. Hence the tax breaks.

It's a characteristic environmental/resource problem that follows from a) the mass nature of many decision-marking processes (e.g., multiple nations and companies making related decisions in parallel) and b) the absence of effective overarching (e.g., global political or regulatory) systems capable of ensuring that the whole - the net impact of a mass of individually intelligible decisions - does not undermine the interests of us all.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening: a hundred countries trying to attract investment for the sake of the employment, the tax revenues and the boost to GDP are collectively abandoning the responsibility for handing over a sustainable resource base to future generations and accelerating global warming. A thousand companies, all hungry for investment and struggling to maximise their returns, ravish the planet and resist even the most superficial controls.

But there's nothing unique about the oil industry: we subsidise a huge range of damaging and short-term practices (e.g., airline flights through tax breaks and indifference to 'externalities'). In fact governments and business have been 'managing' the economy between themselves for perhaps as long as there has been an 'economy' to manage. Monopolies, politically inspired subsidies, corruption are the normal practices of all major economies - all delivering short-term gains for state and business that destroy the long term interests of society. All that is new today is that these mechanisms are so powerful and so far of the leash that we are simultaneously creating an unprecedented threat to society's very survival and abandoning every tool we once had to manage such a problem.

The bad guys and the worse guys

I’m looking for a new job. Yesterday evening, sitting in a local café, I shocked my wife by suggesting that I would consider working for an investment bank (in IT, not their signature skullduggery). If you have been reading this blog for any length of time, you may will be as astonished as she was – after all this ranting and raving about the causes of the recent crisis and recession, how could I possibly be thinking of working for such dreadful people! What a hypocrite!

Maybe. But the answer is, the investment banks are indisputably the bad guys, but where are the good guys? Haven’t you ever worked for someone who was doing some good, my wife replied? Someone who treated their staff well and was doing something socially useful (as opposed to the irredeemable social parasitism of the contemporary investment bank)?

Not really, I answered. Well, it’s not that they are all relentlessly evil, but rather that all their benevolence seems to stem from the single-minded desire to maximise profits. And if you had to be nice to people to achieve that, then you were damned well nice to them. And when it becomes more profitable to treat them like dirt, that too will come to pass.

Nor are personnel policies the only issue.

• Some years ago I was working for a major testing consultancy. It collapsed as a result of the .dotcom debacle. And then the fun began. Within a few months we were hearing fascinating tales about the board being investigated by the FBI and our own ex-CEO being highly sought by some quite undesirable company that wanted a word about their relationship.
• More recently, I spent some time with a major UK supermarket. Their employees told me that they were pretty good to work for – but as soon as you found out anything about how they exploited their suppliers, you’d realise that this was not out of unqualified benevolence. And so on. It’s the norm – companies are indeed becoming more benevolent, but only a) where they have to, and b) it’s the price they pay for extracting more and more high-level value from the employees – you only give potted plants to the ones who need a comfortable environment in which to work effectively.
• Or going right back into ancient history, when the creative accounting practices used by Arthur Andersen at Enron came to light, I seem to recall that the reaction of many people in the City was ‘Why couldn’t you do that for us?’

So in a sense they are all the bad guys – that’s what it means to be in business. True, some are truly beyond the pale – the tobacco companies, for example, or arms dealers. But investment bankers? Given how the average company uses its ‘treasury’ operations (i.e., lending cash, buying and selling derivatives, etc.) to boost its profits, they were colluding with Morgan Stanley, Lehman and a rest. They weren’t very clever about it – most of them were caught out – but that doesn’t make them less culpable.

Conversely, the investment bankers aren't breaking the system - on the contrary, they represent its apotheosis.

So perhaps I’m making the wrong distinction – there are bad guys, and there are worse guys. The worse guys seem only to be a little smarter and little more determined than the not-quite-so-bad guys, but fundamentally? I’m not sure I can really tell the difference anymore. I’d love a job with the good guys, but I have no idea who they are.

Economy versus environment (Part 94)

Q: What would actually happen if any significant proportion of the population suddenly took it into their head to reduce their environmental impact? A: The economy would collapse.

