Shell Energy Futures
Posted by Jerome a Paris on January 25, 2008 - 11:23am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: climate change, Jeroen van der Veer, peak oil, post carbon, shell [list all tags]
Below the fold is the full text of an email sent by Jeroen van der Veer, the CEO of Shell, to all Shell employees, and explicitly meant for wider distribution. (Update: an almost identical version is now available on Shell's website)
It is a clear acknowledgement of the reality of peak oil, climate change and of the need for comprehensive policy changes, and is worth reading in full.
From: Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive
To: All Shell employees
Date: 22 January 2008Subject: Shell Energy Scenarios
Dear Colleagues
In this letter, I'd like to share reflections about how we see the energy future, and our preferred route to meeting the world's energy needs. Industry, governments and energy users - that is, all of us - will face the twin challenge of more energy and less CO2.
This letter is based on a text I've written for publication in several newspapers in the coming weeks. You can use it in your communications externally. There will be more information about energy scenarios inthe months ahead.
By the year 2100, the world's energy system will be radically different from today's. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy too will have a place.
Mankind will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.
Indeed, the distant future looks bright, but getting there will be an adventure. At Shell, we think the world will take one of two possible routes. The first, a scenario we call Scramble, resembles a race through a mountainous desert. Like an off-road rally, it promises excitement and fierce competition. However, the unintended consequence of "more haste" will often be "less speed" and many will crash along the way.
The alternative scenario, called Blueprints, has some false starts and develops like a cautious ride on a road that is still under construction. Whether we arrive safely at our destination depends on the discipline of the drivers and the ingenuity of all those involved in the construction effort. Technical innovation provides for excitement.
Regardless of which route we choose, the world's current predicament limits our maneuvering room. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.
As a result, society has no choice but to add other sources of energy - renewables , yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.In the Scramble scenario, nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast.
Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption - until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility.
The other route to the future is less painful, even if the start is more disorderly. This Blueprints scenario sees numerous coalitions emerging to take on the challenges of economic development, energy security and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation.
Much innovation occurs at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions. National governments introduce efficiency standards, taxes and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles and transport fuels.
As calls for harmonization increase, policies converge across the globe. Cap-and-trade mechanisms that put a cost on industrial CO 2 emissions gain international acceptance. Rising CO2 prices accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO 2 and store it underground.
Against the backdrop of these two equally plausible scenarios, we will only know in a few years whether December's Bali declaration on climate change was just rhetoric or the beginning of a global effort to counter it. Much will depend on how attitudes evolve in Beijing, Brussels, New Delhi and Washington.
Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our grandchildren, we believe the Blueprints outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy and environment.
For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Blueprints world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced.
The sobering reality is that the Blueprints scenario will only come to pass if policymakers agree a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, mobility and buildings. It will be hard work and there is little time.
For instance, Blueprints assumes CO2 is captured at 90% of all coal- and gas-fired power plants in developed countries in 2050, plus at least 50% of those in non-OECD countries. Today, there are none. Since CO2 capture and storage adds cost and brings no revenues , government support is needed to make it happen quickly on a scale large enough to affect global emissions. At the very least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store.
Blueprints will not be easy. But it offers the world the best chance of reaching a sustainable energy future unscathed, so we should explore this route with the same ingenuity and persistence that put humans on the moon and created the digital age.
The world faces a long voyage before it reaches a low-carbon energy system. Companies can suggest possible routes to get there, but governments are in the driving seat. And governments will determine whether we should prepare for a bitter competition or a true team effort.
That is the article, and how I see our challenges and opportunities. I look forward to hearing how you see the situation (please be concise).
Regards
Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive
Our (Khebab/Brown) middle case is that combined net exports by the top five net exporters (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Iran & the UAE) will be down by close to 50% by 2015, from the 2005 level. Or, to put it another way, our middle case is that it would take all of the top five net exports in 2015 to meet current US import demand.
BTW, China has stopped, at least temporarily, coal exports. Bloomberg is reporting that Russian oil exports will be down by 9% in February. And both China and Russia are working to curtail food exports. Then we had Iran curtailing gas exports to Turkey, resulting in Turkey curtailing gas exports to Greece, resulting in Greece curtails gas exports to?
The common theme is that food and energy exporters are going to take care of the home team first.
If one reads that quoted line carefully, one will notice that he is referring to combined oil and gas production. It may well be that oil production won't be able to "keep up with demand" at a much sooner date (if that date hasn't already passed). And, there's no mention of the export problem which you have so clearly shown to be important in many posts.
From an economic point of view, demand can never exceed supply over time. The "market" will respond with increasing prices for the commodity in shortfall, until demand and supply will balance. Of course, that is theory and surely leaves some folks out in the cold who would like their demand satisfied. If one thinks a bit further about this statement, when supply can no longer "keep up" with demand, that implies a rather large increase in price, limited only by the cost of the available alternatives, including FF sources that are difficult to obtain. Since the cost of the alternatives tends to increase along with the market price of energy, it's likely that we will be due for some rather large increases in energy costs, as well as major disruptions of all sorts. I think the many reports we are presently seeing about global energy shortages is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. None of this is new to those of us who frequent TOD.
