There is one argument often coming up in discussion with self proclaimed optimists when talking about the upcoming energy crisis or climate collapse:
"Science, innovation and technology will take care of our problems; I have faith in our ingenuity."
Whenever I hear this, I usually give up all hope of reaching this person with logical arguments and try to change the subject. It is a paradox of religious proportions that requires blind faith and a life of indoctrination to accept. We have come to point in our history when (honest) scientists across most fields of natural sciences will tell you something like:
"Our scientific research shows that mankind has some grave problems and with these problems, we can’t help you anymore, there are physical limits to what technological progress can acchieve, you as a member of society and as a individual are the only one that can help you now."
But these honest scientists will be ignored and dismissed as doomsayers by the same persons that in the next sentence will praise the ingenuity of scientific progress.
In case of peak oil, it’s the geologists, the engineers, the physicists, the anthropologists, the chemists etc. that point out the limits of growth since more than 50 years. In the case of climate change it’s the IPCC that is made up of over 1200 climate scientists surveyed by 2500 peer reviewers that verified their results.
Be aware that I would not urge you to believe anything these scientists say, at least not before having doubted them and checked their methods, their motivations and their results.For science, more than anything needs doubt. Doubt is the driving force behind human ingenuity and the only true source of knowledge. Having faith in science is as much an untenable contradiction as proving the existence of God.
But after having (at least by some estimates) checked scientific results, (and only then), blind faith is replaced by knowledge.
But the self proclaimed optimists and believers in scientific progress arrive in this blissful state of delusion by "intuition" only, usually without any real knowledge and ignoring proof they could see with their own eyes.
If they would, just for a minute, use the methods of scientific heuristics to gather knowledge by observing nature, instead of relying to being passively fed the half truths and regurgitated lies on TV, they might see the paradox they are caught up in.
Today, our media seems more successful in making people accept untenable contradictions than the Catholic Church ever was. It is if as we have lost all common sense we had since Aristotle has formulated the "law of non-contradiction" over 2000 years ago.
So, please, just as Albert A. Bartlett says in his famous lecture, recheck whatever I say, don’t trust me on faith, but more important, don’t trust yourself. We, as humans often lie to ourselves much more than anyone else ever does. The only cure to delusion and the trappings of our mind are the tools that science has invented.
If you want to have faith in something have faith, that in using these tools you will acquire knowledge, and knowledge you have gained in this way is something you can put your trust in.
Why cant innovation save us in the face of peak oil? Read here.
Posts mit dem Label Ressourcenkrise werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label Ressourcenkrise werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2012
Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012
Mobilizing society in the face of peak oil
This is a copy of a french initiative by leading french oil experts to apeal for more recognition of the gravity of peak oil:
After more than a century of ever increasing production and
consumption of oil, the Earth is being depleted, and the concept of
“peak oil”, hitherto ignored, has become a pressing reality. This strain
is already becoming evident through the use of extraction methods that
require ever greater amounts of energy, resources and investment.
The fact that a resource is finite means that its extraction rate will grow, reach a maximum, plateau, and finally decline. Inexpensive and easy-to-access oil follows this pattern. Most experts, including the International Energy Agency, admit that it reached its global production peak a few years ago.
Despite the recent discoveries of new oil fields reported in the media, the world keeps consuming each year more oil than is discovered through exploration. The extraction of hard-to-access oil – so-called non-conventional oil (tar sands, shale oil, deep-water offshore fields…) – will be much more expensive and, more importantly, much slower. It will therefore be unable to prevent the decrease in global oil production, following a plateau that is expected to last only until 2015-2020. Alternative energies, even if they are vigorously developed, cannot compensate for the reduction in oil production, either in quantity or in cost of production. No substitute for liquid fuels is available today at the scale of current or future demand.
It is inevitable that less energy and fewer resources will be available to us in the future, the more so as the world’s population is increasing and developing countries are industrializing rapidly. Furthermore, oil-exporting countries are using an ever-increasing share of their production to fuel their own development.
