I noticed the Guardian reporting that:
The boss of Shell has said a huge tree-planting project the size of the Amazon rainforest would be needed to meet a tougher global warming target, as he argued more renewable energy alone would not be enough.
Ben van Beurden said it would be a major challenge to limit temperature rises to 1.5C (equivalent to a rise of 2.7F), which a landmark report from the UN's climate science panel has said will be necessary to avoid dangerous warming.
What the IPCC delivered on Monday was the most massive warning. We have twelve years to save the planet from global warming. And Shell's response is to avoid discussion of oil and instead suggest we plant trees without providing the slightest indication of where, who would fund it and why countries will be persuaded that they should do this when deforestation has been the trend throughout human history.
What he did not do is discuss the only obvious solution to this crisis. That is to leave oil in the ground. Of course, he can't do that. His company is valued on the basis that it can burn all the oil reserves that it claims to have. The only slight problem with that plan is that it burns the planet as well. It is simply not possible for him to admit that controlling climate change and the continued existence of his oil company in anything like its current form are incompatible goals.
But there is a solution to this issue. It comes in three parts.
The first part is to ration oil. It can be done directly, or it can be done indirectly, but either way it needs to be done. So, we can ration flights. And car usage. We could even ration some food stuffs - like meat, in particular. We have, of course, done such things before, and I'm well aware that the immediate response will be that there will be a black market. And I agree, there will be. Which is precisely why each person's ration could be traded. The person who wants to fly a lot could buy the ration of the person who does not want to fly at all. The person who does not have a car should be able to sell their right to have one. And so on. A meat ration might be tradeable as well. The goal is achieved, and virtue would be rewarded. Indeed, the whole policy could be progressive: the sale of rations could redistribute income to those less well off. Externalities could literally be priced.
The second point to note is that rationing would also increase the price of oil: that is what happens when a product is in short supply, which would have to be the case if fixed quotas for production were imposed, as would have to be the case. In other words, oil company values need not be imperilled by this. But they would be required to invest in clearing up their own past messes.
And third, government revenues need not be imperilled. If the oil price increases, so might government revenue.
It is then possible for Shell to survive for some time to come as an oil company even as its market is forcibly taken from it. But there is no choice but impose that change on it. There are no other ways to get to zero emissions.
Hat tip: some ideas here were developed with Peter Dawe, who also paid for the beer as I recall.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“The second point to note is that rationing would also increase the price of oil”
I think you have a major failure of basic economics here. Supply and demand.
No, the price of oil would fall heavily. There would still be the same amount of oil, but leaving it in the ground and rationing it would forcibly reduce demand. What use is something if you are not allowed to use it, so why would people pay more for it?
Of course, the ration tickets you are talking about would go up dramatically in value – because those are in limited supply.
Oh come on, OPEC have withheld supply to maintain price when it suits them
My logic is right
No, your logic isn’t right at all.
OPEC have reduced supply to increase prices, given constant demand. That much is correct.
Where you go horribly wrong is to assume that this would carry over into your rationing idea. The clue being the word “rationing”. By doing so you would massively reduce demand – albeit artificially. And what happens when you reduce demand, without altering the level of supply?
The price goes down.
Your ration tickets though, would be a different story. Those would have limited supply but increased demand and so the price of those would likely go up.
Of course, he bigger question is why anyone in their right minds would want the government to control how much fuel we use, flights we take and meat we eat. It’s massively authoritarian. Imagine the corruption that would occur, just for starters.
It’s also worth noting that the Nobel prize for economics given the other day was for the economics of climate change and growth – where they basically suggest carbon taxes.
Who said the supply was not going to go down?
Mick –
” And what happens when you reduce demand, without altering the level of supply?”
I thought the idea was to ration. Where I come from, that means alter the supply from unlimited to limited. Which means… er, altering the level of supply…
“Of course, he bigger question is why anyone in their right minds would want the government to control how much fuel we use, flights we take and meat we eat. It’s massively authoritarian. Imagine the corruption that would occur, just for starters.”
I’m in my right mind, thanks very much. If the current pattern of consumption (completely uncontrolled by the markets) has led us to the point that THE PLANET WILL BE UNINHABITABLE IF WE CARRY ON, then I rather think I would like someone to step in and tell us what’s good for us.
Honestly, some people. “I’m not having some so-called ‘Government’ tell me I can’t set fire to my own house with my kids in it. It’s a nanny state! Political Correctness Gone Mad!!”
