Is there little that is not today considered “political”? Either we have corrupted the term to make it the most all-inclusive word, or we have become obsessed with a single approach to all things human. Can you acknowledge that there are matters we can view from other perspectives?
Here’s a human thing we might try to divorce from politics: We have; we spend. Holding onto “excess” money is difficult. And the principle applies to fossil fuels. We panicked liked Chicken Little in the 1970s when we thought we would burn through most of our oil reserves by the 1990s. The perception of diminishing reserves made us think it was time to conserve and invent some green technology. Smart thinking, but it failed like a person desiring to spend less while doing the week’s grocery shopping on payday and on an empty stomach.
Since the 1970s, news of previously unknown reserves oozed up like petroleum from beneath Oil Creek. But it just wasn’t news of more oil that surfaced; it was also reports of more natural gas. Four to five decades after the doomsday panic about fossil fuel reserves, we began to see those reserve numbers increase. Ironically, the discovery of previously unknown reserves coincided with our new panic: Using fossil fuels in our engines of production and cars might warm the atmosphere.
Dilemma: What do we do with our oil and natural gas wealth? If we “spend” it, we face domestic social and international condemnation from groups convinced that we face a global catastrophe that might shift the wheat and corn belts; if we don’t use those reserves, we struggle against our penchant for spending when we’re rich and that desire for a car larger than the one circus clowns use.
We find ourselves to be richer now than we predicted in the 1970s. If you have paid attention to the fluctuating estimates of world oil reserves over the past half century, you won’t be surprised that in December, 2018, the U. S. Geological Survey revised upward the oil and natural gas reserves of the Wolfcamp Basin. Instead of 23 billion barrels of crude oil and 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the Survey now estimates the numbers at 46.3 billion barrels of crude oil and 281 trillion cubic feet of gas. In a spend-it-if-you-have-it culture, Wolfcamp adds about seven years of oil and ten years of gas for the United States. You can add that total to recent reserve estimates for shales like the Utica and Marcellus. The USA might have in excess of 2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas; that’ll get us through the winter and power your public transportation bus powered by natural gas.
Of course, even large amounts are finite amounts, and we will eventually empty those reserves. Conservation makes sense, but we won’t be frugal as history shows.
“No,” you say. “We have to do something. We’re ruining the planet.”
“Okay,” I ask. “Who are the ‘we,’ and what are YOU doing about it? What’s the something you are doing? Are you looking for the government to impose restrictions? Are you looking for a political, and not a personal, solution? Do you believe the majority of people will act in the best interests of humanity? More fundamentally, do you think cutting fossil fuel use is in the best interests of humanity? Again, if you answer in the affirmative for the last question, what are YOU doing about it?
“Game theorists might suggest that people—you and I—will eventually settle on actions beneficial to the best general interests, but you probably suspect a different outcome for any newfound wealth. Before people begin to cooperate under extreme conditions, they can act quite selfishly. So, again, what are YOU doing?”
“Me?” you say. “Well, I don’t use my car unless it is clearly necessary; I plan all my trips to stores, and I go when traffic is lightest. I take the shortest routes, and if I’m in a stationary traffic jam, I turn off my engine. I walk as much as possible, even to the grocery store. I don’t buy any plastics made from fossil fuels. I keep my air conditioning set to ‘tolerable’ temperatures, cool in the winter and warm in the summer. I’m serious about my conservation: I wear lots of clothes in winter and run around naked in the summer. I turn out all the lights I don’t need, and I turn off any electronic device that is on ‘standby.’ My computer is off more than it is on. I don’t renew the asphalt covering on my driveway just because my neighbors want me to keep up appearances, and I shovel the snow rather than use a snow blower. In summer, I use an old-fashioned rotary push mower plus some sheep to keep my lawn cut. I’m the poster child for conservation. Why, I’m so busy figuring ways to conserve that I can’t take time to use any fossil fuels. I’m virtually off-the-grid and off the roads. I’m installing solar panels, a windmill, a direct link to a wave-energy gizmo on the ocean, and geothermal wells as I speak, and I’ve planted deciduous trees on the south side of my house that let in the winter sun and pines on the western side to block the winter winds and the evening summer sun. And the towels? Well, I use only one per week to save both the water and energy of washing and drying.”