Keep moving, keep growing, nothing to see here, no need to PANIC, Everything's Under Control.
E. Swanson
The only way I can read "scramble," or the "mountainous desert race" is as a euphemism for resource wars. That has been the way that mankind has traditionally resolved the allocation of scarce and vital resources. "Excitement" and "fierce competition" sound an awful lot like "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Thin Red Line." At least there is some acknowledgement in the industry that the alternatives to cooperation is the Great War for Oil.
Resource wars? Aren't those situations where one nation invades and conquers another nation with known resources? Sort of like Saddam in Kuwait? Sort of like Japan attacking Pearl Harbor as a prelude to the march toward Indonesia's oil fields? Like Hitler invading the Balkens to get the oil fields, then attacking Russia for the same reason. Looks to me like war's not the alternative, it's been the plan for a long time.
As for "Excitement" and "fierce competition", think of the after effects of a bunch of nuclear blasts delivered to select Third World Mega cities. It would give a whole new meaning to the "Survivor" programs, with camera crews dressed in lead suits catching every round of the tooth and claw fight for survival. There's more than one way for "Demand Destruction" to occur.
Of course, our conquest of Iran had absolutely nothing (Bush Co. said), NOTHING, to do with oil, got that? :<(
E. Swanson
Like the US in Iraq - Noticed you missed that one - How could you miss the obvious?
Woops! A typo in the last line, should have been Iraq, not Iran.
I thought you were reporting from the future so I figured Iran was what you actually meant.
I thought he was talking about 1952, when the US and GB overthrew a democratic government in Iran and replaced it with a dictatorship, so their oil companies could regain control of Iran's oil supplies. Isn't it interesting how the US and British press never mention this when discussing the current frictions?
Resource wars for the last of a resource considered vital (which will appreciate, year on year, with certainty) are an entirely different level of conflict than speculative wars over future profit.
It's the difference between "If we succeed, we could become rich" and "If we fail, we are certain to starve." The latter has all the power of the status quo behind it.
So, from an economic point of view, there is only demand for 75,000 Super Bowl tickets since that how many are available.
Which proves I still can't get my mind around economics.
In the super bowl case, the elasticity of supply is zero. That doesn't occur too often in the real world.
That's because sports teams are deeply ingrained in our culture as well as our tax system (and exempted from monopoly restrictions), and there are substantial auxiliary profits to be had in allowing fans to see the occasional game.
Even though the supply elasticity is zero, that wouldn't itself invalidate the laws of supply and demand. The owners would have an incentive to maximize their profit by jacking the prices up until they have slightly less than 75000 tickets.
But they allow things like waiting lists and lotteries for tickets instead (and punish scalpers), because those represent commitments to keep watching the game (which costs them nothing), keep voting to build new stadiums on taxpayer dollars, keep buying Packers jerseys and hats, keep trying to get seats at the nearly empty certain-loss games in midseason with nothing on the line, and in general support the team until your death. If the stadium seats for the Superbowl were strictly a narrow for-profit operation, they would be auctioned in order to maximize profit, essentially.
From an economic point of view, demand perfectly balances supply... as long as price is free to fluctuate.
If price is fixed too low then demand can easily exceed supply.... at the too low price.
If price is fixed too high then demand can easily be lower than supply ... at the too high price.
Well "demand" doesn't just mean "want" or "desire".
Demand is the want or desire to possess a good or service with the necessary goods, services, or financial instruments necessary to make a legal transaction for those goods or services.
Except that governments won't allow the market to go out of control with prices like that. Pricing regulation and rationing will be introduced, you'll get your certificate each month that will permit you to buy a certain amount of oil..... This is what governments do in economic disasters and war time, infact some governments have had to do that to keep a war economy functioning. Governments will want to ensure that oil remains affordable.
If Iran invaded Turkey from the rear, would Greece help?
Turkey & Greece are members of NATO.
I think that was an anal sex joke.
Members they are indeed...however reluctant and at odds with each other!
If this was 1990 or earlier, Greece would probably invade Turkey (as would Syria and the Kurds would revolt too), resulting in a huge war. Nowadays I think it is very improbable, due to EU membership, high revenues from tourism that would be lost for many years due to war, improving trade etc.
PS. I am from Greece.
[whoosh]
double [whoosh]!!! LOL!!!
/shakes head and just walks to the other corner of the room with wry smile on his face...
Perhaps there should be a /humour in there somewhere to alert non-english speakers?
Only if everyone finds it humorous.
Well, there's jokes and then there's bad jokes, but sometimes even bad jokes are kinda funny.
Turkey historicaly has very bad relations with almost all of its neighbours, and for many years has an ongoing guerilla war with the Kurds. It is widely thought that if Turkey went into a big war with any of its neighbours the rest of them would intervene. In fact PKK tried to stimulate this, and had talks with Syrian, Persians and Greeks for that purpose. Btw, we are way off topic here!