The fact is that the functioning of modern societies depends upon sustained economic growth, which goes hand in hand with escalating consumption of energy and resources.
It is therefore urgent that we anticipate the inexorable descent of energy availability. The physical limits should trigger a real transition of society toward a major decrease of our dependence on non-renewable resources through a profound change in our behavior, in the organization of our nation (land use, infrastructure) and of our economy. If this transition is not anticipated and planned for, it will take place in a chaotic manner, with disastrous economic consequences, such as occurred in the subprime crisis. The foundations of democracy and peace could thus be threatened.
In this context, it is essential that policy makers, but also all social and economic actors as well as citizens become aware of this issue and demonstrate foresight, in order to forestall the very real risk to social cohesion and the functioning of all vital sectors of our community.
The signatories invite all candidates for future elections to take into account this urgent situation. They call on the candidates to take a stand on this issue through debates and concrete policy proposals. These proposals need to be consistent with the physical reality of resource extraction and must enable us to cope with the upcoming decrease in energy available to our society.
Signatories :
Mobilizing society in the face of peak oil
The fact that a resource is finite means that its extraction rate will grow, reach a maximum, plateau, and finally decline. Inexpensive and easy-to-access oil follows this pattern. Most experts, including the International Energy Agency, admit that it reached its global production peak a few years ago.
Despite the recent discoveries of new oil fields reported in the media, the world keeps consuming each year more oil than is discovered through exploration. The extraction of hard-to-access oil – so-called non-conventional oil (tar sands, shale oil, deep-water offshore fields…) – will be much more expensive and, more importantly, much slower. It will therefore be unable to prevent the decrease in global oil production, following a plateau that is expected to last only until 2015-2020. Alternative energies, even if they are vigorously developed, cannot compensate for the reduction in oil production, either in quantity or in cost of production. No substitute for liquid fuels is available today at the scale of current or future demand.
It is inevitable that less energy and fewer resources will be available to us in the future, the more so as the world’s population is increasing and developing countries are industrializing rapidly. Furthermore, oil-exporting countries are using an ever-increasing share of their production to fuel their own development.
The fact is that the functioning of modern societies depends upon sustained economic growth, which goes hand in hand with escalating consumption of energy and resources.
It is therefore urgent that we anticipate the inexorable descent of energy availability. The physical limits should trigger a real transition of society toward a major decrease of our dependence on non-renewable resources through a profound change in our behavior, in the organization of our nation (land use, infrastructure) and of our economy. If this transition is not anticipated and planned for, it will take place in a chaotic manner, with disastrous economic consequences, such as occurred in the subprime crisis. The foundations of democracy and peace could thus be threatened.
In this context, it is essential that policy makers, but also all social and economic actors as well as citizens become aware of this issue and demonstrate foresight, in order to forestall the very real risk to social cohesion and the functioning of all vital sectors of our community.
The signatories invite all candidates for future elections to take into account this urgent situation. They call on the candidates to take a stand on this issue through debates and concrete policy proposals. These proposals need to be consistent with the physical reality of resource extraction and must enable us to cope with the upcoming decrease in energy available to our society.
Signatories :
- Pierre René Bauquis - Former Director of Strategy and Planning at Total
- Jean-Marie Bourdaire - Former Director of Economic Studies at Total, former Director of Studies at WEC
- Yves Cochet - European Deputy, former Environment Minister.
- Jean-Marc Jancovici – Consultant, energy and CO2 issues, ASPO France
- Jean Laherrère - Former Chief of Exploration Technologies at Total
- Yves Mathieu - Former Hydrocarbon Reserves Project Manager at the Institut Francais du Petrole (French Petroleum Institute)
- Philippe Labat - Oil Consultant
- Jean-Luc Wingert - Consultant, ASPO France
- Bernard Durand - Former Director of the Geology Division at the Institut Francais du Petrole
- Jacques Varet - Former Director of Prospecting at BRGM, former President of Eurogeosurveys
Mittwoch, 25. April 2012
AW auf: TINSTAAFL and the Welfare State
This is an answer to TINSTAAFL and the Welfare State by Klaus Kastner Blog TINSTAAFL (there is no such thing as a free lunch)
Hello Mr. Kastner,
I will take up the invitation for discussion and decided to enter into it here.