“That is to leave oil in the ground.”
You did. The oil is still there. In the ground.
What is that about?
Mick
No-one wants authoritarianism. But would you rather live on the planet Venus? Try and see the big picture here.
Mick says:
“It’s also worth noting that the Nobel prize for economics given the other day was for the economics of climate change and growth — where they basically suggest carbon taxes.”
Yep. I noticed that. That’s Endogenous Growth theory well and truly, officially recognised as mince.
Next.
“What is that about?”
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. My guess is you are avoiding answering because of the rather large booboo you’ve made.
I am pointing out that if you have lots of oil around, and you leave it in the ground because you aren’t allowed to use it, the price of it will go down.
Not up. Down.
In simple economic terms, supply will have remained the same but the demand will have fallen, because you’ve limited oil use.
The price of your oil ration tickets will likely go up, because you are replacing one supply and demand curve with another one. In this case, demand will have remained constant but supply will have fallen – because you are rationing the tickets.
So your claim that oil prices will go up is very suspect. To say the least.
I for one don’t want politicians being in control of that rationing power, telling us what we can and can’t do and selecting those deemed most worthy (those that vote of them) getting preferential treatment.
@James
So why not carbon taxes then, rather than Richard Murhpy’s deeply illiberal, politically unworkable and historically proven to be disastrous rationing policy?
I’m not debating climate change here.
Mick
If oil is rationed it will be in short supply
If the oil industry is not allowed to take it out of the ground that compounds the issue
I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong….
So thanks for your contribution but I have ignored it because that’s what I do when people don’t follow logic
Mick says:
“I for one don’t want politicians being in control of that rationing power, telling us what we can and can’t do and selecting those deemed most worthy (those that vote of them) getting preferential treatment.”
But that’s exactly what you live with. Day in. Day out.
A ‘market’ system totally distorted by government. The US has been bombing the middle east and covertly and overtly screwing with the politics of the region for decades in an attempt to control global oil supply and therefore prices…to its own advantage.
Oh? You thought it was to make the middle east more democratically responsive to the people.? Yeah Right ! So girls could go to school ?
Eyes wide shut.
Can’t see outside their tiny comfortable bubble, some people. Don’t want to.
None so blind as those that will not see what’s staring them in the face.
As long as the market is skewed in the favoured direction we pretend it’s free and fair. I despair sometimes. 🙁
Tradable quotas/allowances have been discussed for a good few years as an approach to managing radical decarbonisation/reduction in fossil fuel use. See Tradable Energy Quotas (the Fleming Policy Centre), Cap-and-share, Personal Carbon Trading etc etc. Care needs to be taken with these policy ideas though as exacerbating fuel poverty is a very real danger.
I agree
But I was not discussing household energy, you will note
That requires a different approach
Richard, perhaps you might read the proposals for TEQs – as it is wider in scope than just household fuels.
What is a TEQ?
And where do I read it?
And I am clearly talking about more than household fuels
Hi Richard, you can read about TEQs in their report here: https://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk/parliamentary-report-download/
There are also a number of academic journal articles on the broader issue. Let me know if you want some references on particular issues.
Best regards, Tom
Thanks
This is not a promising start is it ?
“Since the first APPGOPO report was published in July 2008, the number and urgency of
warnings about oil depletion has grown. In its eye-opening 2008 World Energy Outlook,
the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast that 64 million barrels a day of extra oil
production will need to come on stream by 2030 if projected demand is to be met. That
means that by 2030 we will need to be producing the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias
on top of existing production. This is almost certainly impossible.”
I suppose I should look and see what the response to ‘This is […] impossible’ might be, but I’m not optimistic. The starting motivation is wrong.
Interesting to see you have taken up my idea of trading a quota/ration for the number of flights each individual could be allowed, then applying it to fuel and meat. As you say, it could both reduce consumption, promote fuel/meat free alternatives and redistribute money to the most environmentally responsible members of society. It also gives disadvantaged people something of value to trade that costs government nothing, except the administration of the system. As a WASPI who rarely flies and tries not to eat much meat or drive much, people like me would certainly benefit! What’s not to like?
Seriously though, do you think it possible the current UK government would ever implement such a plan? Does it have wings?
I have no idea if it has wings
But radical ideas need to be floated
Or we will all be floating
Again – chickens coming home to roost for the Toxic Tories who cancelled the electrification of the Midland Mainline so that we still have filthy diesels zooming around.