Hi Costas,
I appreciate hearing firsthand accounts and perspectives. Hopefully, humanity will make every effort to bring peace to our troubled times, and avoid resource wars as we face fossil fuel decline.
Here are some groups making the effort:
http://www.combatantsforpeace.org/
http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/
Aniya,
i only noticed lately that you found all question marks on a link i provided. that was because you didn't select the proper font for display -- that's in Chinese. anyway, here is a link for the English version:
http://www.terrorism.com/documents/TRC-Analysis/unrestricted.pdf
Blea
If not Greece and Turkey then how about Chile?
Either way China will be needed.
But what will Delaware?
That's easy: a New Jersey.
I'm not so sure. That's not what Arkansas. I think that's what she said, I'll go back and Alaska.
Where will Mary Land ?
Peak Oil. We are the frog in a pot of cool water placed on a fire. Subprime is just a symptom of being incrementally cooked; the incremental increase of commute costs and house payments until more and more people cannot afford both.
Bail-outs and tax stimuli toss ice in the water but throw currency stability on the fire.
We might cool the fire or get out of the pot by changing the lifeblood of our economy from oil to ingenuity. This requires innovation. Current costs will be attacked by innovators if power generation and transportation are de-monopolized.
The Internet is a great example of innovation following de-monopolization of communications. Germany's solar success is an example of innovation following de-monopolization of power generation.
Shell made the statement that easy oil will be gone by 2015 in the Professional Engineer magazine, (The UK's Institute of Mechanical Engineers bi-weekly publication), almost a year ago. Thus the leaked, message is not as radical a development from Shells public position, as it may at first appear. The publicising of their alternative scenarios is the new part.
I spent the day at one of the two leading petrochem industry pump vendors today. They are currently working on six brine
injection pumps for Saudi Aramco, each driven by 18MW electric motors, with a 300barg casing rating. ie. the head generated must be almost 3000m, and the flowrates anything up to 1500m3/hr or if you prefer 225,000bpd per pump, 6 pump total equivalent 1.35mbpd. Quite what fraction of that injected brine flowrate emerges back as oil I don't know, it would seem to be a serious capacity edition... or maybe, its just to make up for rising water fractions, to maintain oil flow. ...
Hi Jeffrey,
Thankfully, we have the analysis of the ELM-team.
re: "top five exporters". Just to help fill in the picture, what approximate percentage of world total do theses five represent? (Or, is there some better way to place this is context?)
re: For example, "Or, to put it another way, our middle case is that it would take all of the top five net exports in 2015 to meet current US import demand."
This would leave the remaining (?) percent of the current exporters to meet demand for the rest of the world. (Or would there be any remaining exporters by that time?)
re: Is there an ELM for NG? Or, is it assumed that the situation has too many variables and/or limited possible export distances?
Hi Aniya,
I am not Jeffrey, but I wanted the answer to the same question you had. Here is the data from the EIA:
The top 10 exporters provide 32mbpd out of roughly 44 total exports. Almost all of the top 10 are in decline, with only 4 with any chance of increase, and 3 of those are in the top 5 (russia, saudi, UAE). With only algeria in the second 5. The second 5 includes mexico (done by 2014). All in all it looks pretty bad.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm
For natural gas, I would look at the ASPO 2007 presentation by David Hughes at the ASPO USA site. As Canada is our only real export supplier of any quantity, you can see ELM hard at work growing to consume the Canadian supply. And he projects the shortfall we in the US are likely to see. He also casts doubt on the forecast that Canadian coal bed methane will make up for conventional shortfalls.
Wind back a couple of posts to see Euan's take on how LNG supplies will not even meet Europe's planned need, much less the US. Personally, natural gas shortage is my real fear. I like walking. I hate freezing.
The top five account for about half of world net oil exports, and I think that we are seeing ELM effects for food and NG exporters.
The EB referenced a Weekend WSJ article on one guy's Peak Oil preparations. It's up on the WSJ website, behind a paywall.
In a World Short Of Oil, Provisions Must Be Made
Mr. Wissner of Middleville
Stocks Up on Rice, Gold;
No Faith in a 'Techno Fix'
By NEIL KING JR.
January 26, 2008
FYI I got to the article via Google News, it was the second link in a search for "peak oil".
I thought the article made Aaron out to be a little on the obsessed side. Easy to do if you take someone who just woke up to the peak oil story and looked around his snow-covered yard at the lack of a community and said "What the hell am I going to do?!"
I've been paranoid for my whole life. Peak oil is just another segment in a fractured mind full of threats from crooked governments, ignorant masses, blind religions, and corporate killers. As my mom would say, "Whoop-dee-do, cool it with the dramatics."
The WSJ will try their darnedest to put the lid on peak oil until the major shareholders can sell their stakes to the minor shareholders and to foreigners. All they need is another big dip (not too big--watch the timing on those cuts, Helicopter Ben) so they can sell on the dead cat bounce, and then they head for Paraguay with The Family.