If you look at the recent recession, it is striking how much damage was done by relatively small changes in GDP. Of the highly developed nations, the UK (among the OECD countries, a middling performer) was so badly hit that it has experienced a loss of a little over 2.5% since the end of 2007. What? 2.5% in two years? A bit over 1% a year? What’s the big deal? Yes, I know, losing 1/80th of my income would not be a good thing in a year, but how can this be enough to do so much damage to an economy?

So what would happen if, say, 20% of the population managed to knock 50% off their environmental impact? Surely that would be an excellent start. Well, from an environmental point of view, perhaps. But if that translated into a 10% fall in consumer spending, where would that leave the economy? Consumer spending represents about 56% of German GDP, 58% of Japan’s GDP, 64% of the UK’s and 72% of the US’s (here). So a 50% fall in spending by 20% of all individuals would cut these economies by somewhere between 5.6% and 7.2% of GDP. In other words, even such a small change by a small minority would reek more economic havoc than the current recession!

So, we all get the environmental bug, and the economy folds. And with it go (as the current recession has also shown) investment in green technology and solutions of all kinds. Not everything, but far too much to support the real greening of industry. On the contrary, investors would be heading for the safe, short-term returns. And governments everywhere would be trying to compensate for the shortfall with new spending – and so shoring up the very economic activity those who had cut their impact had hoped to eliminate.

This isn’t a criticism of taking action, of course. But it is the old revision-versus-revolution problem. If you want only that the system work a bit more benignly, you need only revise the system so that it loses its more unpleasant foibles. But if the problem you are worried about is inherent in the system itself, revision isn’t the answer. The only way to fix systematic problems is to change the system in systematic ways.

That in turn is a political issue. Our politicians are of course firmly committed to growth, but that is not an irreversible condition. But two things are fundamental.

1. We must develop a credible explanation of this most fatal link between economy and environment, and make it as central a plank of future political discourse and policy-making as growth and consumerism have been since the 1970s.
2. We must define a programme for migrating our existing economy to a sustainable form. This cannot wait for 'the market' or the actions of private corporations, whose interests will never be to change themselves while there is still money to be made. Governments and local organisations must start to plan the elimination of environmentally destructive economic activity, undo the vicious circle of capital expansion that drives consumerism, obsession economic growth and the disregard of the poor and weak.

A momentary lapse into defeatism

I have always felt very ambivalent about the 10/10 campaign. It seems so very unambitious. Most people can reduce their carbon footprint and general environmental impact by 10% by little more than scrutinising their current lifestyle and cutting out the worst excesses. Turn the thermostat down a couple of degrees too high, stop wearing flimsy clothes on cold days, fix poor insulation for a small outlay, stop buying gadgets, fashion, trinkets, food from the other side of the planet, drive more thoughtfully (and if possible stop driving altogether), turn off unused lights (and stop squandering electricity for pointless lighting in the first place), remember to turn the PC off, and so on. 10%? A piece of cake.

What is more, I have probably managed 10% with disproportionately little sacrifice. It took me seconds to reset the thermostat and turn off the radiators in areas I barely use. It took about a week to get used to rooms a couple of degrees cooler. It took not time at all to remember to turn off lights and shut doors. It will take a lot longer to step back from impulse buying and toys, but it’s not impossible – I’m not so addicted to consumerism that I have to go along with the entire glitzy, grubby farrago. Nothing too it, if you really want to make a difference. 10%? Why so little?

But that isn’t the problem I have with 10/10, or any of the many other exhortations to us (as individuals) to use less. 10% is a nice idea, but the correct answer is something like 85%. So if we achieve 10% in 2010, will we achieve another 10% in 2011, and then another in 2012? It’s not inconceivable, given a truly impressive level of sign-up (which has not, as far as I can see, happened so far).

But even 30% is long way from 50%, let alone 85%. Read George Monbiot’s Heat or David McKay’s Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air for a sense of just how far we really have to go. At that level, the only sensible answer is to look seriously at our core social, political and economic systems to see how they need to be changed to deliver the goods. Or rather, stop delivering them.

