Industry News - Offshore Engineer Reports - This mass debate is a flaccid oneThis mass debate is a flaccid one
from: Offshore Engineer
by: Michael J Economides
Monday, April 07, 2008
The biggest effect of the man-made global warming debate is that it brought into the mainstream what used to be considered radical ideological drivel. Time did it first and then, not to be outdone, Newsweek upped the ante with a cover story that was a venomous piece of propaganda masquerading as journalism. Deniers were denigrated as ogres, or worse, as Republicans or oil company stooges.
The US, one of the most politically temperate nations in the developed world, has rarely nurtured radical politicians, certainly not of the European or South American variety. But some of the recent US political pronouncements on the subject of global warming and the inherent costs involved would make the most ardent social engineers marvel.
I am not a Republican nor am I owned by the oil lobby. In fact I thought that I was an environmentalist and on a large array of issues I feel much closer to the Democratic party.
I also know that energy is the commodity that fuels the world economy and the economy is what runs modern life. If you do not agree with this simple, even simplistic, statement no need to read the rest of this essay.
eItfs the economy stupidf is what made me support Bill Clinton because he proved to be a pragmatist Democrat. Itfs great when a socially liberal man realizes that a strong economy is essential to the solution of most social problems. The economic growth during his presidency was not a fluke and it was also fueled by an unprecedented energy demand. None of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates seems to be impressed that 87% of the world energy supply comes from hydrocarbons and that according to both the US Energy Information Administration and the International Energy Agency, while the worldfs energy demand will increase by more than 50% over the next 25 years, the fraction that comes from fossil fuels will not change. If anything the oil and gas share will increase. Supply any one?
Adam Smith, more than 200 years ago, in Wealth of Nations, suggested that industrialization was the national characteristic that separated rich from poor countries. It is my contention that at the beginning of the 21st century it is energy and energy abundance that separates the rich from the poor. It is obvious that a rich nation will use more energy but while some call this splurging what is often missed in the clamor is that the use of energy generates wealth. New uses of energy come to life. For example, the digital economy . computers, instrumentation . and the internet that started to spread only 20 years ago use as much as 20% of all generated power in the US.
What is rarely mentioned in the recent arguments is that the facts simply do not matter. If those who have taken sides were honest they would admit to this readily.World jealousy and envy towards the most successful nation of the era, the US, is not even disguised. The trouble is that these sentiments have been repeated recently often by many Americans and the press. Is the America-hating American back in vogue?
Thus, whether global warming is happening or not (a heated debate and clearly not the much ballyhooed escientific consensusf) or whether it is anthropogenic (a preposterous argument in my view and I have done calculations) is not really the issue. It does not matter that former US vice president Al Gorefs statement in his Oscar-winning documentary that enine of the ten warmest years were in the last decadef has been repudiated with nary a whimper from an already convinced press. Nor does it matter that a very large number of thermometers measuring the trumpeted warming are badly and prejudicially positioned.
It should not surprise people that the global warming ideology that portrays America as materialistic and a hog of world resources is exactly the rallying cry of Osama Bin Laden.
What also should not be surprising are the hordes of rich environmentalists, social activists and celebrity misfits who favor solar and wind energies, knowing full well that these alternatives can only meet a fraction of a percent of world energy demand and at huge cost.
In an almost unfathomable way, whenever the cost of the alleviation of the presumed anthropogenic global warming comes up some listen with glee. For example, although estimates vary, sequestering just the incremental carbon dioxide from now until 2030, will require the drilling of 1.7 million wells at a cost of over $7 trillion. Good they say. Make it bigger. That leaves us with more money to go solar. Of course it is their maids and drivers that will bear the cost.
And then there are the scientists. Delegated to the fringes of society, often by choice, they have now found a cause, alarmism, in order to become relevant and important. Repeatedly I encounter those who ebelievef in global warming, signing proclamations without ever doing one calculation on their own to corroborate this view. Some science. This will leave a permanent stain on a lifetimefs work.
I am sure nothing of consequence will happen. The economy, ever resilient, will debunk alarmism and will eventually zero in on the right solution. Itfs just the noise, stupid. OE
Michael J Economides is a professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, and editor-in-chief of the Energy TYribune. The vews expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect OE's position.
Click here to register to receive your own copy of Offshore Engineer each month.
|