"We're all freakin' DOOMED!!" -The Mogambo
The end of the stock market isn't the end of the world. -- me
Read this CEO's memo as:
"Shell scrambles to assert legitimacy and retain market share in the face of growing competition, ludicrous profits, laughable investment, and an imminent peak in conventional world oil supplies..."
IMO he is a rat and a liar. As his vision for the future he floats the Carbon Capture raft. Carbon capture does not address the issue of dwindling and unreliable supply nor does it deal with the obvious issue of carbon emission from liquid fuels used for transportation.
For Shell to survive long-term they will need to invest in energies that are outside of traditional fossil fuels. Something this small minded exec seems to have happily overlooked.
Maybe he will show 'proactive vision' in his later statements. For my part, I won't hold my breath. This is little more than corporate damage control.
Shell owns 1 GW of wind turbines AFAIK.
Alan
Cheers Alan and thanks! Though I think it's great that Shell has invested in 1 GW of wind power -- which is certainly a substantial amount -- I'm still disheartened that the company is leading with a fossil fuel focused agenda.
Looking at the above memo, most of the lip service is given to carbon capture. If Shell is looking to be progressive and truly address the problems we are facing it must at least support, by clear policy statements, a mix of energy sources.
For example:
"Shell has invested heavily in wind and other alternatives. We are laying out a blueprint to funnel 30 percent in the near future and 50 percent within five years of all new development investment into alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels. Shell already has a strong interest in wind energy and we will continue to strengthen our position in this promising new area. Furthermore, we are asking government to aid us, through subsidies and incentives, in all alternative investment, in retrofitting existing coal plants and building all new coal plants on the new carbon capture model. We feel that these solutions will help us better address the imminent peaking in world oil supplies which we project to be near the year 2015 ..."
If we need to depend on governments, we are totally screwed. Twice over now that a recession is coming.
Besides, who uses blueprints anymore?
But without governments aren't we screwed even more??
Yes, that would be feudalism or anarchy. Note that some Governments have been working towards enabling (or increasing) addictions to energy sources, while others have been seeking to reduce their dependence.
As Robert Hirsch noted, governments must be a major player in the 10 year transition "Grand Effort".
Oil companies know that the extraction of heavy oils and shale will not ramp up in time to offset CO declines, which is why they are now spinning PO as, "a transition to other energy forms will not be because there was not enough oil, it will be because the oil left in the ground was not as accessible or economic."
THAT is an out and out admission that PO is a near term reality.
Ah...the "corporations" will show us the way to enlightenment. They will replace governments.
Actually, joking aside, it is difficult to see the line between corporations and governments in this country (corporatocracy?). In other countries, the companies are the government (NOCs).
Are we worse off with Corporatocracies? Probably. At least as far as getting anything done that doesn't benefit cronies somewhere.
I believe the word you're looking for is Plutocracy.
No. The US system is a Kakistocracy.
ROFLMAO! Never heard of that term before. I have to remember that.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/49/K0004900.html
Government by the least qualified
We need a government that's on our side -- that's the problem. You're starting to have governments in Latin America that are on the side of the people, even though they screw up sometimes.
The middle class traditionally identifies with the wealthy, thinking they'll be there themselves someday. But most of the middle class is headed in the other direction, soon. When significant parts of the middle class start identifying with the people below them, and start aiming at a society based on a slogan the Venezuelans use -- zero misery -- then we'll be headed in the right direction. Meantime, we hug our portfolios just the way whats-his-name hugged the bomb in Dr Strangelove.
It's in government's hands now. Let's hope we have good leaders...
We really need to go after those darn monopolies, level the playing field, subsidize the alternatives (IMO Solar and Wind as a priority), incentivize electric vehicles, diversify the grid, increase domestic supply, and sock it to those overseas who have been wrecking havoc with our economy for the past thirty years.
Give the other energy sources (all non-fossil fuel) a chance to make their way.
Why not just call the two scenarios "US" and "Europe" ?
The real question is what happens when half the world goes one way and half the other. How do you square one half undoing the good work of the other, and the inevitable conflict that results?
Usually with aggression.
This is way our system works
The Tragedy of the Commons
Peak Oil, Climate Change, Environmental health, biodiversity, energy production, etc. all fall into this model. If we can answer the "Tragedy" puzzle, we will have great momentum.
I think I might do a cut and paste 'review' of that paper, which was written 40 years ago! in how it's tenets relate to Peak Oil.
There is no requirement for international affairs to end up as a 'market led' tragedy. There is ample evidence that it is possible for those that represent their people to agree cooperative ventures. All that is usually missing is the ability of punish those that decide to ignore the hard won consensus.
That's the real heart of breakout solution which is needed.
But the market externalizes most costs! So how can a system built on growth and self-interest (Wealth of Nations) all internalize costs when they are pursuing profit?
It's in a companies self-interest to reduce energy usage if they still want to be in business. do you think wal-mart doesn't realize that lowering their energy costs isn't essential to their business?
Don't you think you might want to mention the Tragedy of the Non-commons also since Farley is on your thesis committee?