This warning makes the Green New Deal spoken of here even more pertinent.
I look forwards to old people being turfed off buses because they have used up their ration of free bus miles, and other bizarre consequences.
Seriously, it’s a lot simpler to apply a carbon tax, at a level which reflects the trade off between the benefits to the economy and people of using the stuff, and the harm from rising sea-levels etc.
If you want to tackle inequality, don’t crowbar your desire to save the planet into your policies. Just have a properly functioning welfare state.
Oh no it isn’t
Carbon taxes are almost invariably regressive
Rationing different goods separately is the most complex and unworkable system imaginable, and the least likely to gain support. C permits are much simpler, but C taxes are still simpler to incorporate in our VA taxes.
The tax or fee and dividend version proposed by climate scientist Hansen and others returns the proceeds as an equal dividend to all citizens, and is highly progressive, because rich consumers use much more C. A few low income people, mainly rural, also use a lot of C and would need special arrangements. You really should do your homework before making false claims about C taxes and suggesting the worst possible scheme!
What you’re suggesting sounds like a nightmare to administer
And in the meantime, I will float ideas for discussion as I see fit – and change my mind on them in the same fashion
Hi RIchard
Good to finally meet you at the GIMMS launch
What about boat owners who use fuel when moving, heating and power?
What about those who need fuel for off grid living in the winter?
We all use fuel…..
And if beating climate change has some incidental costs I am sorry, but that’s a price we will need to pay
and to model the effects on the economy – would 1970s opec price rises be a good proxy? Global economi c stagnation wasn’t it?…
Stagnation or the end of the world as we know it?
in all fairness planting a mind boggling number of trees and plants is the most practical solution for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and binding it in a solid form that can be kept out of the atmosphere,
the technological suggestions for carbon sequestration are undeveloped, untried, vastly expensive in capital and energy on the scale required and frankly a techno fantasy,
trees and plants are what captured a lot of the CO2 in the atmosphere billions of years ago and formed the coal deposits that we then burned in the blink of a geological eye to cause the current mess,
bear in mind, in the last year or so India planted one million trees in a day, if you blinked you might have missed the story in the western media,
there is a role oil companies could play in this, much of their technology could be adapted,
for carbon capture we should be using any suitable waste agricultural and forestry bio mass for pyrolisation to extract all the combustible gases that can be used as a renewable energy source and the resultant bio char, which is activated carbon, is mixed with organic fertiliser, an appropriate fungus and earth worms and ploughed into agricultural land to repair our farmlands that have become depleted through the use of artificial fertilisers,
note that almost all currently used artificial fertilisers use natural gas as a feedstock for manufacture,
we also need to be using all possible bio organic waste that is not suitable for pyrolisation in aerobic or anerobic methane digesters to convert it quickly into high quality fertiliser whilst extracting and using the combustible gases as a renewable energy source,
this includes human digestive byproducts,
on a worldwide scale this approach could turn agriculture a lot greener, reduce it’s dependence on oil as a feedstock for fertilisers, capture carbon in the soil and reverse the degradation of agricultural land from over reliance on artificial fertilisers,
the Chinese are already working on a variation of this theme,
land based drilling rigs should really be drilling bore holes for geo thermal heat exchangers to power district heating projects,
oil companies should be developing and operating thermal depolymerisation plants to process the plastic waste and used vehicle tyres into usable energy gases and liquids,
we need to minimise the amount of one use only plastic packaging materials and replace them with paper and cardboard products as at least they can be cleanly and efficiently burnt to generate energy, Scandanavian countries are already doing this on a scale where they are starting to import rubbish to burn!
there is a role the nuclear industry can play too, reactor rods only spend a few years in a reactor generating heat for electricity generation, after that they are placed in cooling ponds for decades, the number of rods stored in cooling ponds is actually causing a problem now,
a Canadian University has a deep pool cooling pond for research purposes, it’s fully shielded by the depth of water, it’s not pressurised in any way, it’s certified safe enough to be left unattended for up to 18hrs a day whilst being monitored remotely,
China is currently building such a pond to power a district heating project, you can also extract the heat with Stirling heat engines and generate electricity,
Russia has started building floating nuclear power stations, they use x2 of the same reactors that are used in their nuclear icebreakers, they will be towed to dock facilities built at coastal towns to supply domestic, commercial and industrial electricity and also can be equipped with desalination plants to supply drinking water,
Britain could quite feasibly supply numerous floating nuclear power plants using current naval nuclear reactors to coastal towns and cities to provide backup power to supplement solar and wind generation, when the reactors need fresh rods and servicing they are towed to a naval dockyard experienced in such procedures and a replacement power plant is towed in and hooked up,
probably the most constructive contribution to national security the Royal Navy could provide!
these are just a few realistic ideas using currently available and proven technology, we just don’t have the time to wait for some fantasy future technology to materialise and save us from ourselves.
