130 comments on DrumBeat: February 19, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
130 comments on DrumBeat: February 19, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for
some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Disregarding the likelihood or the funding source of this $170 billion dollar investment, McKinsey's projection turns on the word "could."
You then supplement this with "should."
And then conclude with a "would." (And somehow inexplicably try to connect this to the claim that it is "cheaper to produce less energy"?)
What is your reader to make of this? Without even referencing the content of the argument, the deployment of rather loose semantics suggests the conclusion is rather suspect.
The amount they are talking about is not large in comparison to energy expenditure, and in fact amounts to just $26 per person per year.
This also fits in well with European estimates of the cost of dealing with reducing CO2, which I believe centre on a figure of around 0.5% of gnp.
As for financing, a lot of it would become worthwhile in any case if energy costs stay high, and so would come under normal capital investment. Government programs as in the EU also help.
I substituted the word 'should' as as far as I am aware this accords well with the potential for improvement in present rather inefficient energy use, which has been the product of cheap oil.
As far as I am aware the claim that it is usually cheaper to produce one kilowatt of electricity rather than two is not normally regarded as contentious.
With regards to funding - I thought I said disregarding it? ;-)
But if you really want to go there, I think your response is precisely the kind of problem I would warn about. No, $170 billion is not huge if spread across a big enough population. Hey, the U.S. will spend close to $800 billion on various military ventures. But, the size of the expenditure, it's appropriateness (your European reference) and even it's worthwhileness, matter little when it comes to funding large projects.
As for your "should" - you have repeated the basic fallacy; potential is not the same actual. It is easy (and common) to make that that normative slip (we could so we should so we would).
On the decreased cost claim, I wasn't questioning it's veracity, I was questioning it's connection to the preceding "observation."
Obviously the expenditure is more likely to be approximately proportional to energy use than evenly distributed.
It still only amounts to a small fraction of GDP, and as I said it is pretty well budgeted for already in Europe, so it should be possible in most of the big energy using countries.
As for your quibble regarding the use of should, I apologise if I was mistaken, as I had assumed that most people who read this blog, being of normal intelligence, would easily fill in the gaps.
It seems that I was mistaken in one or another of my assumptions.
To write it out in full for your benefit, a similar program to this should, if implemented, reduce greenhouse gas emissions considerably in my judgement.
I hope this helps.
You're still not getting it on the funding. So, I'll suggest this - when you find the 170 billion, let me know and we'll start the project.
As for your poor attempt to insult my intelligence, maybe you need to back up a step or two and ask first "did I understand what he was saying?" Because from where I'm standing, you didn't come off too well there.
To write it out in full for your benefit, a similarly funded program should, if implemented, feed all the starving people, or provide health insurance for all Americans, or put humans on Mars, or (choose your favorite pipe dream).
I cannot understand why you entirely ignore the already vast sums budgeted by Europe, and still say it is politicly impossible when similar amounts are already being budgeted in some parts off the world, it seems your vision is conditioned solely by experience in the US.
Much of the $170 billion would be part of the normal cost of doing business anyway, and be released in the event of fuel costs staying high by both individuals and private people as they try to economise rather than being on the Government budget.
Why you should attempt to be so wilfully obtuse baffles me.
I cannot understand why you entirely ignore the already vast sums budgeted by Europe...
Until these vast sums are actually aloocated they remain just that, vast sums budgeted. You do understand the difference between budget and allocation, correct? At any point in the proceedings until the funds are disbursed they remain just a promise. When Europe actually provides funds then let's talk. Until then it's still just more Microsoft vapourware.
Have you any idea of the vast expenditure by Germany alone to date on renewables?
I assume you do, so that will suffice for me. Exactly what does that have to do with vast budgeted sums yet to be disbursed? The past is just that, the past. History. Finished. Unless I'm mistaken you're considering the future. When do the budgeted amounts become disbursed amounts? Is it a 100% disbursement? Will it be disbursed over the life of the project? These are rather important questions. Changing economic circumstances may very well cause funding to dry up at any point in the disbursement cycle. When all is said and done Europe's budgets remain dreams until the cheque clears.
shaman already said it best, when you've got the money, let's talk.
