Getting to a post-oil world? This book has challenges, but few answers

TEnding the Fossil Fuel Era by Thomas Princen
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Parts of this book were good indeed. I certainly believe we should leave coal in the ground as much as possible. More carbon-intense oil, the same.

And, the US probably could lower its per capital energy consumption, at least on electricity, to Europe or Japan. However, given the much larger size of the US, and Canada, lowering fuel consumption that much is not realistic.

Nor is the idea, hinted at by the authors, of taking overall per-capita energy consumption to even lower than that. Oh, physically, it might be realistic. Just ask Americans to not only drive no more than Europeans, to live in European-sized houses ... AND, along with Europeans, to pretty much stop using the Internet, big-screen TVs, "devices, etc.

It's a challenge, indeed, and seemingly a pretty idealistic one.

Per my header, the biggest inaccuracy was claiming the majority of US electric generation comes from coal. Not true, and not true for a decade. A narrow plurality still comes from coal, but well short of a majority. And, no, I'm not cutting the authors semantic slack. Three university professors should know the difference between "majority" and "plurality." (As of 2014, 39 percent of US electric generation came from coal and 27 percent from natural gas. My guess is that gas passes coal within a decade.)

The biggest omission? In looking at either incorporated Western oil companies or nationalized ones getting out of the fossil fuel business, the chapter on that has an incomplete list of suggestions. It notes that some "majors" have gotten out of retail sales, and suggests that distribution will be next (with it already starting), then refining. The implication is that oil majors will eventually complete the divestiture process.

But, the authors nowhere mention the alternative idea of diversification. Why wouldn't either Exxon, or Saudi Aramco, buy a solar panel or wind turbine manufacturer? Indeed, it's puzzling that oil companies haven't already started this, despite BP's PR stunt a few years ago of claiming to be "Beyond Petroleum."

The authors, speaking of divesting, nowhere mention the divestiture drive campaign of pushing colleges, state pension funds, etc., to get rid of oil stocks.

Finally, the issue of "Peak Oil" is nowhere mentioned; it's vaguely hinted at, but nowhere directly mentioned.

So, if you are concerned about our energy and environmental future and want some challenges, read this book. But, you might want to bring your own answers.


View all my reviews
ype your summary here Type rest of the post here

Rex Tillerson of #Exxon plays Chris Mooney, others for suckers

Rex Tillerson

Science journalist ("and on YouTube, I play the role of an actual scientist") Chris Mooney recently touted a book by another author (name escapes me) about how much “better" eXXXon Mobil was on global warming under current CEO Rex Tillerson than under his predecessor, Lee Raymond.

Well, with the latest Tillerson salvo, it looks like “better” is the difference between being hit by an H-bomb vs. by an A-bomb.

Yes, Tillerson is still acknowledging global warming is real. As for actions? No change.

How bad is Rex? Well, he calls the Council on Foreign Relations an “advocacy group.”

He appears to be speaking to a mix of Christian rightists, who believe God will always deliver the divinely chosen U.S. (unless gays and socialists provoke his wrath) and “salvific technologists” who believe that technology is always the cavalry coming over the hill:

In a speech Wednesday, Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.

That’s only the half of it.

Here’s the second barrel:

Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Yes, the public is science illiterate. That’s why many tea partiers believe global warming doesn’t exist, that claims about it are a socialist plot, etc.

And, the CFR as advocacy group? What a laugh.

Then, there’s the third barrel.

While acknowledging climate change, he thinks predictability of its exact effects is overblown.

And, all of this in the context of “drill, baby, drill.”

Exxon ain’t greening up, no way, no how, and Chris Mooney and others who got suckered by Tillerson are fucking idiots.

Even worse is the talk of adaptation while ignoring control of climate change’s worst effects.

That’s because Rex wants to stick you and me, not eXXXon, with the bill.

But, that's usually the way of socially irresponsible American big biz. It's not so much denying they're contributing to a problem as it is the greed in refusing to pay to help fix it. Just like Big Tobacco. Maybe a seaside village of Native Alaskans needs to sue.

Water the fracking is happening?

Plenty of other people have blogged about the 1987 EPA study showing, at least in one case, that fracking for oil or gas can contaminate water supplies.

I have just a few takeaways to add.

From page 3 of the story:

State inspectors and drilling experts suggested in interviews that the contamination in Mr. Parsons’ well might have been caused when fracking pushed chemicals from the gas well into nearby abandoned wells where the fracking pressure might have helped them migrate up toward the water well.

This well was fracked using gas and water, and with far less pressure and water than is commonly used today.

OK, so if LESS pressure and water were used today, all the oil/gas industry excuses, such as the fracking chemicals migrating through abandoned mines, water wells, etc., a one-time incident, are suspect.

That said, there's this page 2 comment:

Even critics of fracking tend to agree that if wells are designed properly, drilling fluids should not affect underground drinking water.

