Читать книгу Economically and Environmentally Sustainable Enhanced Oil Recovery - M. R. Islam - Страница 33

Ever since the oil crisis of 1973 that was triggered by the boycott of oil import by some Middle Eastern countries, the American general public has been continuously primed to face energy crisis that is perceived to be forthcoming. Since the demand for oil is unlikely to decline it inevitably means that the price will increase, probably quite dramatically. This crisis attributed to peak oil theory is proposed to be remedied with 1) austerity measures in order to decrease dependence on energy, possibly decreasing per capita energy consumption, and 2) alternatives to fossil fuel (Speight and Islam, 2016). None of these measures seem appealing because any austerity measure can induce imbalance in the economic system that is dependent on the spending habit of the population and any alternative energy source may prove to be more expensive than fossil fuel. These concerns create panic, which is beneficial to certain energy industries, including bio-fuel, nuclear, wind, and others. Add to this problem is the recent hysteria created based on the premise that oil consumption is the reason behind global warming. This in itself has created opportunities with many sectors engaged in carbon sequestration.

In general, there has been a perception that solar, wind and other forms of ‘renewable’ energy are more sustainable or less harmful to the environment than its petroleum counterpart. It is stated that renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. Chhetri and Islam (2008) have demonstrated that the claim of harmlessness and absolute sustainability is not only exaggerated, it is not supported by science. However, irrespective of scientific research, this positive perception translated into global public support. One such survey was performed by Ipsos Global in 2011 that found very favorable rating for non-fossil fuel energy sources (Figure 2.8). Perception does have economic implications attached to it. The Ipsos (2011) study found 75% agreeing to the slogan “scientific research makes a direct contribution to economic growth in the UK”. However, in the workshops, although participants agreed with this, they did not always understand the mechanisms through which science affects economic growth. There is strong support for the public funding of scientific research, with three-quarters (76%) agreeing that “even if it brings no immediate benefits, research which advances knowledge should be funded by the Government”. Very few (15%) think that “Government funding for science should be cut because the money can be better spent elsewhere”. This is in spite of public support for cutting Government spending overall. It is not any different in the USA, for which perception translates directly into pressure on the legislative body, resulting in improved subsidy for certain activities.

Figure 2.8 Public perception toward energy sources (Ipsos, 2011).

The Energy Outlook considers a range of alternative scenarios to explore different aspects of the energy transition (Figure 2.8). The scenarios have some common features, such as a significant increase in energy demand and a shift towards a lower carbon fuel mix, but differ in terms of particular policy or technology assumptions. In Figure 2.9, Evolving Transition (ET) scenario is a direct function of public perception that dictates government policies, technology and social preferences. Some scenarios focus on particular policies that affect specific fuels or technologies, e.g. a ban on sales of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, a greater policy push to renewable energy, or weaker policy support for a switch from coal to gas considered, e.g. faster and even faster transitions.

Even though petroleum continues to be the world’s most diverse, efficient, and abundant energy source, due to “grim climate concerns”, global initiatives are pointing toward a “go green” mantra. When it comes to defining ‘green’, numerous schemes are being presented as ‘green’ even though all it means is the source of energy is not carbon. In fact the ‘left’, often emboldened with ‘scientific evidence’, blames Carbon for everything, forgetting that carbon is the most essential component of plants. The ‘right’, on the other hand, deny climate change altogether, stating that it is all part of the natural cycle and there is nothing unusual about the current surge in CO₂ in the atmosphere. Both sides ignore the real science behind the process. The left refuses to recognize the fact that artificial chemicals added during the refining process make the petroleum inherently toxic and in absence of these chemicals petroleum itself is 100% sustainable. The right, on the hand, does not recognize the science of artificial chemicals that are inherently toxic and does not see the need for any change in the modus operandi. More importantly, both sides see no need for a change in fundamental economic outlook.

Figure 2.9 Energy outlook for 2040 as compared to 2016 under various scenarios (Renewables includes wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biofuels: from BP Report, 2018).

Energy management has been a political issue rather than an economic strategy. For that, the USA has played a significant role. The establishment of the Department of Energy brought most Federal energy activities under one umbrella and provided the framework for a comprehensive and balanced national energy plan. The Department undertook responsibility for long-term, high-risk research and development of energy technology, Federal power marketing, energy conservation, the nuclear weapons program, energy regulatory programs, and a central energy data collection and analysis program.

Recently, US President Donald Trump showed his desire to exit the Paris Accord. Epstein (2017) points out that there are at least two principled ways to defend Trump’s decision to exit the Paris accord. The first is the weak scientific case that links global warming and other planetary maladies to increases in carbon dioxide levels. There are simply too many other forces that can account for shifts in temperature and the various environmental calamities that befall the world. Second, the economic impulses underlying the Paris Accords entail a massive financial commitment, including huge government subsidies for wind and solar energy, which have yet to prove themselves viable. In his speeches, President Trump did not state these two points, nor did he challenge his opponents to explain how the recent greening of the planet, for example, could possibly presage the grim future of rising seas and expanded deserts routinely foretold by climate activists (Yirka, 2017). In absence of such an approach, the general perception of the public has been that President Trump wants to simply bully the rest of the world, prompting critiques use vulgar languages to depict him as a classic bully.⁷

However, it is curious that the endless criticisms of the President all start from the bogus assumption that a well-nigh universal consensus has settled on the science of global warming. To refute that fundamental assumption, it is essential to look at the individual critiques raised by prominent scientists and to respond to them point by point, so that a genuine dialogue can begin. More importantly, no scientist has pointed the figure to processing and refining as the root cause of global warming and certainly none has even contemplated pointing fingers at so-called renewable energy solutions that are more toxic to the environment than petroleum systems. Instead of asking for a logical answer, the President has disarmed his allies. For instance, through UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, he has all but conceded that climate change is “real”. Instead of starting with the social case against the substantive provisions of the Paris Accords, Trump justified his decision by invoking his highly nationalistic view of international arrangements. He said the United States was once again getting ripped off by a lousy treaty that, in his words, would force American “taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.” He then insisted that his first duty is to the citizens of Pittsburgh, not of Paris—giving the impression that there are only provincial arguments that support his decision. In this process, the debate becomes a choice between US hegemony and holistic approach, as if USA is on a collision course with true sustainability.