Concerning this article I will start with following. While in social sciences other than economics the idea that there is something like a "primitive society" has long been discarded it is common to use it in economic circles.
It is a huge flaw of economics to still live in the chauvinistic terms of the 19th century scholars like Adam Smith. Especially if ,when looking closely, we find that our society is not a very bright one, but rather the most stupid wasteful society that probably ever was.
But this is just the beginning of what I will guess will be an interesting argument. My thesis is that the existing economic principles that rule our policies are there for no other reason as that there is something like a free lunch since about 150 years, oil.
The treasure in the cellar:
As you may already know after reading my blog, I do admire the teachings of Marvin Harris and his Cultural Materialism. If you follow the link to Marvin Harris you will read that there is significant reason to believe that Human culture is in fact largely defined by the amount of energy it has to its disposal.
Interestingly, what we call economics as a science today, established itself at a time when humans began to exploit the energy that is concentrated in fossil fuels. With exploiting this virtually free energy several things happened to our society simultaneously.
It started an extraordinary rise to all productivity that finally resulted in industrial society. Since the beginning of the industrial age population has risen exponentially worldwide. Also, the feudal system that dominated preindustrial societies came to an end. A new form of stratified society started to emerge.
The structural class of the industrial worker came into existence as productivity of agriculture and rural population raised simultaneously and led to a rural exodus. Urban metropolitan city sprawls like Victorian Age London grew to house this new class of laborers.
The rise of the capitalists
Almost free energy and rising efficiency also gave way to another new development. While in preindustrial societies, the number of people who could live just from holding money was severely limited by the low surplus that could be sustainably produced; the amount of surplus now available gave rise to another class, the capitalist.
The whole Idea of somebody living from the gains of his capital was abhorrent at all other ages. Even in the feudal system there was some kind of legitimacy to the ruling class (given by god and inheritance). The usurer is somebody shunned by virtually all societies predating the industrial age and by almost all religious and ethical believes.
The capitalist on the other hand, had to his side the economist. He was the high priest of the new believe system, that made "earning money by doing nothing", as something not only morally acceptable, but the ultimate goal of all strife in a society, where the individual was being reduced to an homo oeconomicus, a being that is only motivated by personal monetary gain.
Socialism
Not surprisingly this new development led to the rise to several counter movements like anarchism, socialism and communism. I am not saying that the conflict between the haves and have nots, the debtors and the creditors has not been the basis of all revolutions at all ages. There is a significant difference in the struggles in the 19th and 20th century whatsoever.
It settled on a middle ground that allowed the capitalists not only to hold on to the wealth they have gathered, but also convinced the majority of the people that they also could benefit from the capitalist system. Main reason for this is (by the help of protestant religious believe) that a devious myth was invented. It is the myth of vertical social mobility (also called “the american dream”).
Why a myth? Social studies show that there is a huge disparity between actual social mobility and its perception. (i.e. this one). What this myth does is not only giving legitimacy for those who made it, it also suggests that the poor are poor because of their own fault. Propaganda (also called advertising or TV.) sees to it that this myth is always circulated in public space.
This myth alone is not enough to explain the meekness of the poor. Most of the time during the 19th and the 20th century, small concessions to the poor had to be made. It did not hurt the capitalists much, because due to the never before achieved “economic growth” in these times, the amount of surplus to be harvested ans shared, grew evermore.
Growth, as economic sciences defines it, is the growth of total production and services. As we have seen in Marvin Harris analysis, the amount goods and services produced is limited by the energy that is produced by a society. Only that this energy that drove our siciety has not been produced, it has been found as a treasure in the cellar. It virtually just needed to be picked up or pumped up from our earth’s crust.
There was a free lunch, but it is over:
This treasure has been wasted by the generations that found it. It has been used to provide the few that managed to rake in the harvest to live the free lunch. Contrary to the believe of many socialists, this free lunch has not been served by “the working class”, or not more or less than during the thousands of years before. The amount of energy people put into production of goods today is actually very minimal. This free lunch has been stolen from future generations.
So, economy, capitalism, industrial age, and the population we now are able to provide for, all of it is a result of the exploitation of fossil fuels and the riches of future generations. The generations that have thrived in the 20th century have left us with an unsolvable mess at our doorstep.
As obvious from reading my blog, I am convinced that the time of cheap oil has come to an end NOW and my arguments for that are very good. The political system, the whole believe system, all values we cherish seem to circle around the concept of growth. What if that growth has finally stopped, like for a very long time, if not forever?
Why, you asked me, do I have such a grim outlook on our future? Read part 2 for an answer to this question.
Regards
AlienObserver
Hello Mr. Kastner,
I will take up the invitation for discussion and decided to enter into it here.
Concerning this article I will start with following. While in social sciences other than economics the idea that there is something like a "primitive society" has long been discarded it is common to use it in economic circles.
It is a huge flaw of economics to still live in the chauvinistic terms of the 19th century scholars like Adam Smith. Especially if ,when looking closely, we find that our society is not a very bright one, but rather the most stupid wasteful society that probably ever was.
But this is just the beginning of what I will guess will be an interesting argument. My thesis is that the existing economic principles that rule our policies are there for no other reason as that there is something like a free lunch since about 150 years, oil.
The treasure in the cellar:
As you may already know after reading my blog, I do admire the teachings of Marvin Harris and his Cultural Materialism. If you follow the link to Marvin Harris you will read that there is significant reason to believe that Human culture is in fact largely defined by the amount of energy it has to its disposal.
Interestingly, what we call economics as a science today, established itself at a time when humans began to exploit the energy that is concentrated in fossil fuels. With exploiting this virtually free energy several things happened to our society simultaneously.
It started an extraordinary rise to all productivity that finally resulted in industrial society. Since the beginning of the industrial age population has risen exponentially worldwide. Also, the feudal system that dominated preindustrial societies came to an end. A new form of stratified society started to emerge.
The structural class of the industrial worker came into existence as productivity of agriculture and rural population raised simultaneously and led to a rural exodus. Urban metropolitan city sprawls like Victorian Age London grew to house this new class of laborers.
The rise of the capitalists
Almost free energy and rising efficiency also gave way to another new development. While in preindustrial societies, the number of people who could live just from holding money was severely limited by the low surplus that could be sustainably produced; the amount of surplus now available gave rise to another class, the capitalist.
The whole Idea of somebody living from the gains of his capital was abhorrent at all other ages. Even in the feudal system there was some kind of legitimacy to the ruling class (given by god and inheritance). The usurer is somebody shunned by virtually all societies predating the industrial age and by almost all religious and ethical believes.
The capitalist on the other hand, had to his side the economist. He was the high priest of the new believe system, that made "earning money by doing nothing", as something not only morally acceptable, but the ultimate goal of all strife in a society, where the individual was being reduced to an homo oeconomicus, a being that is only motivated by personal monetary gain.
Socialism
Not surprisingly this new development led to the rise to several counter movements like anarchism, socialism and communism. I am not saying that the conflict between the haves and have nots, the debtors and the creditors has not been the basis of all revolutions at all ages. There is a significant difference in the struggles in the 19th and 20th century whatsoever.
It settled on a middle ground that allowed the capitalists not only to hold on to the wealth they have gathered, but also convinced the majority of the people that they also could benefit from the capitalist system. Main reason for this is (by the help of protestant religious believe) that a devious myth was invented. It is the myth of vertical social mobility (also called “the american dream”).
Why a myth? Social studies show that there is a huge disparity between actual social mobility and its perception. (i.e. this one). What this myth does is not only giving legitimacy for those who made it, it also suggests that the poor are poor because of their own fault. Propaganda (also called advertising or TV.) sees to it that this myth is always circulated in public space.