Dear Nate
it would be excellent if you would spare the time to critique that sordid mess known as "the tragedy of the commons," that so slandered the commoners. Particularly with regard to the extent to which it has been so massively proselytized as an (wholly false) justification for the dismemberment, privatization and pillage of the Commons worldwide.
I write as a Commoner myself, having grazing rights for 800 sheep on three particular mountains here in Wales (the flock was a bit run down when I took over, but we're building back up with the introduction of two hardy ancient breeds)
I can tell you that the author of TSOTC had not the most basic clue as to what a commons is, or how it works, or how, even when it is eradicated, it will tend eventually to re-emerge and flourish.
That paper is still strangely lauded in the US, but in Europe it was shredded, forensically, practically from '68 onwards.
Wishing you happy explorations,
Regards,
Backstop
Full Disclosure: I got an A+ during an Environmental Economics degree for a study titled "The Slander of the Commoners."
"Two ancient hardy breeds"
For the last 3 or 4 years I have been raising Soays, about 40 breeding ewes. I'm quite impressed with them, esp maternal instincts and grazing preferences. Is this one of your breeds?
Doug Fir -
I must confess to greatly liking the Soay conformation and resilience, but being discouraged by the rumoured lack of flocking instinct - which would be a huge hindrance in the mountains - Have you found it a problem ?
I've gone for trial flocks of two native Welsh breeds, the Black Welsh (reportedly established for Cistercian monks robes), and the far older Torwen or St Idloes sheep (he was an early British saint), that are remarkably similar in colouring to the dark type of Soay, though I doubt there's been much contact at least since the Bronze age.
BTW, whereabouts do you farm ?
Regards,
Backstop
I'm afraid I'm can't give you any definitive info on flocking. I use them either behind or in with cattle in our pasture rotation scheme. Given their life the last 4000 yrs on Hirta and Soay, I doubt there has been any selection pressure for flocking. I've had coyote mortality with the rams that show little if any fight or flight. Nothing concrete, just observation that seems to fit their life on the islands. But they(our flock) are very skittish of people.
Their resilience and immunity is amazing. No trouble at all. Had lambing in single digits, and the ewe was right there, cleaning and drying the lamb. I'm in the US, northern Rockies. Biggest problem is size-auctions at the sale barn all want the Columbia or Targhee size, and dock me for the smaller Soay to where it isn't worth it.
Hi, Backstop.
I have not re-read that essay in a while and my impression of it was not of a group of people (apparently the Commoners) who were responsible for the exhaustion of a public resource. Even now when I think of the essay what comes to mind is that when a resource isn't managed (whether privately or publicly), unrestrained use of it eventually degrades or exhausts the resource.
The atmosphere is a case in point. It isn't managed and its state is being degraded. The global fisheries are another example, which are being fished to exhaustion.
Isn't it fair to say that when a resource isn't managed (again, publicly or privately), in the majority of cases humans will take as much as they can as fast as they can with little regard to the future of the resource?
Isn't it also likely that Nate was referring to the paper in that sense, rather than denigrating Commoners? Don't we all know there are always exceptions in this big world of ours?
-Andre'
------------------------------------
Best Of The Oil Drum Index
http://www.inspiringgreenleadership.com/blog/aangel/oil-drum-best-index
Andre -
I think you'd do well to read that text anew.
Hardin was clearly wholly ignorant of how a Commons is a managed resource.
If a marine resource is not managed, it can usually be termed an "Open Access" resource, i.e. open to pillage.
OTOH if a terrestrial resource is not managed, it has, almost always, been a TVFI, that is, the "Territory of Vanquished Former Occupants," and has thus become an Open Access resource in that it may well remain open to pillage (for instance by incomers adding ever-more stock) until the stage of enclosure and private ownership occurs, after which the rate of pillage (if any) reflects the owner's ethics and external pressures.
A Commons is not open to pillage.
It is a resource managed in common essentially for the common good.
It is, in the great majority of cases, a traditional carefully arranged management system that pays due regard to the welbeing both of the users and their families, and also of their future descendants by means of manifesting a practical respect for the native ecology.
Hardin was an arrogant, snobbish pillock, blaming notional former Commoners for the outcomes of unendurable pressures placed on them by a grossly materialist callous society.
Given that America, being founded not on slavery (despite the hype) but actually on the genocide of the native peoples, and on the eradication of their management of diverse and often subtly structured commons, it seems pretty unlikely that Hardin, (a biologist by training) had anything other than sheer intellectual speculation on which to found his infamous guilt-trip doctrine.
Maybe he was astonished by the welcome it received on a range from preservationist environmentalists through to resource-acquisitive corporations - it was just the message they wanted to hear.
It urks me that so many young Americans seem to have accepted the conditioning of seeing that text as some kind of profound insight into human nature, when in reality it is just the reverse -- it is a gross and ideologically biased slanderous denial of the human capacity to seek to co-operate humanely and honestly for the common good.
But then, what do I know ? I'm just a Commoner.
Happy reading.
Regards,
Backstop
Thank you for that, Backstop. I have often felt this was the case with Hardin's famous screed on the commons. It is hard to discuss this issue with many Americans as they seem to accept it(Hardin's point of view) as gospel.