I really can't understand what you are asking for. You dismissed future projections of disbursements in the EU on the grounds that they hadn't yet happened and now don't seem happy to consider actual monies spent.
The point I am seeking to make is that actual disbursements in some countries actually approach the levels called for in this report, and that still does not take account of the natural incentive supplied by higher energy costs in future, if oil remains at around $100 barrel and natural gas is in short supply.
To give some indication of present voluntary expenditures on reducing carbon emissions, here is a current report about EU subsidies in this respect.
http://nextbigfuture.com/
You can see that the subsidies for renewables range up to 15% of total electricity bills for Denmark, and this does not include on Government budget costs.
So if you are not intersted in plans, and not in expenditure, what are you interested in?
I am baffled.
On the vast sums - I would suppose that next you will provide the links to show this?
Did I say it was politically impossible? Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that you made the (admittedly quite common) normative slip from could to should to would. I also notice that this is completely dropped from your response.
On the "normal cost of doing business" - So do we need the $170 billion investment or not. If it's all already been budgeted by the EU and businesses, what was the original number thrown out there for.
Willfully obtuse? I'll just let that slide.
I really don't know what your issue is. For some indication of present EU expenditures on carbon reduction, see my answer to Goritza.
McKinsey assume lower energy costs than most of us here would, and so more of the expenditure would have to be on the Government's budget, or at least mandated by Government by feed-in tariffs and such.
As for why they suggest it, see the paragraph above and it also seems likely that the report is more concerned with the US.
I am not interested in your word quibbles which I have already addressed.
I followed your link and it is a generic news blog with no apparent references to EU expenditures on carbon reduction.
"word quibbles"? - fine, if that makes you feel better.
Apologies - I did not specify the link properly - please scroll down to the item 'Feed in Tariffs for Renewable Energy'
In that you will find some of the subsidies paid by electricity users in Europe to support renewables.
This is only part of the support they receive, as there are also substantial on-budget tax measures, but it seems to be difficult to find them specified - I did track down one figure of 27bn Euros for the EU , but it was in 2004 and did not specify whether some of that was included in the electricity users subsidies, or whether it included figures for subsidies for extra insulation for houses or so on.
I should add that I really am confused as to exactly what information is being requested, and what you seem to find hard to swallow.
In most of Europe they certainly have been paying big-time for carbon reduction measures, perhaps of the order of the figures McKinsey suggest here, and I am trying to explain that a lot of conservation measures would occur anyway if fuel prices are higher than McKinsey suggest and would not require so much Government subsidy.
If you could specify exactly what is unclear to you perhaps I can respond better.
Here is a link to what they are doing in Sweden to counteract climate change, I don't know how much this is costing them but it can't be cheap - a fair amount of the expenditure has already gone ahead:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3610#more
The Oil Drum | We Won't Stop Global Warming
I hope that you see the connection to the basic point I am trying to make, that apparently people are prepared to pay pretty substantial amounts to prevent GW, and perhaps what can be done in one place can be done in another.
Personally I tend to the opinion that China may outperform the US on this - when a country is in the midst of a very vigorous expansion, as the US was a century or so ago or China is today, it is remarkable how fast change can be instituted.
Thanks for the clarification - I did scroll down and here is what I found
"European Environment Agency figures in 2004 gave indicative estimates of total energy subsidies in the EU-15 for 2001: solid fuel (coal) EUR 13.0, oil & gas EUR 8.7, nuclear EUR 2.2, renewables EUR 5.3 billion."
So - of some 29+ billion euros of energy subsidies in 2001, renewables received 5.3 billion. Which on the surface isn't too bad, until you recognize that coal got more than twice that amount.