Pew Research has done global polling on peoples concerns about climate change and interest in tackling the problem,
the majority of the human race is worried and wants to do something about it,
Scandinavia, Germany, India, China etc are already on the case but unfortunately our government couldn’t give a shit, we need to stick a red hot poker up their ass to motivate them or we are all truly screwed.
I stress I have no problem with alternatives. I work on the Green New Deal. But we still need oil (and coal) to stay in the ground
And plant as many trees as you can!
Brilliant, but we have to extend rationning /quotas to oil companies too – otherwise if the price goes up, oils that are expensive to extract become more attractive – eg tar sands, fracked gas etc. Leaving it in the ground is clearly the right thing to do, but I can’t it it happening without effective enforcement
Wholeheartedly agree!
Matt says:
“…..the technological suggestions for carbon sequestration are undeveloped, untried, vastly expensive in capital and energy on the scale required and frankly a techno fantasy,….”
Just the sort of thing that makes politicians eyes light up 🙁
Nice thinking Richard, as always on this blog, but do you really think in any way a likely scenario in our growth fetishising (a real word?), consumption driven, wealth aggrandising, individualism worshipping, free market fantasizing (?) world?
And did you see how much analysis of the IPCC report was to be found in the popular media? “Dancing man kisses dancing woman” much more important. And the responses of our politicians and pundit class? We are indeed governed by an “idiotocracy”.
James Lovelock, who was way ahead of most on these issues, eventually concluded that catastrophic global warming is inevitable, that the British Isles are relatively well placed geographically to continue to support human life, and that eventually a ruling autocracy will need to respond to inevitable chaos, for its self preservation, by forcing the creation of a self-sufficient society and isolating and defending it militarily.
So maybe Brexit is inevitable!
You might feel this is a bit negative, but it gets worse. Enrico Fermi postulated “The Great Filter” to answer his Paradox (so where is everybody?);
https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
Fascinating stuff which puts many other concerns into perspective.
However stupid or not humans behave, the ‘planet’ won’t be giving a damn about our fossil fuel addiction: life will go on here until the sun goes supernova.
Meanwhile, since the IPCC estimates we only have a decade or so to ‘sort it out’ nuclear energy is the obvious only viable possibility of weaning us off C02 in that time frame. Because wind & solar infrastructure and maintenance has got too much fossil energy embedded, the phantom renewable revolution ‘aint gonna happen. Instead, the UK could easily retask its military nuclear industry to civilian nuclear energy, and catch up with other countries relatively quickly and painlessly.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/New-Nuclear
The UK has got 100s of years of electricity generation potential for nuclear gen4 fuel reactors just sitting as gen3 waste in the UK, in addition to nuclear warheads that can also be burned as nuclear fuel.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx
The IPCC clearly do not agree with you
I mist have missed something about how many years it takes for nuclear power plants to be built.
No doubt the proposal from Matt might be quicker to create, but I’m a bit uncomfortable about floating nuclear power units with increasingly strong storms happening and the ever present threat of terrorism.
Otherwise Matt’s list of things that appear really easy to get on with now is impressive. If only our useless Government would do something / anything instead of promoting fracking.
Richard, I would add a plea for those living in the countryside – some thought would be needed to ensure they were not totally penalised re transport- a few more public options would be helpful. Mass migration to cities is not very feasible / helpful.
Mass migration to cities may be part of the problem
So maybe variable allowances are needed….
“nuclear energy is the obvious only viable possibility of weaning us off C02 in that time frame.”
Unfortunately, refinement processes of nuclear material into a usable fuel form produce about 75% as much CO2 as we already produce from burning coal and gas. So in CO2 terms, nuclear would be a step in the right direction, but no more than that. And that’s before we even take into account all of the, er, *other* issues with it………..
Too bad for the actual Amazon rainforests: http://theconversation.com/jair-bolsonaros-brazil-would-be-a-disaster-for-the-amazon-and-global-climate-change-104617.
