Opinions ___________________________________________
Global warming - myth, threat or opportunity
Tuesday, 05 August 2008
By Walter Starck

The most critical problem we now confront is not global warming or how to tax emissions, but providing enough affordable fuel to avoid severe recession before alternative energy can become reality. The Lucky Country faces a choice between disaster and a unique opportunity.

Oil supply

Over the past two years climate all over the world has inexplicably begun a pronounced cooling. This is contrary to all expectations from global warming theory and growing other evidence is also indicating that the threat has been overestimated. However, the obsession with catastrophic climate change seems to have distracted attention from a much more certain and immanent danger. The oil supply vital to the entire economy is not keeping up with increasing demand while presently all focus is on renewable energy solutions that will require decades to develop and implement.

Consider just a few key facts about oil:

  • production is already in decline in some 50 nations;
  • new discoveries have steadily declined for several decades and are far below depletion rates;
  • oil exports are decreasing in most exporting nations as their own domestic demand increases;
  • refining capacity has not kept pace with demand due to environmental restrictions and investment concerns over future supplies of crude;
  • most existing refineries are designed for light sweet crude the supply of which is rapidly declining;
  • future oil will increasingly be heavy sour crude which only a minority of existing refineries can use;
  • the major producers have no reason for massive investment to increase production. The value of their remaining reserves is rapidly appreciating. Increased production would reduce prices and accelerate depletion. Expensive infrastructure for increased production would soon end up excessive to declining reserves.

Growth in demand, shortages and further price rises will slow the global economy for the foreseeable future. Fuel intensive sectors such as primary production, transport and travel will be hit especially hard.

Synfuel

Viable alternative energy is still decades away. Using commercially proven technology synthetic fuel from coal and gas could supply all our needs here in Australia at much less than the current price of fuel from oil. Only emission restrictions on CO2 stand in the way. "Clean" renewable technology is decades from becoming commercial.

The Australian economy is in a vulnerable position. Manufacturing is in decline and, at 13 per cent of GDP, is among the lowest in the developed world. The trade balance remains in chronic deficit even with the mineral boom. In April it became positive for the first time in six years but in May it was in deficit again, chiefly because of rising oil prices. Foreign debt is growing at twice the rate of the economy. It is now about 60 per cent of GDP, the highest in the developed world.

High commodity prices normally last only a few years before increased production, spurred by high prices, brings them down again. An end to the boom will result in a fall in the exchange rate of the Australian dollar, an even worse trade deficit and a crippling increase in the cost of foreign debt. An economy not dependent on imported oil would be a huge advantage.

Australia's portion of global CO2 emissions is about 1.4 per cent or just six months' growth in China's emissions. Natural uptakes of CO2 over Australia's land and Exclusive Economic Area of surrounding ocean absorb much more than this. Our net contribution to global CO2 emissions is already negative. Whatever we do or don't do will be trivial to the global situation, either in quantity or even as an example. Why cripple the economy for an increasingly doubtful theory?

The opportunity

Global warming is a distant and uncertain possibility of a problem that most likely does not even exist, at least in the catastrophic form being predicted. It can only be meaningfully addressed by developments that will require decades to become effective and which, in any event, must be undertaken even without the threat of warming.

Severe economic hardship because of fuel costs and shortages, however, is an imminent probability. This could be greatly alleviated if not avoided altogether by development of our own liquid-fuel supplies. It would be far easier to do this now in a time of prosperity than trying to do it in a recession. Having such capacity already in place might well even avert a recession here altogether. Being energy independent would be a huge competitive advantage in a time of high energy costs and shortages everywhere else.

Although precaution in the face of uncertainty is sensible, the realm of hypothetical risk limitless. Many perceived risks turn out to have no reality. Remember the Y2K millennium bug scare? We cannot build fortresses against every shadow of doubt. Precaution too is not without its own attendant risk. Any proposed precautionary measure must be weighed against alternatives as well as consideration of its own consequences.

Obsessing over distant uncertain risks, while ignoring immediate consequences, is poor precaution. For Australia, drastic cuts in carbon emissions to prevent global-warming is to climate what anorexia is to obesity.

The proposed carbon taxes will achieve only a vast new windfall for government, large cost/price increases and economic recession with little or no actual reduction in emissions beyond what is effected by economic decline. Emission trading is set to become a huge new non-productive industry of wealth redistribution with a negative net outcome.

The world is headed for an energy crisis with consequences we have not even begun to appreciate. Australia is better positioned to cope than any other nation. For us synfuel is eminently practical and regardless of the ultimate reality of climate change will have negligible effect on the global outcome. The only thing holding us back is blind adherence to an ill-founded belief that daily becomes more hysterical, in denial of conflicting evidence, contrary to sound science and detached from climate itself.

The choice is unambiguous. We can either adhere to the dogma of the eco-cult and suffer immense self-inflicted hardship or take a clear path to future prosperity. Seldom is the way forward so obvious. One way takes a detour through Jonestown the other goes down Easy Street. The political leaders who recognise this and present it to the electorate will be the next government.