Now here's the problem - your original post quoted a source that said that we need $170 billion additional per year. I read that as meaning on top of the amount being spent already. I'm also going to assume that you don't want to include coal subsidies in that total. Recognize, too, that your original article was talking about investment in energy productivity - it is not entirely clear that there is a one to one dollar correspondence between subsidies and investments in productivity.
I'll try to be clear here. I am not requesting any particular information. And you have been completely clear in laying out what you were thinking. What I am encouraging is not clarity in information, but clarity in understanding our own thought processes.
What you previously wrote off as "word quibbles" was hardly any such thing. You had made a fairly common rhetorical move that is found frequently in normative discussions and writing. I was merely trying to push you to examine this and to make it explicit.
At the start I was honest in noting that I was interested in the funding question, largely because I already knew where that would go. But I let you proceed because I wanted to see how critical you would be of your own arguments.
We all have a strong tendency to read into texts support for things we already believe. You did exactly that with the Feed in tariffs article. Now that this has been pointed out to you, the question is can you go back and recalibrate your own thinking to deal with the incongruence?
Reading for information is one thing, reading for meaning takes you so much deeper. And it's not just a matter of "spin," you can frequently read from a particular rhetorical deployment much more about the author, their thought patterns and beliefs, than the author may be aware of.
That's not really the sort of thing that interests me, but thanks for the clarification.
So, you have no interest in understanding? Are you only here to butt heads with people? That's truly sad.
What you regard as understanding I am afraid I would tend to think of as nitpicking - we just don't think alike, it is as simple as that.
Ok - I'll be blunt. You do not even understand the background of your own thinking. Nor do you care that you don't understand. This lack of critical thinking on your part is your worst enemy. It is why you keep coming to the same point in your attempt to discuss issues here - you claim the other person either a) isn't understanding what you say, or b) needs you to provide them with more info (and typically you claim you don't know what more info you need to provide them). Hint: it's not always about information
Dave - I chose to engage you on this, because you seemed to be an intelligent man, but one with divergent ideas from my own. But I'm afraid that your own belief in your infallibility makes it really difficult to have a fruitful exchange. Until you recognize that your way of thinking might not be the only way to approach things, you'll probably wind up with the same sort of end result. Too bad, really.
IOW my first instincts were correct, and behind all the absurd semantic quibbles you were disguising your true animus, and instead of coming out and saying what your problem was tried to demonstrate how clever you were and how faulty my thought processes.
Failure to directly express what is concerning you is a sure sign of muddy thinking.
As for my other discussions and infallibility and so on blah, in actual fact I have withdrawn or amended my points whenever it has been shown that I was in error, on several occasions in fact.
So you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Doubtless you find your pedantry proof of your clarity of thought and intelligence. The word is, buddy, that it is usually a sign of a narrow understanding, and that saying what you mean is the best form of communication, but until you realise that you will probably end up without fruitful discussion.
So sad.
If you have points to make germane to the discussion at hand, go ahead and make them, until then stop wasting my time - and do try think clearly enough to express what you mean.
Well heck, the Iraq war is costing the United States $120 billion a year... But obviously TPTB think it's better to spend that money on killing people, blowing things up, and consuming vast amounts of fuel instead of investing that money in solar panels locally.
And isn't that just the crux of the problem?
Durandal -
Well, as I had pointed out a while ago, the Bush Regime probably views our occupation of Iraq as a necessary investment in energy security, sort of energy futures provided military dominance.
If indeed Iraq has something on the order of 100+ billion bbls of recoverable oil reserves, at an assumed price of $100/bbl, that amounts to an imputed value of rough $10 trillion. So, even if we will have spent something like $1 trillion by the end of 2008, and even if 4,000 American young men and women have been killed and many times that number permanently phisically and/or mentally maimed, the Bush Regime no doubt views this as a good return on investment. In fact, a better investment than wind, solar, etc.
There's just one little problem though: it ain't working now, and it ain't gonna be working any better even if we're still in Iraq 20 years from now. Furthermore, this strategy all but guarantees a permanent state of global resource war, one that conceivably might eventually go nuclear if one side finds itself become desperate enough.