“Admirable,” I respond. “By contrast, I say I want to conserve, but I’m a bit of a hypocrite. I guess I’m lazy with my fossil fuel affluence. I have; I spend. I’m a product of twentieth-century society: Freewheeling mobility, the desire to see the world beyond my front door, and living in a ‘reasonably’ comfortable—but marginally insulated—'older' house. To avoid paying higher prices for energy, I conserve as personal economics warrant. I agree that wanton spending is foolish, and I also agree that carbon dioxide can affect the atmosphere though I don’t know whether or not natural controls on temperature aren’t more significant, especially in light of a planetary history that includes the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that was much warmer than today’s temperatures—and that occurred just as mammals were on the rise after the demise of the dinosaurs. Although I think that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere might warm it, I also know that a couple of significant volcanic eruptions can lower temperatures for several years, as evidenced by the “Year without a Summer” (Poverty Year).
“Then, I have a suspicion that since we have seen a number of glacial advances and retreats over the past two million years, I’m not quite convinced that the seemingly natural cycle of warming and cooling hasn’t placed us smack-dab in the middle of an interglacial period with another glacial advance on the horizon. If that is so, then by warming the atmosphere, we would stave off the next glacial advance that would make Canada and northern Europe, Russia, and the USA virtually city-less under the relentless crush and plow of glacial ice one- to two-miles thick. Given a choice between sweating a little or freezing much, I’m running with the former.*
“When I look around at towns and cities, I see people going about their daily business. Sometimes, they express concerns over air pollution, global warming, climate change, and ocean acidification. But almost everyone who expresses such concerns goes about daily life as though any personal change is unnecessary. Somehow, they think, ‘others’ will do the changing. And as for the rich elite and climate scientists who fly about giving speeches and attending climate conferences in an age when electronic and telecommunications make such travel unnecessary, well, if hypocrisy can be ranked, then mine—and probably yours—is small by comparison.
“As I have pointed out in other postings, even those who signed the climate agreement in Paris did so with caveats while they continue to spend what they have. Don’t believe me? Read the agreement, paying especial attention to the footnotes. Look, in particular at India’s caveat. Sure, that country pledges to work toward using fewer fossil fuels, but only if the world community lends an energy hand and if nothing interrupts their desired economic growth. As populous as China, India seeks to be equally as rich. And China? It’s a signatory that increased its carbon emissions during 2018.** Only its devastating air pollution seems to provide an adequate motivation to alter its energy source. What good is an agreement like that signed in Paris that isn’t backed by real action? And what good is an agreement that can’t provide an unequivocal scientific answer about its effectiveness?
“So, to recap, we have new found energy wealth. We’ll spend it regardless of the ramifications that the International Panel on Climate Control seems to think will invariably happen. Few individuals will change their lives while at the same time faulting someone or some other group for Earth’s supposed dire future.
“And as a political matter, using our fossil fuel wealth will vary as politicians feel the pressure of those who would deny you your careless spending and those who would tell you to follow your human ways with newfound wealth. All the while, you keep asking yourself if the changes that government-funded scientists predict will actually come to be Earth’s destiny or if Earth will do as it has always done: alter some environments, destroy others, and create new ones. If change were not part of Earth’s usual routine, then we would see no previous extinctions, no previous changes in environments, and no rise of the primates that eventually led to you.
“Wow! You’ve got a problem. Do you ‘do your part’ to ‘save the planet,’ or spend as you have? I don’t know you, but I’m guessing you’ll tend to do ‘the human thing.’”
*As much as I like beer and recognize that its popularity over wine is a product of the Little Ice Age, and as much as I like Vivaldi and recognize that the wood in a Stradivarius violin is probably Little-Ice-Age wood, I still favor warmth over coldth.
