Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Independent UK: The oil era reaches its desperate endgame

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:26 PM
Original message
Independent UK: The oil era reaches its desperate endgame
Leading article: The oil era reaches its desperate endgame

Monday, 16 June 2008


Saudi Arabia appears ready to cave in to demands from Western governments for the kingdom to make special efforts to increase its production of oil. Analysts forecast that the world's largest producer will shortly raise its output by half a million barrels a day. The United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, confirmed this impression at the weekend after emerging from talks with the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah.

But there are also indications that the Saudis will make their own counter-demands when oil producers and consumers meet at an emergency energy summit next weekend. One such requirement might be for Western governments to play their part in adapting to the higher prices by relaxing their domestic taxes on fuel. This represents a considerable shift from Saudi Arabia. Up until now, the country's rulers have blamed the soaring oil price on speculation in Western financial markets – a phenomenon driven, they say, by a false perception of a shortage of global capacity. There is little doubt that speculation is playing some part in pushing up the price of oil to an unprecedented $140 a barrel. Yet the fact that inventories have been at normal levels suggests this is not the driving force behind price rises.

Growing demand is the far more likely culprit. It is often asserted that Saudis still have vast oil reserves. But there is no independently verified proof of this. We have no choice but to rely on what they choose to tell us. If the kingdom really thinks the present price is the result of a speculative bubble driven by misinformation about its reserves, it ought to open up its oilfields to independent inspection to dispel the doubts. Of course it will not do this. But, for now at least, it looks ready to increase production.

An increase in Saudi oil pumping might well have the desired effect of bringing down the price somewhat. But what if it does not fall low enough to ease the pain of the world economy? How long before our political leaders return to Saudi and its Opec allies to plead for more? And what will be the political price extracted for this? What we are seeing in this desperate horse-trading is the endgame of the oil age. Even if we have not yet reached the inevitable moment of "peak oil", when production begins its inexorable decline, it is abundantly clear that the age of cheap fuel is over. The economic leaps forward by China and India represent a step-change in energy demand. The rate of discovery of new oilfields has failed to keep pace with the speed at which nations are joining the global economy. That means the price of oil will remain considerably above the level to which we have historically been accustomed.

That is the central fact that governments ought to be addressing. It is ridiculous for the Saudis to attempt to tell Western governments how they ought to tax fuel sales, just as it is ridiculous for Western governments to tell Saudi Arabia and other oil producers how much they ought to pump out of the ground. The debate ought to be about how best to break our economic dependence on oil.

Governments should recognise the pain being endured by drivers and businesses at the petrol pumps. But their response should not be to tell their electorates that hectoring the Saudis will bring down the price of fuel, or to mess around with short-term gestures such as suspending taxation. Instead, it should be to announce that funds from higher fuel taxes will be channelled into alternative, clean power generation and energy conservation schemes. The fact that so many of our political leaders are pinning their hopes on the oil producers riding to the rescue merely confirms how tenuously they grasp the new reality.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-oil-era-reaches-its-desperate-endgame-847898.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
24HRrnr Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. What's wrong with high fuel prices?
We keep the prices high, alternatives become increasingly attractive.

And we don't need to channel higher taxes into programs. With higher prices, consumers are already doing that. Or is the growth in the hybrid market just happenstance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. For the working poor, it's very bad. There's no help for them.
Money should be channeled into alternatives regardless. Doing it only because gas prices are crushing people is nothing short of laziness at the expense of the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24HRrnr Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. do you see any way
to do it with out causing pain? I don't. Any large economic dislocation involves pain. And there is no need to waste government money on boodoggles - ethanol comes to mind - when the same thing is being accomplished by the pricing structures.

High prices are leading to better use of mass transit, behavioral changes from SUV's to fuel efficient cars, better home building, and more tightly managed distributiion systems. Research in alternatives is at an all time high.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. We could've done it starting in the 1970s with Carter's energy plan, but the people went and...
elected Ronald Reagan. The poor, as a result, got thrown under the bus for that decision. Reagan reversed many of Carter's forward-looking energy proposals.

If the question is could America have avoided this situation, then the answer is yes. Did America do it? No. The poor always pay the highest price for the stupidity that passes for political discourse in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC