<
Wavepacket Blog
only displaying 'environment' posts
>
    << Newer entries <<
2011
    February
         Thu Feb 10 16:39:00 2011
Peak Oil Revisited
    January
         Mon Jan 3 20:27:34 2011
Charitable Giving
2010
    May
         Fri May 7 22:44:43 2010
Tree-Hugger Me
    >> Older entries >>
    >> links >>
Thu Feb 10 16:39:00 2011
 
Peak Oil Revisited
 Are oil reserves overstated?


The good oil days
Image courtesy of Magnus Manske
 
Today I saw another mention of a leaked cable from the Wikileaks trove. People are apparently publishing new leaked cables all the time as they find interesting tidbits.  
 
This particular series of leaked cables showed that throughout 2007-2009, US diplomats believed that Saudi Arabia had overstated its crude reserves by up to 40 percent. In particular, a high-ranking executive at Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian national oil company, stated that he believed their reserves were inflated, and he convinced US diplomats and other international energy experts.  
 
In general, there have long been suspicions that OPEC countries have inflated their reserves. It has been hard to tell how worried to be: how much of the bump was due to improved measurements or accounting changes, versus more arbitrary changes? The leaked cables are significant because they indicate that even insiders believe the reserves are arbitrary inflated to a large extent.  
 
Does this mean we'll suddenly run out of oil? No, there are still around a trillion barrels of proven reserves.  
 
But the Saudi/Aramco reserves are most critical because now that Russian production is declining, Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world who is capable of keeping up with the world's growing oil consumption. And the problem with limited reserves isn't that we run out of oil, instead the problem with limited reserves is that the cheap oil runs out quickly, leaving only more expensive oil to be extracted. And so, over time, oil production peaks.  
 
The leaked cables indicate that Saudi oil production could peak in the next ten years, which they say is "not good news." Worse, it means global oil production could peak earlier--if it hasn't already.  
 
The bottom line? As I've said before ( Peak Oil), expect gas prices to start going up significantly again, and they probably won't come down. Or if they do come down, it will because of further economic recessions, not improved production.  
 
So start planning now! Expect gas to hit $5 or even $10 a gallon in the next ten years. If you do a lot of driving, see if you can move nearer to public transit, because you won't want to be driving much.  

Comments

Related:
  economics
  geopolitics
  > environment <


Unrelated:
  books
  energy
  lists
  mathematics
  predictions
  science

 

Mon Jan 3 20:27:34 2011
 
Charitable Giving
 2010 Summary and 2011 Plans


Giving green...
Image courtesy of Tom Harpel (wiki)
 
Last year I re-vamped My Charitable Giving, and in 2010 I intended to stick to the plan I came up with then.  
 
However, I was somewhat worried about my finances earlier in the year, so I stopped giving for a while. Not great, but that's kind of the idea: you give to charity when you can, and don't when you can't. I think that's better than becoming a charity case myself!  
 
But by November of 2010 it was pretty clear that I'd be fine, so I caught up with all of my charitable giving in one night. The Internet makes giving very easy! Although there was one problem: The United Way of Whatcom County had a broken giving link for a while, and I missed my 2010 donation window. So I'll catch up to them in 2011.  
 
As I do every year, I bumped up the contribution amount over the previous year.  
 
This was the breakdown by charity categories: Normally I give more to Charitable Causes, but like I said, the United Way of Whatcom County didn't accept website donations for a while so I missed them.  
 
All of those are worthwhile causes, but these are my three favorite charities (in alphabetical order):
  • Reporters Without Borders: they focus on press and journalist freedoms around the world. They publish a yearly Press Freedoms Index, which is widely covered and shames both dictatorships and supposed free democracies. Did you know that blasphemy is still subject to a 25,000 EUR fine in Ireland?
  • Wikipedia: I don't give as much to wikipedia as other causes, but certainly this is an Internet phenomenon that needs to be supported for a while. I don't know how it will pay for itself long term (community hosting? ads?) but it remains a top destination on the Internet, which is pretty amazing for a free, community-driven site.
  • Yellowstone to Yukon: they have a very cool vision for assembling large contiguous regions of parks and corridors so that megafauna (bears, elk, etc.) can continue to roam across reasonable distances. Over time they have refined the Y2Y vision to focus on grizzly bears, birds, and fish. The thinking is that if they cover those three, they'll capture the needs of most animals.
For 2011 I'll continue along roughly the same lines of giving.

Comments

Related:
  economics
  > environment <


Unrelated:
  books
  energy
  geopolitics
  lists
  mathematics
  predictions
  science

 

Fri May 7 22:44:43 2010
 
Tree-Hugger Me
 I'm a die-hard environmentalist in spite of my SUV.


This environmentally-conscious SUV also has a snorkel.
Image courtesy of Dazzuko (wiki)
 
Today I celebrated 6 weeks of commuting to and from work without driving!  
 
This is all because I recently moved (see The Dream Tour), and I can bus to work and walk to almost everywhere I need to shop. I've been mostly commuting by public transit since December, but in March my parking pass ran out so I've been commuting 100% car-free since then. My gasoline consumption has dropped by around 50% or more compared to 2009, even though I often drive into the mountains on the weekends.  
 
However, I still drive a large black SUV that gets really crappy gas mileage. So I can't really call myself an environmentalist, can I?  
 
Well, actually I can and I do.  
 
I was inspired by this story, which pointed out that most people think about environmentally-friendly driving entirely wrong. Most people think that we can help the environment by buying cars with better gas mileage. But as the article noted:  
 
     Science shows that cutting miles traveled by personal automobile is far more effective at reducing carbon than improving gas mileage.
 
So by moving and driving far less, I've actually reduced my carbon footprint much more than had I stayed where I was and bought a Prius.  
 
Don't get me wrong, eventually I'll get a greener car. But it won't be a Prius. It will be an SUV that has cleaner emissions. I need a truck with clearance, room for cargo and gear, and four wheel drive.  
 
That's another thing many people (including proclaimed environmentalists) get wrong, by the way. When it comes to the environment, gas mileage isn't important: emissions are important. The two are related, but they don't have to be. Car and truck manufacturers could be held to much stricter emissions than they are now. Paradoxically, better catalytic converters could slightly reduce gas mileage, but that would be overall worth it.  
 
So what is the responsible, green future for the planet? It won't be suburbia with hybrids. It will be people living much closer to where they work and shop, driving far less, in cars that have about the same gas mileage as now, but with lower emissions. That's going to be a big demographic shift, but it will be better for the atmosphere, and will also be forced by rising gasoline prices.

Comments

Related:
  economics
  science
  > environment <
  predictions


Unrelated:
  books
  energy
  geopolitics
  lists
  mathematics

 

Links: Science Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory    Blog Directory    Blog Blog    Technorati Profile    Strange Attractor