**Big political controversy. USA pulled out of the agreement; China stayed in. China has increased its emissions.
Here’s a human thing we might try to divorce from politics: We have; we spend. Holding onto “excess” money is difficult. And the principle applies to fossil fuels. We panicked liked Chicken Little in the 1970s when we thought we would burn through most of our oil reserves by the 1990s. The perception of diminishing reserves made us think it was time to conserve and invent some green technology. Smart thinking, but it failed like a person desiring to spend less while doing the week’s grocery shopping on payday and on an empty stomach.
Since the 1970s, news of previously unknown reserves oozed up like petroleum from beneath Oil Creek. But it just wasn’t news of more oil that surfaced; it was also reports of more natural gas. Four to five decades after the doomsday panic about fossil fuel reserves, we began to see those reserve numbers increase. Ironically, the discovery of previously unknown reserves coincided with our new panic: Using fossil fuels in our engines of production and cars might warm the atmosphere.
Dilemma: What do we do with our oil and natural gas wealth? If we “spend” it, we face domestic social and international condemnation from groups convinced that we face a global catastrophe that might shift the wheat and corn belts; if we don’t use those reserves, we struggle against our penchant for spending when we’re rich and that desire for a car larger than the one circus clowns use.
We find ourselves to be richer now than we predicted in the 1970s. If you have paid attention to the fluctuating estimates of world oil reserves over the past half century, you won’t be surprised that in December, 2018, the U. S. Geological Survey revised upward the oil and natural gas reserves of the Wolfcamp Basin. Instead of 23 billion barrels of crude oil and 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the Survey now estimates the numbers at 46.3 billion barrels of crude oil and 281 trillion cubic feet of gas. In a spend-it-if-you-have-it culture, Wolfcamp adds about seven years of oil and ten years of gas for the United States. You can add that total to recent reserve estimates for shales like the Utica and Marcellus. The USA might have in excess of 2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas; that’ll get us through the winter and power your public transportation bus powered by natural gas.
Of course, even large amounts are finite amounts, and we will eventually empty those reserves. Conservation makes sense, but we won’t be frugal as history shows.
“No,” you say. “We have to do something. We’re ruining the planet.”
“Okay,” I ask. “Who are the ‘we,’ and what are YOU doing about it? What’s the something you are doing? Are you looking for the government to impose restrictions? Are you looking for a political, and not a personal, solution? Do you believe the majority of people will act in the best interests of humanity? More fundamentally, do you think cutting fossil fuel use is in the best interests of humanity? Again, if you answer in the affirmative for the last question, what are YOU doing about it?
“Game theorists might suggest that people—you and I—will eventually settle on actions beneficial to the best general interests, but you probably suspect a different outcome for any newfound wealth. Before people begin to cooperate under extreme conditions, they can act quite selfishly. So, again, what are YOU doing?”
“Me?” you say. “Well, I don’t use my car unless it is clearly necessary; I plan all my trips to stores, and I go when traffic is lightest. I take the shortest routes, and if I’m in a stationary traffic jam, I turn off my engine. I walk as much as possible, even to the grocery store. I don’t buy any plastics made from fossil fuels. I keep my air conditioning set to ‘tolerable’ temperatures, cool in the winter and warm in the summer. I’m serious about my conservation: I wear lots of clothes in winter and run around naked in the summer. I turn out all the lights I don’t need, and I turn off any electronic device that is on ‘standby.’ My computer is off more than it is on. I don’t renew the asphalt covering on my driveway just because my neighbors want me to keep up appearances, and I shovel the snow rather than use a snow blower. In summer, I use an old-fashioned rotary push mower plus some sheep to keep my lawn cut. I’m the poster child for conservation. Why, I’m so busy figuring ways to conserve that I can’t take time to use any fossil fuels. I’m virtually off-the-grid and off the roads. I’m installing solar panels, a windmill, a direct link to a wave-energy gizmo on the ocean, and geothermal wells as I speak, and I’ve planted deciduous trees on the south side of my house that let in the winter sun and pines on the western side to block the winter winds and the evening summer sun. And the towels? Well, I use only one per week to save both the water and energy of washing and drying.”