Hi, Backstop.
I have just finished carefully re-reading the essay:
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons....
Then I looked up "commons" and found:
"a piece of open land for public use, esp. in a village or town."
I do not know the man and perhaps you do sufficiently to judge him as you do. However, I found no evidence that he used the word "commons" with any intent to disparage "Commoners" — he simply needed a name for what you call an "open access" space. He also needed actors to make his case, in this case he chose sheep and herdsmen. Quite a natural choice given the meaning of commons, I would say.
He could have used fishermen and a fishing fleet just as easily. That he used the word "commons" might be an unfortunate choice of words but to me it worked. What comes to mind for me is the Boston Common, a public and open space. What you refer to might be more precisely called a "managed commons." It was clear to me while reading the essay that there was no management in his example — just individual actors working to their own exclusive benefit.
In fact, he went on to say that there were several ways to deal with the commons, not just privatization.
People often hear/read what they want and conveniently miss the rest. Is it surprising to you that profit-oriented business people would select "privatization" out of all the options he presents and use this essay to bolster their argument?
I'm sorry; I just don't see what you're seeing in his writing. Not in this essay. Which passage are you referring to that demonstrates that he is "an arrogant, snobbish pillock, blaming notional former Commoners?" Perhaps you have other papers of his that would demonstrate what you're saying?
-Andre'
I would be surprised indeed if the Boston Commons is an open access space in the sense just used.
I live in a town in New England (USA) that has a Town Green--a common, if you will--but it is certainly NOT open access. It is managed quite explicitly by a private corporation whose charter of incorporation specifically charges it to maintain the Green for public (non-destructive) use BUT actively forestall both commercial and destructive uses.
That said, the deeper problem with The Tragedy of the Commons is the assumption that the selfish, predatory, and destructive psychology and social training of North Americans is a human universal across time and space--which plainly it is not.
My apologies. I would strike "open access" from my earlier comment if I could. "Public" was really what I wanted to say.
The tragedy is, there's always some @$$4013 running goats on the commons.
having grazing rights for 800 sheep
Then your commons is a well regulated one. Here in the Etats, it's unfashionable to regulate the commons.
I think we should recognize that cooperative action is possible, and quite possibly the "rational choice" for states. Europe is doing a lot of diplomatic dealing, especially with Russia. We don’t hear so much on this list, or in the news, about the Energy Charter Treaty (http://www.encharter.org/), the World Energy Council (http://www.worldenergy.org/), and a small host of other international bodies that are working on these things, but the global market in energy is highly politicized, and the blueprints scenario is definitely building. Of course it’s unlikely that treaties will carry the day when TSHTF, but they do represent something. (The players care enough to make them, anyhow.) So, while Russia is sitting fairly pretty (relatively speaking, of course), and Europe is well aware of its circumstances, the way they are doing business is vastly different from the US “strategy” (“go kick ass and bring it home”… or, as Shell puts it, “Scramble”). Some opinions liken US diplomatic skill or attitude to that of a teenager among old businessmen when it comes to international relations. Seems an apt interpretation. If it really is a "grand chessboard” out there, would you put your money on Vladimir or George?
As for The Tragedy, let’s remember that Hardin’s summary prescription is for “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (with respect to population, in particular, but could be read "consumption"). That recommendation could be likened to "a treaty with teeth", an actually-existing collective (energy) security arrangement. It hasn’t come about yet, but it may be the only alternative to Iraq, etc. I would think TPTB are well aware of their options.
sm
You're talking about the Europe that wants to build a military base in the UAE, right?
France ..... nuff said
You might not know it but France has been taken over by a neo-con puppet meant to replace Tony Blair as "the poodle".
What's wrong with helping with the fight against the "axis of evil"?
It might please a few friends...
garyp -
since the global effort for 'Blueprint' began formally with the mandate of the "UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" back in the mid-90s, proponents of 'Scramble' have made most of the running, with Kyoto being reduced to a byzantine farce.
But that is no reason to assume that such stupidity will be allowed to prevail in future.
There is already a convergence (as the CEO's letter predicts) between EU, Africa & India over the fundamental blueprint for equity & survival, known as "Contraction & Convergence." (Merkel went public over it on her recent Far East trip).
It proposes a Convergence, over an agreed number of years, of tradable national GHG emission-entitlements from reflecting national wealth (the present limitation) over to a common national emission-entitlement per head of population,
with a simultaneous global Contraction of the annual GHG budget at a rate to reflect the IPCC advice on avoiding the climate feedback loops taking over.
Whether the US & China will participate constructively before 2012 can't be foretold - no doubt reactionaries in each share a preference for Scramble and have long enjoyed the brinkmanship of who can ignore GW the longest.
Yet to have the vocal if coded support for Blueprint of a corporation of Shell's standing is a very positive sign, particularly coming as it does during the Davos Forum.