But, what does "designed properly" mean? Has the Environmental Protection Agency, or the U.S. Geological Society, or any oil and gas company, done any modeling to determine what "designed properly" means?

Assuming such modeling is about nonexistent, then the increased water and pressure usage of today means that oil-gas industry attempts to explain away issues carries even less weight. It's possible that frack jobs are enough better designed since 1984, the date of the contamination-causing job, to offset the potential problems from using more water under higher pressure. But it's certainly not guaranteed.

And, do local or state governments, or the feds, in light of Deepwater Horizon, require posting of bonds of sufficient value to deter shortcutting on what is theoretically a "designed properly" frack job?

Given that the story talks about a 2004 EPA study of fracking in coal-bed methane that was found to be industry-influenced, I think we know those answers.

So, let's ignore this comment, and let's assume reXXX from eXXXon knew better all along:

“There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured in the history of the industry, and there is not one, not one, reported case of a freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. Not one,” Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, said last year at a Congressional hearing on drilling.

After all, if it's eXXXon and the truth, their relationship is pretty nebulous at best.

Rex Tillerson looks at green light, plays Jay Gatsby

ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson is now calling for a carbon tax, saying it’s more “transparent” than a cap-and-trade system.

Well, given what a mess the EU’s cap-and-trade system has become, he’s right.

But, if you thing he’s doing this out of the goodness of his heart, or some newfound greenness, I’ve got some “clean coal” in Barack Obama’s Illinois to sell you.

Having protested outside multiple annual eXXXon shareholder meetings here in Dallas, there's no way Rex Tillerson has looked at the green light and seen anything but Jay Gatsby's orgiastic future.

Best case scenario, from the point of view of We the People? He thinks this will save his corporation more money than a cap-and-trade system.

Not so good case? He thinks that either, or all of the above below:
• He can get a tax watered down as hurting the economy in today’s environment;
• he can muddy the waters of public consumption and have that become fallout in Congress;
• He can play some sort of either bait-and-switch or moving the goalposts after Congress says OK to the tax idea.

James Hansen — put Rex Tillerson on trial

NASA climate scientist James Hansen, the goad and push in modern global warming and climate change studies, wants to put ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson and other Big Oil execs on trial for crimes against humanity.

In his House testimony today, he said these people, just like top execs of Big Tobacco a decade ago, knew just how wrong their global warming denialist misinformation campaign was.

Hansen also indicated he may hit the campaign trail against House members who are weak on global warming.

Update: George Monbiot offers his take on Hansen’s desire.

Rockefeller backing and protests can’t sway Exxon shareholders

The proposal to split Exxon’s CEO and chairman of the board positions failed today, and, despite strong backing by countless Rockefellers, only did about as well as it did a year ago.

Protests by myself and others didn’t work, either.

Meanwhile, Rex Tillerson, the man who holds both spots, emerged unchastened and unrepentant from the meeting:

At a news conference after the vote, Tillerson said, “A lot of climate change policy is still up for debate” and that society must be “realistic” about the economic impact of policies aimed at curbing the burning of fossil fuels.

Translation?

Exxon’s still doing to be denialists on global warming. And likely on Peak Oil, too. Just not so baldly as when led by Lee Raymond.

Protesting Exxon in Dallas – with pix

I wasn’t here last year, but two years ago, I joined the protest in front of ExxonMobil’s annual shareholder meeting. The suburban Dallas-based eXXXon meets in downtown Dallas at the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center.

It was different this year, being back here!

Close-up of me:



This year, as opposed to two years ago, Dallas police etc.let us on the same side of the street as the Meyerson.

The big item on the shareholder agenda this year is the proposal to split eXXXon’s CEO and chairman of the board positions, to require them to be held by two different people. Current CEO and Chairman Rex Tillerson strongly opposes the move.

I had a chance to get interviewed about this, and more general comments on Peak Oil and global warming, for PBS’s Frontline. The episode, whether my comments make the cut or not, is supposed to air in October.

Me as part of the protest group:



The “division of powers” proposal, which most other Big Oil companies have already, got 42 percent a year ago, and with the backing of some 200 members of the Rockefeller family, maybe it will get over the top this time.

Assuming Tillerson would keep the CEO spot, a new chairman might do little more than give lip service to both global warming and Peak Oil.

But, lip service is better than no service.


Other protestors:



About 40 people were there at various times when I was there, including members of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Southern Christian Leadership President Charles Steele Jr. was among people scheduled to speak later today.

More this evening.

Update, Oct. 16: The “Frontline” episode called “Heat,” originally scheduled for the day before yesterday, at least here in Dallas, will run Tuesday, Oct. 21 at 8 p.m. (I presume it was pre-empted nationally for the “Frontline” special on the dual biographies of Obama and McCain.)