This myth alone is not enough to explain the meekness of the poor. Most of the time during the 19th and the 20th century, small concessions to the poor had to be made. It did not hurt the capitalists much, because due to the never before achieved “economic growth” in these times, the amount of surplus to be harvested ans shared, grew evermore.
Growth, as economic sciences defines it, is the growth of total production and services. As we have seen in Marvin Harris analysis, the amount goods and services produced is limited by the energy that is produced by a society. Only that this energy that drove our siciety has not been produced, it has been found as a treasure in the cellar. It virtually just needed to be picked up or pumped up from our earth’s crust.
There was a free lunch, but it is over:
This treasure has been wasted by the generations that found it. It has been used to provide the few that managed to rake in the harvest to live the free lunch. Contrary to the believe of many socialists, this free lunch has not been served by “the working class”, or not more or less than during the thousands of years before. The amount of energy people put into production of goods today is actually very minimal. This free lunch has been stolen from future generations.
So, economy, capitalism, industrial age, and the population we now are able to provide for, all of it is a result of the exploitation of fossil fuels and the riches of future generations. The generations that have thrived in the 20th century have left us with an unsolvable mess at our doorstep.
As obvious from reading my blog, I am convinced that the time of cheap oil has come to an end NOW and my arguments for that are very good. The political system, the whole believe system, all values we cherish seem to circle around the concept of growth. What if that growth has finally stopped, like for a very long time, if not forever?
Why, you asked me, do I have such a grim outlook on our future? Read part 2 for an answer to this question.
Regards
AlienObserver
Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2011
Hirsch Report
Ich muss leider auf diesem Thema weiter herumreiten, da die Mehrheit der Menschen den Ernst der Lage nicht begreifen will. Das ist natürlich die Folge der totalen Funkstille in den Medien zu diesem Thema.
Im Jahr 2005 erstellte der renommierte Energieexperte Robert Hirsch ("Science Applications International Corp.") (SAIC) für die US Regierung (Bush) eine Studie zu Peak Oil, den "Hirsch Report".
Ähnlich wie die der vom Bundestag eingerichteten Enquete Komissionen waren seine Handlungsempfehlungen nicht politisch opportun und wurden in Schubladen versenkt.
Seit dem ist Robert Hirsch einer der wichtigsten Warner zur bevortsehenden Öl-Knappheit.
Der Hirsch Report geht davon aus, dass 20 Jahre ausserordentliche Anstrengungen vor eintreten des Fördermaximums nötig sind um die schlimmsten Folgen von Peak Oil zu verhindern.
Ähnlich äussern sich alle seriösen Studien zu diesem Thema.
Warum hätten wir schon vor Peak Oil diese Anstrengungen unternehmen müssen?
Dazu eine kleine Grafik, die das Problem zu später investitionen Verdeutlicht:
Dargestellt sind hier schematisch die Ölförderung und die mögliche Entwicklung von alternativen technologien. Man beachte zudem, dass der Bedarf an Rohöl stetig weiter wächst.
Wir haben also den Karren schon an die Wand gefahren.
Der Meteorit wird uns treffen.
Sie glauben wir finden genug Öl um uns zu Versorgen? Antwort hier:
Im Jahr 2005 erstellte der renommierte Energieexperte Robert Hirsch ("Science Applications International Corp.") (SAIC) für die US Regierung (Bush) eine Studie zu Peak Oil, den "Hirsch Report".
Ähnlich wie die der vom Bundestag eingerichteten Enquete Komissionen waren seine Handlungsempfehlungen nicht politisch opportun und wurden in Schubladen versenkt.
Seit dem ist Robert Hirsch einer der wichtigsten Warner zur bevortsehenden Öl-Knappheit.