I should perhaps add that as the focus of a global blueprint, GW offers a critical advantage over PO, in that there is no dodging intensifying climatic destabilization of each nation's infrastructure and productivity,
while by contrast the cornu-thugs can readily propose semi-plausible national energy plans based on 'manifest destiny,' delusion and spin.
In addition to which, cutting GHG emissions at a rate to avoid launching the runaway greenhouse is liable to involve cuts approximating to the decline of liquid fuels' production.
Regards,
Backstop
Contraction & Convergence has always struck me as a dead duck that's stinking up the place. There is NO way in hell that most first world countries will undertake sweeping and expensive cuts in CO2 emissions while 'third' world countries not only increase their CO2 emissions, but do so while taking all the manufacturing jobs.
It keeps large tranches of votes happy in the UN, but its not viable.
The only viable route as far as I can see is "nobody makes it worse, big polluters make better" - the China, India, Africa contributions are capped and the US, Europe etc. contributions decline over time. Proportionately the third world contribution rises, but in tonnes terms the total takes a downwards path. That seems to me to be the only one that everyone will get behind, if only grudgingly. It also has the advantage that it doesn't make things worse in the short term for political reasons.
To me you recognise that things will start moving forward when C&C is kicked to the curb and they get down to serious negotiations on the above basis. Everything else is posturing with no action.
And any solution still needs teeth. In a situation where dictatorship is becoming the mode de jour of the 21st century, how do you impose action on the backsliders and backwards?
Geachte heer van der Veer/Beste Jeroen,
Ik juich toe dat u inziet dat er "uitdagingen" zijn op het gebied van energie. Ik vind uw aanhef echter buitengewoon optimistisch. Heeft u zich ooit gerealiseerd dat de huidige, schone alternatieven voor fossiele brandstoffen volledig afhankelijk zijn van een onderliggende infrastructuur gebaseerd op dezelfde fossiele brandstoffen? Daarbij komt het probleem van opschalen van alternatieven. En de techiek voor het afvangen van CO2 bij de verbranding van fossiele brandstof staat nog in de kinderschoenen. Om te stellen dat de verre toekomst er op dit gebied gunstig uitziet is een aanname zonder gegronde argumenten. Alle argumenten wijzen op het tegendeel. Daarnaast is het niet onaannemelijk te stellen dat de productie van olie en condensaat reeds sinds 2005 niet meer aan de vraag voldoet, en dat de situatie in 2015 ernstig zal zijn. Ik adviseer u dan ook om open en eerlijk naar publiek en beleidsmakers te zijn en uw invloed aan te wenden echte verandering teweeg te brengen.
Hoogachtend en met vriendelijke groet,
Paulus Punselie
Den Helder
ppunselie [at] hotmail [dot] com
Paulus,
I think he's being as honest as he can be. This is such a radical departure that the sh*t will be hitting fans big time when the articles start appearing.
I work with two clients in the auto leasing business. One is bank-owned and the other is owned by a big car manufacturer. I thought that at least the automaker-owned business would be well aware of PO as a strategic threat.
No! Even at fairly senior level there was no appreciation of the likelihood of peak oil, let alone of the severe impacts that auto businesses face due to PO at any time.
Its clear that all the world's auto makers are certainly aware of PO at the top level. Only Toyota so far has said out loud that it has no future as a maker of internal combustion engined vehicles (no future period if peak is really upon us already).
I think like all big oil-dependent businesses, they're clenching their muscles and hoping someone will come up with A Plan.
Shell is now making the call. By standing up and basically saying "The game is no longer expand or die, it is contract or die", van der Veer is telling the banks and economists the party's over.
He'll be vilified, shouted down, dismissed. But as the boss of Shell, he can't be ignored. Is it too little to late? Maybe
I've only come to the Peak Oil recently. I salute all of you who've toiled so long to keep the message going. Today you won the argument.
But can the world win the war?
I seriously wonder if this goes ahead what the implications are going to be in many energy intense industries, like the airlines, that are continuing totally oblivious to the future.
This weeks turbulance on the makets is likely to be nothing comapred to when this message is finally understood and vulnerable industries face a flight of capital as investers ditch shares.
If the wider communication of this message is undertaken by Shell hats off to them for coming clean. One hell of a ride awaits.
"Only Toyota so far has said out loud that it has no future as a maker of internal combustion engined vehicles"
GM has said it too, and quite clearly.
The Chevy Volt is by far the best EV/PHEV in the works.
could you point/link to an original reference for Toyota's and GM's statements? thx r
Dear Paulus,
Do you happen to know him personally ?
J.KOK
Approximate translation of PaulusP's letter so everybody can share it :
Sir/Dear jeroen,
I am glad that you agree that there are challenging facts about energy. I think however that your introduction is overly optimistic. Did you realise that today's clean alternatives for fossil fuels are completely dependant on a functionning fossil fuel-based infrastructure ? Then there is the problem to upscale these alternatives. And the carbon capturing techniques are still in their infancy. To suppose that in the distant future these issues will be favorably solved is not substantiated with sound arguments. Most arguments point in quite an opposite direction. It is not a bold statement to say that since C+C doesn't match demand since 2005 the situation will be dire by 2015. I urge you to be honnest towards the deciders and the public, and try to exert your influence to bring about a real change.
