The problem is, the only thing that will reverse these insane trends and send the emissions cultists to the poor house is calamity, economic or otherwise
Else this slow-walking to impoverishment and bureaucratic oblivion will continue. The byzantines would be proud
I’m just calmly enjoying a cup of coffee and the 0.5 attodegrees of warming that it theoretically caused.
This “great simplification” narrative that we are running out of “high quality” O&G is really a rehash of previous peak oil theories with a new spin. I keep hearing that everything is light sweet now and that means THE END IS NEAR! Or maybe it is just a consequence of finding so much shale oil in Texas because it is cheap to produce and the regulations are easy for drilling so that is where all the focus is.
Anyway, interesting theories, but I’ll just stay relaxed, drinking my coffee, waiting for the world to end.
Drilling for low emissions new fields is almost impossible in oil-rich California and Alaska, plus many other areas worldwide, due to government policies, court challenges, funding constraints due to ESG etc. Wood MacKenzie should have added that too but then the problem would have been too circular.
It's seems they are running out of valid reasoning for energy transition. They keep rolling the ball back and forth, agreeing and not agreeing and as you said, turning a non-problem into a problem.
But far from all of this, what I see happening is that these experts on energy transition are trying make the need to transition look urgent. Because otherwise the world might witness another pandemic much like the 2020 Coronavirus type pandemic.
Yes, there is a major effort to escalate the degree of urgency around the transition to spur action on it. I see it as highly unwise but I'm not set to profit from that action, so...
You are right, economic development and sane energy thinking, has taken a vacation while the European Union Greenwishing has captured their imagination.
Turning mundane things into problems is the operating system of many activists. Sowell said it best:
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.”
I first saw the attenpt to factor or weight production sources as varying degrees of 'green' in a McKInsey report. The point is, of course, the inherent absurdity of this given that industrialisation and modern life depend on the availability of low-cost energy. However, in this case, I think WoodMac might have placed their pile of bull#@~' to strategically cover up a little discussed line of thought, given the last few years. Can you guess what this might be? Here's a clue, the global crude supply is very skewed to one supply...
Right from the 'get go' this has been a manufactured problem from a non-problem. When talking about 'limiting to 1.5°C' I ask friends if they can accurately differentiate temperatures at 8am and 2pm. They are always out by a margin that makes 1.5° meaningless.
The problem is, the only thing that will reverse these insane trends and send the emissions cultists to the poor house is calamity, economic or otherwise
Else this slow-walking to impoverishment and bureaucratic oblivion will continue. The byzantines would be proud
This is the ultimate problem, I agree.
I’m just calmly enjoying a cup of coffee and the 0.5 attodegrees of warming that it theoretically caused.
This “great simplification” narrative that we are running out of “high quality” O&G is really a rehash of previous peak oil theories with a new spin. I keep hearing that everything is light sweet now and that means THE END IS NEAR! Or maybe it is just a consequence of finding so much shale oil in Texas because it is cheap to produce and the regulations are easy for drilling so that is where all the focus is.
Anyway, interesting theories, but I’ll just stay relaxed, drinking my coffee, waiting for the world to end.
I know, what a time to be alive.
Drilling for low emissions new fields is almost impossible in oil-rich California and Alaska, plus many other areas worldwide, due to government policies, court challenges, funding constraints due to ESG etc. Wood MacKenzie should have added that too but then the problem would have been too circular.
as usual your pithy commentary is educational - common sensical- and funny !
Thank you!
It's seems they are running out of valid reasoning for energy transition. They keep rolling the ball back and forth, agreeing and not agreeing and as you said, turning a non-problem into a problem.
But far from all of this, what I see happening is that these experts on energy transition are trying make the need to transition look urgent. Because otherwise the world might witness another pandemic much like the 2020 Coronavirus type pandemic.
Yes, there is a major effort to escalate the degree of urgency around the transition to spur action on it. I see it as highly unwise but I'm not set to profit from that action, so...
Irina, “problematising”? You are funny.
You are right, economic development and sane energy thinking, has taken a vacation while the European Union Greenwishing has captured their imagination.
Turning mundane things into problems is the operating system of many activists. Sowell said it best:
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.”
...which they clearly are.
I first saw the attenpt to factor or weight production sources as varying degrees of 'green' in a McKInsey report. The point is, of course, the inherent absurdity of this given that industrialisation and modern life depend on the availability of low-cost energy. However, in this case, I think WoodMac might have placed their pile of bull#@~' to strategically cover up a little discussed line of thought, given the last few years. Can you guess what this might be? Here's a clue, the global crude supply is very skewed to one supply...
McKinsey appear to have focused singularly on producing ESG/net-zero/transition content, so no wonder they'd be looking for green everywhere.
Do you mean OPEC vs non-OPEC supply?
OPEC; the swing factor, and yes, it does seem to be their exclusive focus.
“problematising non-problems.” My vocabulary grows every time I read your newsletter!
I'm not sure it's a real word but I see verbalising nouns is a trend so I'm taking advantage of it. :D
My (sort of haiku)
Clearcut the planet
Starve the poor
"Fill 'er up"
Biofuels!!!
So many want to start inventing in this. It will raise the cost of food so that those still wealthy enough to fly won't feel guilty about doing so.
Waste of effort.
Right from the 'get go' this has been a manufactured problem from a non-problem. When talking about 'limiting to 1.5°C' I ask friends if they can accurately differentiate temperatures at 8am and 2pm. They are always out by a margin that makes 1.5° meaningless.
Masterful...certainly appreciate your work
Thank you.
ESG = Environmental Social Grifting
Wonderful insights. Thank you for sharing them!
Lastly, biofuels?
See our piece today about corn ethanol. We cried fowl.
And hasn't the EU's "biodiesel" mandate done enough damage in Indonesia and Malaysia?
Apparently not, because they want to boost local production.