I think that Hargreaves is out of her tree when she says "There is plenty of oil out there. It just happens to be in inaccessible and environmentally sensitive areas of the world. Oil companies have the technology to develop these reserves, but it is expensive. When the oil price is high enough, they will spend the cash on finding more,"
But even if she were correct, she does point out the true crisis which she doesn't confront. "There are no signs that concern over global warming has led to any reduction in the use of oil and gas. China is increasing its energy use at an ever-faster pace and demand in the US shows no sign of slowing." and "Rather depressingly, high oil prices seem to have very little effect on demand. The US is in the middle of another record driving season. With the world's most developed economy showing no appetite for cutting back, it is hard to encourage developing countries to show restraint." What she is saying is that, Al Gore notwithstanding, America and China have no concern for the threat posed by Global Warming/Climate Change. (Does not the fire situation in the US west raise any concerns?) Secondly, she is saying that the market doesn't work, quite an admission from an business editor, though nothing new to members of this list. Paul P Jim Devine wrote:
[comments?] Feeling peaky Deborah Hargreaves July 10, 2007 3:30 PM http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/deborah_hargreaves/2007/07/feeling_peaky.html The world could be facing an oil-supply crunch in the next five years, according to the International Energy Agency. The west's energy watchdog warned this week that supply and demand were heading rapidly in different directions. There are no signs that concern over global warming has led to any reduction in the use of oil and gas. China is increasing its energy use at an ever-faster pace and demand in the US shows no sign of slowing. At the same time, a lot of the easily available oil has been located, new projects are technically more difficult and face long delays. Doomsayers and survivalists use these developments to peddle the peak oil theory. This is the idea that we have already found most of the world's oil and production will soon start to decline. "Peak oil" gets trotted out every time there is an energy crisis or a spike in prices. But I have always been sceptical. There is plenty of oil out there. It just happens to be in inaccessible and environmentally sensitive areas of the world. Oil companies have the technology to develop these reserves, but it is expensive. When the oil price is high enough, they will spend the cash on finding more. Rather than proclaiming the end of oil as an energy source, we should be debating whether we want to drill in parts of the world such as the Arctic or the Ecuadorean rainforest. If, as a society, we decide this is not acceptable then there needs to be a more concerted effort to reduce demand. Protestors who bleat on about environmental destruction seem to be reluctant to give up their cars and their flights. Rather depressingly, high oil prices seem to have very little effect on demand. The US is in the middle of another record driving season. With the world's most developed economy showing no appetite for cutting back, it is hard to encourage developing countries to show restraint. There is enough oil out there for many years. The question is, are we prepared to pay the environmental price of getting at it? --- Deborah Hargreaves is the Guardian's business editor. [as usual, just because I post something does not mean that I endorse it.] -- Jim Devine / "The tooth fairy teaches children that they can sell body parts for money." -- David Richerby
-- Paul Phillips Professor Emertus, Economics University of Manitoba Home and Office: 3806 - 36A st., Vernon BC, Canada. ViT 6E9 tel: 1 (250) 558-0830 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