But especially since Copenhagen I feel like we not only still have a very long way to go but that we have taken completely the wrong road. Down this road, no matter what a few individuals do, things do not get better – no, they get only worse.

I’m not too worried by the flagging public confidence in the reality of global warming or the tiny holes knocked in the credibility of individual environmental researchers - not even the IPCC. Such upsets will be transient and have a marginal impact. Much more serious is the decision by so many national governments to do what can only be summarised as - nothing. For how else can we understand Copenhagen (which left the world’s environmental strategy even weaker than after Kyoto), or the news that the UK government plans to take its expenditure on environmental projects in the developing world from existing budgets, or Obama’s evident fear of doing anything whatsoever about his environmental promises for the foreseeable future, or the Chinese government’s unwillingness to make any significant contribution to climate change (other than to make it much worse, of course)?

But why is this so much more important than persuading individuals to make a start on their personal environmental impact? Because the number of individuals who were ever likely to take that road was never more than a small – perhaps tiny – minority whose collective actions would have no significant effect on our fate. To have a wider impact, they had to serve as a catalyst, as a demonstration to governments that the environment was a vote-winner. Only when they had learned that would governments start to take the action needed to transform not just the footprint of individual households or even a Transition Town but the collective footprint of (in the UK’s case) 60 million people or more.

And not just 60 million individuals. Unlike you and me, governments can directly transform the country’s physical infrastructure on a national scale, coordinate similar actions on an international scale, force big business to mend its ways, and all in all make the systematic changes that no assembly of individual persons can ever bring about. Even 60 millions individuals could not change the public transport system without government action, nor how we generate electricity, nor how developing countries go about achieving a civilised level of development, nor any of the rest.

But after Copenhagen? Nothing can expected from governments any more. Or at least, far too little even to deflect the crisis by more than a smidgen. Even worse, not only have they decided against going beyond Kyoto but they have plainly decided that the only solution to the world’s economic woes is to restore the economic system that got us into our current mess – economic and environmental alike. The only adjustments they plan to make are trivial, serving only to make the economic system a little less dangerous in narrowly economic terms, without any thought for the environmental consequences of a capitalist ‘business as usual’.

In such a situation, what is the point of an individual making a personal commitment to reducing their environmental impact? Does it make sense for individuals to take action off their own bat if the great majority are not only not doing practically nothing (a situation I can live with for a decade or two) but major organisations (political and economic) are never going to be moved in an environmental direction, and have in fact decided to head straight back down the road we all know leads only to global warming, ecosystems collapse and resource wars? What can we claim that individual environmental self-control can achieve after that – that we will succeed in putting off the evil day by 10 minutes?

So even if I do manage a 10% - or 25% or 100% - reduction, exactly what have I accomplished? On a personal level, perhaps it is still a lot. At the very least, if I can get my footprint down to a sustainable level (not a very meaningful proposition while I remain a member of such a destructive society), I can say that at least it wasn’t me, guv. But on a higher level? What have ‘we’ accomplished? In the absence of a broader, systematic impact on the whole way we (at worst) conceive of the environment and (at best) the way we manage our economy, a lot less than we might imagine.

Where does obsessive growth come from? Well, not consumerism, that's for sure

Contemporary society is widely described as consumerist, and when politicians and pundits are asked how we can control the endless expansion of the economy, their first hand-wringing response is that what ‘the consumer’ (a group that seems to have superseded ‘the voter’ as the arbiters of political policy) want is simply ‘more and more’. So growth is the only game in town.

The environmental implication of this frozen staring into the contemporary economy is simple: nothing can be done. Nothing can be done to prevent us driving right over the CO2/ resource/ ecosystem cliff, because ‘the consumer’ is king and ‘the consumer’ would not stand for not having more stuff, more holidays abroad, more everything.

This is mythology at its most deceitful – and, given its environmental implications, most disastrous.

Look at how the economic process that links consumers to the economy really works. Somewhere out there is someone – some billionaire, some bank – with a lot of money to invest. They build/buy a factory that makes some consumer goody – iPods, perhaps, or ‘designer’ jeans’, or the latest ‘taste sensation’. The new owner invests millions, maybe billions. They’ve invested millions in creating the product, millions more in setting up production, millions more paying managers and production line workers, millions more for natural resources and energy, millions more to create the supply chain that gets it into the shops.