Carol Wicox says:
“Too bad for the actual Amazon rainforests: ”
And too bad for us too…we have very little idea about the biodiversity we are destroying.
If we were intent on protecting the rainforests we’d be paying for their upkeep not flattening them to grow palm oil and burger meat to poison our children.
I wonder if an Earth species ever committed collective suicide before ?
Natasha says:
“However stupid or not humans behave, the ‘planet’ won’t be giving a damn about our fossil fuel addiction: life will go on here until the sun goes supernova.”
Almost certainly correct, but the ‘save the planet’ battle-cry is really meaning ‘let’s keep the planet fit for human habitation’.
“Meanwhile, since the IPCC estimates we only have a decade or so to ‘sort it out’ nuclear energy is the obvious only viable possibility of weaning us off C02 in that time frame.”
I think the nuclear energy solution is not going to work. I don’t expect the new Hinkley plant to be producing electricity in the next decade…..(actually I have a personal bet on, that it will never generate financially viable electricity) but in that time frame solar installations alone could have made a massive difference …other sustainable generation systems are also available and already on stream.
Government obsession with big, outrageously capital intensive, civil engineering projects is holding up the moves already being made in solving the clean energy supply systems we need. George Osborne sabotaged progress with swingeing cuts in feed in tariffs instead of tapering them, which would have been sensible.
In various ways George Osborne and David Cameron set the scene to waste ten years in the wake of the opportunity presented by the 2008 financial crisis. Hammond and May are dancing us merrily down the same path.
I think we need Nuclear like we need a hole in the head. I’m aware others disagree, but I fear it is a dead end which stores-up massive costs for future generations. I well remember the claim that nuclear would produce electricity so cheaply it would be hardly worth metering it. I have no idea whether that was an optimistic fantasy or a downright lie. But it clearly was nonsense.
Since governments have skewed the market to be like it is today, governments can skew the market again towards what we want it to look like and how we want it to work to the benefit of all.
The craven insistence that the market rules the roost and there is nothing we can do to alter this is simply pathetic.
We have gutless politicians who are afraid to use the powers they have at their disposal because they are terrified they will loose their privileged position. (Which they mostly do not earn and do not deserve).
The Big Corporations are calling the bluff of politicians and getting away with it. They have never been so vulnerable to collapse and they know it.
There are improvements in detecting greenhouse gases and extracting carbon from the atmosphere. I understand the processes and the research is in decent journals. However, I was born in the year we were told electricity would be as cheap as water and work on fusion reactors started with the product promised ‘just round the corner'(1953). This line in fusion may have produced the large white elephant ITER. We have been making petrol and jet fuel from “thin air” since 1909. Promised catalysts remain promises. Microbes threaten to help, even in nuclear decommissioning. Science may sort this or not. Decent attitudes and/or totalitarian tax systems might hold things until then.
I`m no fan of nuclear power – all we are doing with it is replacing one form of pollution (CO2 from fossil fuels) with another (radio active nuclear waste), Kagoshima and Chernobyl are warnings of what can go wrong – and I`m sure other accidents will or have happened.
Firstly we need to take personal responsibility as individuals, eat less meat (go veggie/vegan), drive electric cars and fit renewable power sources to our own homes, these are things we can do as individuals without any government of state intervention. The choice is ours to make.
Secondly instead of building Hinkley point (or other similar projects), fit solar panels on everyone roofs. It would, perhaps not be that much different in cost and would spread the economic benefits more evenly and I would suspect create more jobs. (other forms or renewable generation are available). Electric power can be used to generate hydrogen which can then be stored and used to power gas turbines to equalize supply/demand. And no this cannot be done overnight but neither will a nuclear power station be constructed overnight.
Thirdly where it is difficult to stop the use of oil base machinery there are less environmentally damaging solutions. LPG instead of petrol and diesel. Ethanol(from sugarcane or sugar beet) instead of petrol (Bio diesel is a non starter for multiple reasons). Most cars can be converted or built to run on ethanol, the solutions are out there we need to make the choices ourselves to use them.
Austerit ecology mindset at work here – https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26211742-austerity-ecology-the-collapse-porn-addicts?from_search=true
Besides, you need to first look into who’s presently and expected to emit the most co2 emissions and target those countries for reduction. AND its not a tech problem or a rationing problem. Our leaders’ hesitation to tackle climate change is a POLITICAL problem.