National Journal features an interesting conversation with representatives of Oceana, an ‘ocean conservation nonprofit.’ The leaders of Oceana speak optimistically about the possibility that Congress and President Obama will work together to reimpose and extend the moratorium on offshore drilling, as well as to extend the moratorium on drilling in the coastal plain of ANWR. They also repeatedly return to an overarching goal for the U.S. –to reduce overall energy consumption by a stunning 30 percent!
NJ: Are you worried that the recent downturn in gas prices will dampen enthusiasm for the green movement?
Short: Yeah, to the extent that it removes the incentives for conservation, I do worry about that. But the United States did heroic things in World War II, and given the threat that we are looking at from the loss of ice in the Arctic, it’s not [too early] to resume such heroic thinking now.
And it wouldn’t take much. If we were to accomplish nationwide a 30 percent reduction of energy use through conservation, that would translate to an 8 percent reduction of worldwide emissions because we emit so much. You would see that in the atmosphere in the next year as a measurable reduction, and it would be a profound example for the rest of the world. If we did that, we would have the price of oil down to around 10 bucks a barrel because it’s so sensitive to marginal costs.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, annual energy consumption now stands at about 101.6 quadrillion BTUs. A 30% reduction from that level would bring us to a level of about 71 quadrillion BTUs annually. According to the same source, overall annual energy consumption last checked in at that level in about 1972. So Oceana and its allies want to turn back energy consumption — which rises almost every year — to a level last seen nearly 40 years ago.
But if you look at the population charts, you will see that the population of the U.S. was just 209 million in 1972 — in comparison to a population of 303 million today. That’s a population increase of about 35 percent. In other words, since 1972, U.S. annual energy consumption has increased about 30 percent, and population has increased about 35 percent — meaning per capita consumption has been very stable.
What would it take to produce a 30 percent reduction? Options would include massive rationing, an enormous price increase, or killing off about a third of the country. I’m not sure which one Oceana favors, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it involved all three.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Killing off about a third of the country
izoneguy (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 2:52PM EST (link)LOL….how about the lefties go back an live like it is 1777???
And at the same time tell China & India to cut their consumption back to 1972 levels??
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.
94M drop, eh?
MikeO Wednesday, December 31st at 3:14PM EST (link)I know there are at least 69,456,897 whose sudden absence would bring a smile to my face.
If we try that for a while, we might not need another 24M or so.
What "loss of ice in the Arctic?"
Praying (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 3:20PM EST (link)Oh yeah… that loss of ice that has been almost totally replaced by new ice growth in the past few months… The only “consensus among scientists” is among social engineers – not REAL scientists… REAL scientists look at ALL the data and then derive their hypothesis – social engineers and global warming alarmists come up with the hypothesis and then cherry-pick the data that seems to support that hypothesis. I wonder what we’ll be using to run all those heaters and furnaces that will be needed to keep us warm as we enter a NATURAL, CYCLIC, cooling phase? I guess that’s what happens when the public schools care more about indoctrination that teaching science and math… so sad!
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
If pigs had wings...
Steve Maley (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 3:29PM EST (link)Our recent experiment with $4/gallon gasoline pretty much established a data point. Yeah, there was some, but did gasoline usage fall by as much as 10%? Nope.
Sure, a few more people carpooled, and others switched to public transport where it was convenient, but, by and large, behaviors didn’t drastically change. Idle conversation centered on bitching about the price, but that’s about it.
People don’t willingly change habitual behaviors. Saving 30% of the total energy budget (or even curtailing 30% of transportation-related energy, which is about a quarter of the total) will have to be accomplished either with $20/gallon gasoline or at the point of a gun. Most likely both.
This is one BIG economy. It can’t change direction overnight. These idiots suggest we could see the results of a change next year.
Why does anyone pay attention to a bunch of concerned, but ill-informed and naive buttwipes like Oceana?