„Der Charakter des Peak-Oil-Problems ähnelt dem Killer-Asteroid-Problem. Man muss wirklich sofort mit durchgreifendem Handeln beginnen, weil uns die Zeit davonläuft. Es wird viel Zeit und Mühe bedürfen und muss als ein Sofort-Programm angegangen werden, um die Wirkungen zu verringern. Wenn man das Problem langsam angeht, verschwendet man Zeit. Wenn es uns trifft, dann wird die Tragweite so extrem sein, dass die Menschen zusammenarbeiten und Dinge tun, ja Opfer bringen müssen, die weit über das hinausgehen, an was die meisten von uns im Ernst gedacht haben.“ (Robert Hirsch)
Der Hirsch Report geht davon aus, dass 20 Jahre ausserordentliche Anstrengungen vor eintreten des Fördermaximums nötig sind um die schlimmsten Folgen von Peak Oil zu verhindern.
Ähnlich äussern sich alle seriösen Studien zu diesem Thema.
Warum hätten wir schon vor Peak Oil diese Anstrengungen unternehmen müssen?
Dazu eine kleine Grafik, die das Problem zu später investitionen Verdeutlicht:
Dargestellt sind hier schematisch die Ölförderung und die mögliche Entwicklung von alternativen technologien. Man beachte zudem, dass der Bedarf an Rohöl stetig weiter wächst.
Wir haben also den Karren schon an die Wand gefahren.
Der Meteorit wird uns treffen.
Sie glauben wir finden genug Öl um uns zu Versorgen? Antwort hier:
Dienstag, 10. Mai 2011
Ressourcenkrise revisited
In diesem Interview sagt Fatih Birol, Chef der IEA (International Energy Agency):
Hier weiterlesen (Der Bilck aus der Ferne in Kürze)
"We think, that the crude oil production has allready peaked in 2006"Lesern meines Blogs mag die Tragweite dieser Aussage bewusst sein, die Öffentlichkeit scheint diese Tatsache weiterhin zu ignorieren.
Hier weiterlesen (Der Bilck aus der Ferne in Kürze)
Dienstag, 1. März 2011
Ressourcenkrise?
Ich gehe in diesem Blog häufig auf die bevorstehende Ressourcenkrise ein. Tatsächlich ist die Ressourcenkrise, ihre möglichen Auswirkungen und wie man diesen begegnen kann, die Motivation für diesen Blog. Bisher ging ich in diesem Blog davon aus, dass diejenigen die sich hierher verirren, sich der Tatsache der Ressourcenkrise bewusst sind. Für all diejenigen die Zweifel haben, möchte ich kurz zusammenfassen woher meine Überzeugung stammt.
16 Industrienationen haben sich nach der Ölkrise 1973 zur Gründung der IEA(Internationale Energie Agentur) zusammengefunden, um solche Entwicklungen in der Zukunft vorhersagen zu können. Sie ist seit 1974 Teil der OECD. Eine der wichtigsten Aufgaben der IEA ist die Erstellung des Jährlichen „World Energy Outlook“. Dieses Papier ist die Basis (sollte die Basis sein?) für die Energiepolitik der Nationen. Link: worldenergyoutlook.org.
Die Datenquellen der IEA sind die vollständigsten die heutzutage Verfügbar sind. Sie untersuchen einzeln die Förderleistungen aller Ölquellen zu denen sie Zugang bekommen. Förderleistungen einzelner Ölquellen sind meist gut Vorhersagbar. Ihre Förderleistung in Abhängigkeit der Zeit ähnelt weitestgehend einer Gausschen Glockenkurve.
Die Daten einzelner wichtiger Ölquellen fehlen jedoch in den Untersuchungen der IEA. Z.B. Saudi Arabien, mit den bekanntermaßen größten Ölquellen der Welt, legt diese Zahlen nicht offen. Die IEA ist hier auf Schätzwerte angewiesen.
Schauen wir uns mal eine Prognose der IEA für die Erdöl- und Erdgasressourcen an:
(Quelle: IEA/AEO)
In der Unteren Grafik wird klar wie die Situation wirklich aussieht. Die beiden Größen in der oberen Grafik :„Oil Fields yet to be developed“ und „Oil Fields yet to be discovered“ lassen viel Spielraum für Spekulation (und sind gelinde gesagt höchst umstritten).