The sole reason all this investment takes place is to make money – lots of money, and certainly more than the millions invested. Otherwise there is no profit. So they need people to buy their product. You and me. Hence the endless orgy of marginally differentiated goods and services, the interminable and increasingly in-your-face advertising, marketing, the lobbying, the focus groups, the viral messages.

Consumerism exists not because consumers want to buy but because companies need to sell. If they don’t invest more and more in manufacturing, services, energy, transport, and so on, there will be no returns on their capital. They go bankrupt. But if they do invest, then there must be sales. It is not consumerism that drives growth but capital’s need for a return - endlessly.

But why does this lead to growth rather than simply a ‘steady state’ economy in which we can continue to have what we have now? Or if we must expand, why can we not expand in directions that contribute to the sustainability and equity so many commentators – Nicholas Stern, Jonathan Porritt, George Monbiot, and many more - insist must be the goals of the 21st-century economy? The answer is quite simple: there are plenty of mechanisms built into the contemporary economy that enforce growth - whether or not we want it - but none of then involve doing anything for developing countries – unless, that is, they can pay as well as developed countries can.

Ironically, one of the key mechanisms for ensuring that growth will happen is the very efficiency improvements that so many pundits are relying on to reduce future growth. From society’s point of view it makes sense that, if we can produce the same goods and services by using less energy, less resources, with less damage to the atmosphere and the environment, then surely this is the way we should be going.

But from a capitalist perspective, there reverse is true. If I – just me, rather than my rivals – can use the same resources to produce more, then I will. I will not – could not – simply produce the same in a more environmentally benign way - the assumption of the pundits – because the goals of investment is to maximise profits, not minimise total costs. Given that I have already invested hugely in plant, resources, supply chains, marketing, and so on, many of my costs are already fixed, regardless of how much I actually produce. As a result, if I want to maximise my profits the only rational thing to way to exploit improved efficiency is to use the same investments still more intensively.

After all, I will still be paying fixed rent on my factory and offices, still paying the same fixed interest on my loans, and so on. The main variable costs come from the inputs (labour, materials, energy, transport, and so on) that I use to create actual goods and services. So if I want to maximise the profit I make from this enterprise, simple arithmetic dictates that I should increase the amount of stuff I make (i.e., increase my investment in resources, labour, energy, etc.), because the same fixed costs will now be spread over more units. That will minimise my unit costs, and so (other things being equal) increase my profits. Hurrah!


This logic becomes more compelling the more capitalism matures. History as a whole can be seen as humanity building and rebuilding society with more and more fixed capital – roads, education systems, hospitals, technology, and so on – so that each generation is blessed with a greater stock of means to its ends. In a rational universe this would lead to societies in which, having satisfied its ‘basic’ wants, humanity might not ever quite lose its appetite for progress, but it would at least be able to decide exactly what progress meant.

In our present position, this would surely mean the very commitment to sustainability and equity referred to above. But again, capitalism bucks the trend. As the level of fixed investment needed even to join the game grows – the size of a new car plant, the cost of R+D, and so on – the more fixed costs dominate, the more units that must be sold to cover them, and the more compelling the need to grow becomes.

There are whole countries devoted to this model. China, for example, has put overwhelming emphasis on manufacturing for export – feeding the West’s addictions before developing its own. But there is little reason to believe that even China’s authoritarian government will be able to resist the logic of capitalist investment. And no doubt the boys from Goldman Sachs – or whatever their Chinese incarnation turns out to be – will, for a handsome fee, show them how to lock the handcuffs on themselves.

So growth won’t be ending any time soon. On the contrary, there is only acceleration ahead. Our despoliation of the planet won’t be quite as rapid – those efficiency gains are real (because they are profitable) and neither public nor governments are quite helpless. But until we recognise exactly what the link between capitalism, growth and our all too unpleasant environmental fate is, there is no turning back.

Welcome to the machine.