Dr Walter Starck has a PhD in marine science including post graduate training and professional experience in fisheries biology. He is the editor and publisher of Golden Dolphin, a quarterly publication on CD focusing on diving, underwater photography and the ocean world.


An opinion provided by OnlineOpinion.com.au - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate.
Comments
Add New
posted by: Russ Karlberg 05-Aug-08 16:11:04
Brilliant article! It's so true - we have more pressing problems than global warming, and solving the energy crisis will reduce any possible risks anyway. Reducing pollution is reason enough to switch from fossil fuels to nuclear.
posted by: Earl E 05-Aug-08 16:44:40
Where in the world do you get your data? Nothing like an opening line that is completely wrong, then building an entire article on it.

Example:
"California falls into ocean."
Somehow the entire state of California fell into the ocean yesterday and now it seems the reason was from irrigation.

I will stop there, like I stopped reading after your opening line about cooling temps.

It is true that auto and industryu exhaust actually blocks solar radiation, so in a world where there is an increase in pollution, we will experience more solar reflection and darker, cooler days, but on average, as measured by NOAA, we are still breaking all heat records on a global scale.

Looking at any one geographic region isn't going to tell us anything about the global average, more on the specific influence of pollution on rainfall distribution and the effects of global dimming on crop yields.

You guys in Australia can say hello to complete desertification in a decade or two. Good luck.
posted by: DiamondJack 05-Aug-08 20:34:30
You'd better stick to fisheries biology and leave climate change analysis to atmospheric scientists, economic forecasts to economists, and detailed understanding of petroleum geology to geologists.
posted by: Phil Magure 05-Aug-08 22:39:50
Thanks for the good wishes, Earl. Do you love Alice Cooper, too, like Welcome To My Nightmare? Fair dinkum!
posted by: Mr Gumby 06-Aug-08 02:17:52
Mmm, yet another "climate change isn't happening, its just eco-cult dogma" piece from OnlineOpinion.com.au recycled by ScienceAlert. I wonder about the merits of ScienceAlert recycling opinion piece blogs from other sites as, well, opinion piece blogs on their own? Maybe just a links section suggesting "Join the discussion about X at..." would suffice? I also wonder if Clive Hamilton could be right about OnlineOpinion.com.au treatment of the CC topic (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580)?
posted by: T.G. 06-Aug-08 09:45:58
All you eco-cult believers check the sea ice at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

More ice at both poles (north and south) than last year. Looks like the deniers are right :-)
posted by: A.Viirlaid 06-Aug-08 17:17:52
Support for Dr. Walter Starck's position can also be found in an article by Dr. Michael R. Fox I read recently.

This is from the Aug. 4, 2008 issue of the Hawaii Reporter with title "Cap and Trade: Economic Suicide" at http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?32aad883-81ae-4943-b842-f727368e2296

Another valuable contribution is being made by oilman T. Boone Pickens. His main idea (along with developing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar) is to employ Natural Gas as a transportation fuel. He sees this as a temporary "bridge" to the time when other alternatives can become viable.

He has been promoting this for 20 years, and saying that the U.S. simply cannot afford to live on imported oil any longer.

While Pickens has said this for years, back when oil was $12 a barrel, everyone thought he was insane. And this was less than 10 years ago. Please see

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/08/pickens.plan/

and

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/04/lkl.01.html

While the reason for going to alternatives may not be found in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) which seems to be slowly leaving the stage as a motivating factor, it will indeed likely be found in Peak Oil as Dr. Starck suggests above.

It is odd -- after all the bickering, there will be common cause (energy shortages) if not common reasons (AGW versus Peak Oil) to move toward alternatives.

Even those who are worried (needlessly, IMHO) about Carbon Dioxide can be assured that, as our economies find other energy sources, like geo-thermal, and tidal, and solar, less and less Carbon Dioxide will likely be emitted to the atmosphere over time.

This appears to be happening against a backdrop of a slowing world economy. While this may cause oil to drop in price as a reaction to the recession (and subsequent drop in aggregate demand for oil), this might only be temporary. And prices will not drop back to prior lows.

The other speculative factor from prior posts on this site is whether Earth might actually undergo cooling, of a kind that is disruptive to agriculture, and other human activities. If this happens, I wonder whether the emission of Carbon Dioxide might actually one day become desirable.
posted by: A. Viirlaid 06-Aug-08 21:26:23
To Earl E. I would say you might want to read at link http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?32aad883-81ae-4943-b842-f727368e2296

The following is excerpted from that article by M.R.Fox, PhD

"What Warming?

"When the Royal Society of New Zealand recently claimed that the earth was warming, Society member and climatologist Dr. Vincent Gray responded:

“This statement is a lie. The globe is currently cooling. ……..there are currently nine authorities currently involved in providing a dataset of monthly global temperature anomalies. They are:

NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC, GHCN-COADS)


NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)


Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)

NOAA radiosonde network , (RATPAC)

Hadley Centre Radiosonde Network (HadAT2)


University of Alabama Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (UAH )

Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (RSS)

National Center for Environmental Protection Reanalysis (NCEP50)

European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40)


Eight of these authorities agree that the globe is currently cooling. Only GISS disagrees.”