Die Offiziellen Zahlen der IEA sind schon sehr beängstigend. Wer die Diskussionen um Peak Oil verfolgt hat, weiss jedoch, dass die IEA nicht unbedingt die ganze Wahrheit über unsere Ölquellen sagt. Ein Mitarbeiter der IEA berichtete dem Guardian davon, dass die USA Druck auf die IEA ausüben um die Zahlen „zu schönen“. Grund ist, dass die USA eine schwere Wirtschaftskrise befürchten wenn die wirklichen Zahlen ans Licht kommen. Auch wenn angesichts der unteren Abbildung die Frage besteht wie viel schlimmer es noch sein kann.
Hierzu Colin Campbell, ehem. Direktor des Französischen Ölkonzerns Total:
Angesichts der Bedeutung die das Erdöl für unsere Nahrungsproduktion, den Transport und die Erzeugung von Gütern in unserer Gesellschaft hat, ist diese Anmerkung von einem Zynismus der nicht zu Überbieren ist.
Mehr zu Peak Oil:
BBC: George Monbiot im Interview mit IEA Chef Fatih Birol
George Monbiots Blog: At last a Date.
Telepolis: Warum Peak-Oil offiziell ignoriert wird
Peak Oil Association: ASPO
16 Industrienationen haben sich nach der Ölkrise 1973 zur Gründung der IEA(Internationale Energie Agentur) zusammengefunden, um solche Entwicklungen in der Zukunft vorhersagen zu können. Sie ist seit 1974 Teil der OECD. Eine der wichtigsten Aufgaben der IEA ist die Erstellung des Jährlichen „World Energy Outlook“. Dieses Papier ist die Basis (sollte die Basis sein?) für die Energiepolitik der Nationen. Link: worldenergyoutlook.org.
Die Datenquellen der IEA sind die vollständigsten die heutzutage Verfügbar sind. Sie untersuchen einzeln die Förderleistungen aller Ölquellen zu denen sie Zugang bekommen. Förderleistungen einzelner Ölquellen sind meist gut Vorhersagbar. Ihre Förderleistung in Abhängigkeit der Zeit ähnelt weitestgehend einer Gausschen Glockenkurve.
Die Daten einzelner wichtiger Ölquellen fehlen jedoch in den Untersuchungen der IEA. Z.B. Saudi Arabien, mit den bekanntermaßen größten Ölquellen der Welt, legt diese Zahlen nicht offen. Die IEA ist hier auf Schätzwerte angewiesen.
Schauen wir uns mal eine Prognose der IEA für die Erdöl- und Erdgasressourcen an:
(Quelle: IEA/AEO)
In der Unteren Grafik wird klar wie die Situation wirklich aussieht. Die beiden Größen in der oberen Grafik :„Oil Fields yet to be developed“ und „Oil Fields yet to be discovered“ lassen viel Spielraum für Spekulation (und sind gelinde gesagt höchst umstritten).
Die Offiziellen Zahlen der IEA sind schon sehr beängstigend. Wer die Diskussionen um Peak Oil verfolgt hat, weiss jedoch, dass die IEA nicht unbedingt die ganze Wahrheit über unsere Ölquellen sagt. Ein Mitarbeiter der IEA berichtete dem Guardian davon, dass die USA Druck auf die IEA ausüben um die Zahlen „zu schönen“. Grund ist, dass die USA eine schwere Wirtschaftskrise befürchten wenn die wirklichen Zahlen ans Licht kommen. Auch wenn angesichts der unteren Abbildung die Frage besteht wie viel schlimmer es noch sein kann.
Hierzu Colin Campbell, ehem. Direktor des Französischen Ölkonzerns Total:
"If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."
Angesichts der Bedeutung die das Erdöl für unsere Nahrungsproduktion, den Transport und die Erzeugung von Gütern in unserer Gesellschaft hat, ist diese Anmerkung von einem Zynismus der nicht zu Überbieren ist.
Mehr zu Peak Oil:
BBC: George Monbiot im Interview mit IEA Chef Fatih Birol
George Monbiots Blog: At last a Date.
Telepolis: Warum Peak-Oil offiziell ignoriert wird
Peak Oil Association: ASPO
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)