Yet, ironically, the President has a stronger case on this point than he does with his attacks on free trade, which he justified in similar terms. Free trade has a natural corrective, in that no private firm will enter into any agreement that it believes will work to its disadvantage. That was decidedly not true of the Obama approach to the Paris Accords, which gives a free pass to China until 2030 even though its recent carbon emissions have increased by 1.1 billion tons, while the United States’ total has dropped by 270 million tons, and will continue to do so. But when it comes to the United States, the critics claim that the threat of greenhouse gases (GHGs) has never been greater, while saying that China may eventually implement greater GHG controls than required by its current commitment. The Chinese can reduce emissions a lot more rapidly than the US. The diplomatic pass represents a clear double standard.

The President is also right to cast a suspicious eye on the Green Climate Fund, established under the Paris Accords to “mitigate” the damage that excess GHG production might cause to the undeveloped world. However, this moral posturing ignores the powerful point that undeveloped countries have already benefited vastly from Western technology, including carbon-based energy, and market institutions that, as the Cato Institute’s Johan Norberg (2017) reminds us in his book, have done so much to ameliorate chronic starvation and poverty across the globe. Missing from this analysis is the scientific explanation of how every dollar received by the developed countries actually end up working against that country and contribute to their continued dependence on the west (Zatzman and Islam, 2007). Contrary to all popular arguments, Carbon dioxide that has caused havoc to the atmosphere is not something that can be ‘cured’ with Green Climate fund and all solutions that are proposed to remedy the environmental insult are actually more toxic to the environment than the original offense (Islam et al., 2012). and the political risk of the Green Climate Fund lies in its false characterization of advanced Western nations as despoilers of less developed countries.

The economic analysis that is often ‘sold’ as the only solution by the scientific community is also misleading. These studies show dramatic declines in jobs and production—that will result in astonishing economic losses for the United States—if the policies embodied in the Paris Accords are fully implemented. These numbers are simply too large to be credible, given the adaptive capacity of the American industrial sector. Contrary to what Trump says, U.S. production will not see “paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal . . . down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent.” As the Wall Street Journal (WSJ, 2017) has noted, the level of carbon efficiency in the United States has improved vastly in the last decade because of innovations that predate the Paris Accords.

That trend will continue. Traditional forms of pollution generate two forms of loss, which are addressed by current laws. First, nothing about the Trump decision exempts domestic US polluters from federal and state environmental laws and lawsuits that target their behavior. It is precisely because these laws are enforced that coal, especially dirty coal, has lost ground to other energy sources. Second, pollution is itself inefficient, for it means that the offending firms have not effectively utilized their production inputs. These two drivers toward cleaner air and water—one external, one internal—explain why American technological innovation will continue unabated after Paris as long as true sustainability is understood and implemented.

If such actions of Trump were aimed at gaining praise from his detractors, it has not worked, and the lines that the US “will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth” have fallen on deaf ears as his critiques continue to vilify him. As pointed out by Epstein (2017), one comical irony about the current debate is that the New York Times seems to have conveniently forgotten that carbon dioxide is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. Why else would it print two pictures— one of a dirty German power plant and the other of a dirty Mongolian steel plant—to explain why other “defiant” nations will not follow the US now that it has withdrawn from Paris. It is likely that the New York Times would find far fewer plants in the US that dirty. Indeed, one tragedy of Paris is that the nations adhering to it will invest more in controlling GHGs than in controlling more harmful forms of pollution that developed nations have inflicted on themselves.

One of the advantages of getting out of Paris is that it removes any systematic pressure for American firms to “hop on the wind and solar band-wagons”. Those firms that urged Trump to subsidize this market are free to enter it themselves, without dragooning skeptical firms and investors into the fold. During the entire Obama era, these companies have received subsidies and much research support while conducting no research to even study the true sustainability of these schemes. Chhetri and Islam’s (2008) analysis shows that none of them are sustainable and are far more toxic to the overall environmental integrity. Withdrawal also cuts down on the risk that environmental lawyers turn the Paris Accords into a source of domestic obligations even though it supposedly creates no international obligations.

It is easily provable that withdrawal from the treaty will do nothing to hurt the environment, and may do something to help it. With or without the hysteria, the earth has been through far more violent shocks than any promised by changes in carbon dioxide levels. This is not to say that petroleum production is inherently toxic or that it cannot be rendered sustainable. Islam et al. (2012) have shown rendering petroleum sustainable is much easier than rendering wind or solar energy sustainable. It is important to keep priorities straight when the U.S. and other nations around the world face major challenges on matters of economic prosperity and international security. Withdrawing from the Paris accord will allow the United States to focus its attention on more pressing matters, such as finding real solutions to sustainability problems.