Thank you for the translation. I was working from Babel Fish where "in its infancy" came out as "still stands in child shoes." I like the Dutch version.
Some time ago I experimented with Babelfish. I translated some English into something else, and translated the result back into English. You quickly realize that translators are not in job jeopardy.
The quality of the translation seems to depend a lot on what languages are selected. To/from Spanish or French is better than something like Mandarin or Russian.
Thanks neuroil. I wanted to post a translation myself but hadn't time. Instead of "deciders" I think a more proper translation would be "policymakers".
Anyway, I hope he'll be around to read this thread, that's why I put my name under it and e-mail too. And no, I don't know him.
http://reddit.com/r/science/info/66lu3/comments/
http://digg.com/business_finance/The_CEO_of_Shell_says_Peak_Oil_is_just_...
thanks for helping us break this important story.
Another implied assumption is that we are starting with carbon capture and storage now ... so that by 2020 many of the biggest polluters would be storing around 30%.
Any delay in starting down the sequestration route (highly likely IMO since nobody has actually shown it can be done yet!) means that we don't have until the deadline of 2050 to reach a 90% capture target - it will be an earlier date since it is the total amount of CO2 emitted that is the actual target.
I think the CO2 target has been politically determined since nobody knows for sure what it should be - but sadly, nature doesn't negotiate, there are no half measures either the 2050 target is correct or it isn't.
Care is needed with any solution to the problem. If you have no chance of meeting the target that nature requires don't bother to even start down that route, because, if you fail, you will need the money wasted to relocate flooded cities and scorched or frozen farms caused by the resulting dangerous climate change.
I don't think there is any basis for assuming nature will punish us (or not) based on a binary decision: CO2 concentration less than X OK, otherwise I unleash massive chaos. It looks much more likely that the damage done will be an increasing function of the level of CO2. That implies that even if we can't meet the targets, we shouldn't give up. Doing 10% better than the target is better than just meeting it. Doing 10% worse than the target is still better than missing it by 50%.
But hey, I just had to laugh about that 90% sequestered comment. At the rate were going we will be lucky if we sequester 25% by 2050. It seems highly unlikely to me that we are going to come anywhere close to meeting any of the targets. But we can't just throw in the towel either.
As for the US, I suspect that the attitude displayed by that woman who killed the bicylist is pretty widespread, particularly of the rightend of the political spectrum. When the energy crunch starts to bite we are going to erupt into a major argument, with one side blaming the tree huggers (if we'd been allowed to drill etc.), versus the other side who argues that lack of attention to conservation is the real cause. I don't think it is going to be pleasant.
I'm not a climatologist, but the whole point of the target (from my reading the IPCC stuff) is that above a not very well defined certain point (the so called 'tipping point') it very likely becomes 'runaway' warming with likely disastrous climate change consequences for a large portion of the world's popualtion. Should it occur, huge amounts of resource will be needed to successfully rectify that situation.
IMO we don't have the resources to limit CO2 and rebuild a large part of our society's infrastructure - it is an 'either/or' situation.
It's not thought by climatologists (judging by what is known about past climate changes) to be the linear situation as CO2 levels increase that you suggest, but full of currently unknown positive feedback loops.
Judging by unexpected weather events we are increasingly seeing that are at the limits of previous experience, the tipping point is almost certainly not the current target - it may not be a problem for me, but I bet it will be for the next generation.
At the moment there isn't enough good information to allow politicians to make rational decisions - so, I expect them to use the precautionary principle, 'do no harm', but applied to themselves and not to me!
Xeroid -
A couple of points that I hope may clarify things a bit.
First, if the feedback loops are allowed to take over, there is no rational prospect whatsoever of regaining control over the trajectory or pace of climate destabilization.
Consider the vast carbon banks held in the Boreal and Tropical forests, which are evidently increasingly vulnerable to drought and combustion.
Then consider that that carbon bank is dwarfed by the oceans' notably uncertain capacity to continue sequestering around 30% of our annual CO2 emissions.
Then consider that that carbon sink is in turn dwarfed by the vast potential of the world's permafrost, whose melting is steadily accelerating.
Then consider that that bank is in turn dwarfed by the potential of what were called Clathrates and are now termed Methyl Hydrates, sitting, waiting, mostly on the continental shelves.
Every scrap of effort we can put into avoiding the release of the runaway greenhouse needs to be applied, really quite soon ! Planning to fail is plainly a very dead end.
Second, it's my guess that the author knows full well the dubious promise of geological carbon sequestration, as does most of the establishment, and that he has built a case that is plausible as a confidence-builder to provide a counter to the risk of his main message further destabilizing global markets. (It is after all a hell of a time for Shell's CEO to publish this, but Davos comes but once a year).
What he fails to state here is that there is an organic sequestration option that will not only provide significant revenue streams but also two critically important materials.
The tech is that of a giga-hectare of global sustainable reforestation under native species on third-rate hill land and mountain, particularly on shaded slopes, using the