See http://tinyurl.com/logfl
posted by: A. Viirlaid 06-Aug-08 21:32:27
I posted this earlier but it did not appear -- I hope this does not appear as a double-posting -- that is not my intent.
-----------------
Post follows...
-----------------
Support for Dr. Walter Starck's position can also be found in an article by Dr. Michael R. Fox I read recently.

This is from the Aug. 4, 2008 issue of the Hawaii Reporter with title "Cap and Trade: Economic Suicide" at http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?32aad883-81ae-4943-b842-f727368e2296

Another valuable contribution is currently being made by oilman T. Boone Pickens. His main idea (along with developing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar) is to employ Natural Gas as a transportation fuel.

He sees this as a temporary "bridge" to the time when other alternatives can become viable.

Pickens has been promoting this for 20 years, and saying that the U.S. simply cannot afford to live on imported oil any longer.

While Pickens has said this for years, back when oil was $12 a barrel, everyone thought he was insane. And this was less than 10 years ago. Please see

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/08/pickens.plan/

and

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/04/lkl.01.html

While the reason for going to alternatives may not be found in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) which seems to be slowly leaving the stage as a motivating factor, it will indeed likely be found in Peak Oil as Dr. Starck suggests above.

It is odd -- after all the bickering, there will be common cause (energy shortages) if not common reasons (AGW versus Peak Oil) to move toward alternatives.

Even those who are worried (needlessly, IMHO) about Carbon Dioxide can be assured that, as our economies find other energy sources, like geo-thermal, and tidal, and solar, less and less Carbon Dioxide will likely be emitted to the atmosphere over time.

This appears to be happening against a backdrop of a slowing world economy. While this may cause oil to drop in price as a reaction to the recession, this will likely prove to only be temporary. And prices will not drop back to prior lows.

The other speculative factor from prior blogs on this site is whether our Earth might actually undergo cooling, of a kind that is disruptive to agriculture, and other human activities. If this happens, I wonder whether the emission of Carbon Dioxide might actually one day become desirable.

Please see http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20082105-17356.html
posted by: Anon 07-Aug-08 00:05:16
Funny how all of the sceptics are old men who will soon leave their posts and dont want to be partly blamed for the mess they will leave behind! Why do the sceptics think they know more than 2,500 of the worlds best scientists? Is it what they read in the press (which in most cases is complete bollocks) or they also being funded by a certain large oil compant to spread the doubt? Any person with 1/2 a handle on science will know that to pluck 1998 out and use only 10 years of a 160 year data set is rubbish and if you start the data set from any other year in the last 160 the argument falls to bits. Its kind of sad really to think the human race so stupid!

The GISS summary says it all really.

The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

posted by: Sudosai Entist 07-Aug-08 06:40:05
Hi Anon,

If you have time and interest, please read the article at http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643-2.html

This discusses the phantom 2,500 scientists you are referring to.

No such consensus actually exists.

Only by using 'smoke & mirrors' has the IPCC managed to keep this intellectual "Potemkin village" going.

Please let me know what you think.

Cheers, Sudo

posted by: Sudosai Entist 07-Aug-08 07:17:27
Anon, you could also check out the 1990 Australian film "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" shown in the UK and available at

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010

Insofar as your use of statistics to prove "that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years" I can only quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

posted by: ferrand stobart 07-Aug-08 20:16:06
One possible answer for future fuel supplies is to re-cycle CO2 - using "carbon capture" from combustion processes - with Hydrogen input from wind, hydro or solar sources. This makes methane, which is a good fuel. Process well established. Careful process control could ensure that no carbon "got into the atmosphere" from the re-cycle streams, the energy input being [storeable] Hydrogen

But there is a possibly much more dangerous problem from the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, see

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8/1/climatechange_grunhausproject.pdf
posted by: Mr Gumby 09-Aug-08 02:43:00
Those interested in the "global cooling" issue, should check out "Global Cooling: Wanna Bet?" and the discussion that follows at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet (this is part 1 with a link to part 2).
posted by: Phillip 13-Aug-08 02:55:23
I am highly amused that scientist believe in Global warning. Global warning is based on computer models which unfortunately not accurate. The British Met office says that they are only getting 85% accuracy (that is /- 2 degrees celcius) for NEXT day predictions for 11 key UK cities. If you run computer models for years ahead trying to predict temperatures in a decade the accuracy would be much, much worse..
Also when the Global Warning supporters talk about "average" temperature increase, averages are meaningless when averaged over thousands and thousands of places over the earth.
posted by: Mr Gumby 13-Aug-08 06:23:22
Phillip - if your statement that scientists belief in global warming was based on models was true I would agree with you. But the evidence of climate change is not the models. But by all means question the premise of the models so that they can be improved (like the scientists who develop them do - it's only the closed minded denialists who claim that such scientists are ideologically driven liars).
Write comment
Name:

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 
Email this
Related Stories ____________________________________________