“Admirable,” I respond. “By contrast, I say I want to conserve, but I’m a bit of a hypocrite. I guess I’m lazy with my fossil fuel affluence. I have; I spend. I’m a product of twentieth-century society: Freewheeling mobility, the desire to see the world beyond my front door, and living in a ‘reasonably’ comfortable—but marginally insulated—'older' house. To avoid paying higher prices for energy, I conserve as personal economics warrant. I agree that wanton spending is foolish, and I also agree that carbon dioxide can affect the atmosphere though I don’t know whether or not natural controls on temperature aren’t more significant, especially in light of a planetary history that includes the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that was much warmer than today’s temperatures—and that occurred just as mammals were on the rise after the demise of the dinosaurs. Although I think that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere might warm it, I also know that a couple of significant volcanic eruptions can lower temperatures for several years, as evidenced by the “Year without a Summer” (Poverty Year).
“Then, I have a suspicion that since we have seen a number of glacial advances and retreats over the past two million years, I’m not quite convinced that the seemingly natural cycle of warming and cooling hasn’t placed us smack-dab in the middle of an interglacial period with another glacial advance on the horizon. If that is so, then by warming the atmosphere, we would stave off the next glacial advance that would make Canada and northern Europe, Russia, and the USA virtually city-less under the relentless crush and plow of glacial ice one- to two-miles thick. Given a choice between sweating a little or freezing much, I’m running with the former.*
“When I look around at towns and cities, I see people going about their daily business. Sometimes, they express concerns over air pollution, global warming, climate change, and ocean acidification. But almost everyone who expresses such concerns goes about daily life as though any personal change is unnecessary. Somehow, they think, ‘others’ will do the changing. And as for the rich elite and climate scientists who fly about giving speeches and attending climate conferences in an age when electronic and telecommunications make such travel unnecessary, well, if hypocrisy can be ranked, then mine—and probably yours—is small by comparison.
“As I have pointed out in other postings, even those who signed the climate agreement in Paris did so with caveats while they continue to spend what they have. Don’t believe me? Read the agreement, paying especial attention to the footnotes. Look, in particular at India’s caveat. Sure, that country pledges to work toward using fewer fossil fuels, but only if the world community lends an energy hand and if nothing interrupts their desired economic growth. As populous as China, India seeks to be equally as rich. And China? It’s a signatory that increased its carbon emissions during 2018.** Only its devastating air pollution seems to provide an adequate motivation to alter its energy source. What good is an agreement like that signed in Paris that isn’t backed by real action? And what good is an agreement that can’t provide an unequivocal scientific answer about its effectiveness?
“So, to recap, we have new found energy wealth. We’ll spend it regardless of the ramifications that the International Panel on Climate Control seems to think will invariably happen. Few individuals will change their lives while at the same time faulting someone or some other group for Earth’s supposed dire future.
“And as a political matter, using our fossil fuel wealth will vary as politicians feel the pressure of those who would deny you your careless spending and those who would tell you to follow your human ways with newfound wealth. All the while, you keep asking yourself if the changes that government-funded scientists predict will actually come to be Earth’s destiny or if Earth will do as it has always done: alter some environments, destroy others, and create new ones. If change were not part of Earth’s usual routine, then we would see no previous extinctions, no previous changes in environments, and no rise of the primates that eventually led to you.
“Wow! You’ve got a problem. Do you ‘do your part’ to ‘save the planet,’ or spend as you have? I don’t know you, but I’m guessing you’ll tend to do ‘the human thing.’”
*As much as I like beer and recognize that its popularity over wine is a product of the Little Ice Age, and as much as I like Vivaldi and recognize that the wood in a Stradivarius violin is probably Little-Ice-Age wood, I still favor warmth over coldth.
**Big political controversy. USA pulled out of the agreement; China stayed in. China has increased its emissions.
RSS Feed