Oil breaks $100
Remember back in 2004 when this oil prices soared past first $40 and then $50 and people said 'don't worry, to be as bad as the previous oil shocks it would have to reach $100', well yesterday it did. Normally when prices go up demand goes down, but the world economy seems to be finding it hard to adjust. Here's a three step programme to help it kick the oil habit.
1. Adopt fuel efficiency standards
The 130g of CO2 / km standard proposed by the EU may not go far enough but higher fuel standards means lower fuel consumption.
2. Switch out of Oil and Diesel Generation
In 2003 Oil and Diesel accounted for 494 GW of power generation around the world. A bit more than half the amount produced by Gas and a bit less than half the amount produced by coal. The Energy Revolution Scenario describes how investments in wind power, small scale hydro power and increased use of combined heat and power plants could help cut that down to almost nothing by 2050.
3. Improve household efficiency
With all that oil going into power generation it's easy to see that using less power in the home will cut demand for oil. The world can make a good start by phasing out incandescent lightbulbs in favour of more efficient types.
Follow Greenpeace »
Comments
Just so you know, this is how oil prices beat the record:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7169543.stm
Doesn't take any truth away from what you write, of course.
Posted by: Juliette | January 4, 2008 7:04 PM
Thanks very much, Martin, ...Juliette,
One of the things about the price of oil that always gets me, is how these oil companies just keep giving us the same smoke screen, saying they have no control over free market trading. Well that may, or may not be true, but it doesn't mean they have to take the money. They could always find a way to return it if they wanted to. But of course they want to keep these windfall profits. I can't help but notice either, that every time our legislative bodies suggests taxing 'windfall profits', the price of oil seems to go down abruptly. ...and I feel that's what we should do, a tax of 100% of these cruel profits so that it will benefit them nothing to increase prices. I suppose it doesn't matter to many of us who don't have to worry about basic survival, as do half the children on this planet that go to bed hungry at night. It's always the bottom of the food chain that bears the brunt of suffering. For many on this earth, it will mean the reality of watching their children starve to death as the cost of transportation and consequently all materials increases to the point of some families being able to purchase one loaf of bread for the week instead of two, ...or for all too many, it will mean no food or clothes. In a macabre way, I tend to think of these traders as merchants of death, as they reap the profits, and the blood, sweat, and tears from those that labor for it.
Never-the-less Martin, and as always, your suggestions are very appropriate, and necessary for the sake of our planet. I think it was Minnesota that just passed mandatory legislation banning sales of incandescent bulbs. My own state of Connecticut has a program that subsidizes vendors through our utility bill to provide energy saving lamps at very little cost to the consumer, and for those that can't afford them. Actually my son-in-law Stef works for one of these companies that sets up at town halls, schools, etc in different towns every day to distrubute them. ...and just so you know, Stef is an avid fan of Greenpeace, and is now reading Bob Hunter's Warriors of the Rainbow.
Posted by: Grateful Child | January 7, 2008 4:07 PM