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
And regarding oil prices
scottbomb (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 4:44PM EST (link)I keep hearing news people on the radio say that oil prices are falling because of falling demand. I say bull****. The streets are just as busy as they were last year and the year before and the year before.
I believe supply and demand has little to do with oil prices. The cost of a barrel of oil is controlled by OPEC. They ran it up as high as they could until everyday Americans started demanding that we drill our own oil. At that point, OPEC backed down on the high prices because the last thing they want is for us to drill our own oil.
At least, that’s my layman’s theory.
www.HowObamaGotElected.com
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” – Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948
Hedge funds are a factor, too.
Steve Maley (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 4:56PM EST (link)January crude oil contracts closed at $33 & change. Immediately after they closed, Feb 09 crude oil was $40.
Hedge funds take massive positions in the market. They rode it up & they rode it back down. The spike we’re seeing in prices likely has to do with their being forced to dump theor positions on a market with no buyers.
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
It's not just the demand today, it's the expected future demand
6eorge Jetson (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 5:06PM EST (link)When China & India were growing at 10% per year, any extrapolation of that leads to an increased future price. Which can lead the owners of large oil reserves to just leave it in the ground for a better future price.
So much for that 10% growth, given the worldwide slowdown. Project the present value numerator at a much lower growth rate, and the discounting denominator at a much higher required rate of return (does anybody have any capital to invest?), and the result is a plunging asset value.
At $146/bbl, nobody was "leaving it in the ground for a better future price"...
Steve Maley (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 5:28PM EST (link)…trust me on that.
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
Saving energy is not the answer
kowalski (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 3:30PM EST (link)Producing more energy is.
Even if you take the most laudable of environmentalist goals — to reduce the amount of unrecyclable trash being dumped into landfills — as gospel, the best way to look at the problem is not to make less energy, but to make more. What you want to do, in fact, is drop the price of electricity precipitously to make recycling more advantageous. This could be done relatively easily.
The greenies want us all to live in passive houses — hermetically sealed cubes or rectangles that can be dropped into place and occupied at less than 500 square feet per person.
The main reason these houses are so attractive to their progenitors is because they question people’s desire to live in anything larger:
A good-sized prison cell is about 8×10′, or about 1/6th the size. So Mr. Hasper thinks he’s being especially generous, and I’m sure that under an Al Gore regime for what Americans should accept, he’s right.
Except for Al himself, of course. His house will never be like that.
Defend Liberty — Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.
And believe me, if Hausperites win...
kowalski (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 3:37PM EST (link)It will be mandated that way, by law:
“Single person living alone? You can occupy a maximum of 500 square feet, including the bathrooms.”
New Yorkers like this because they already pay $2,000 a month and more for spaces like that. So they don’t see what’s wrong with it. You can live in a Studio built in 1911 in New York for about $1,500 and have enough space so that when your girlfriend picks her nose, she bumps you in the forehead, too.
Defend Liberty — Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.
have enough space
izoneguy (Diary) Wednesday, December 31st at 5:28PM EST (link)People who live in the city are deranged. I pay $1500 a month for my 3500 Sg ft house with pool and it is almost paid off. What a bunch of suckas……
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.
Why look at BTU's?
sashley Wednesday, December 31st at 4:44PM EST (link)I thought the Enviro Wackos where telling us that our Carbon Footprint was the problem not the number of BTUs we use.
I bet they are attempting to switch the argument because someone pointed out that Nuclear Power does not contribute to our Carbon Footprint.
I’m for reducing our Carbon Footprint by 1/3 if it reduces our dependence on oil by 1/3. But why compromise our lifestyle if we don’t have to.
Lets do it the way the “French” did, increase our percentage Nuclear Power to make up the difference. France has been using it for years and I know they aren’t glowing as the wacho’s warn us over and over.
Steven Ashley
http://www.stevenashley.info
Well, at least they are being truthfull in selecting their name...
The_Gadfly (Diary) Thursday, January 1st at 9:01AM EST (link)Thanks Mr. Orwell! You were way ahead of your time.