Dubai - Miracle, mirage or canary in a coalmine?

Last night the CBC broadcast a documentary on Dubai (Dubai - Miracle or Mirage). It was a fascinating documentary that showed how the city has grown from a unremarkable little village in the early 1950's to a world class city today. Dubai has managed to do a lot with the relatively minor amount of oil money they have generated over the years. Unfortunately, the documentary didn't delve into Dubai's Oil Industry very much. Dubai will likely be one of the first cities (emirates) in the mid east to run out of oil. According to their own website, they expecte the oil reserves to be exhausted within 20 years. That is, of course, the most optimistic scenario. The oil majors have already mostly given up on Dubai. Even the IEA (normally known as a fount of optimism) is skeptical of Dubai's official reserve estimates. If you watched the documentary knowing about Dubai's poor oil prospects, you might still be impressed with Dubai's efforts to transition their economy away from oil. As recently as 1994, 24% of Dubai's GDP was from the oil sector. Last year the oil sector accounted for just 5.1% GDP (5.6% in 2005). While this is largely due to declining oil production, Dubai has become the jewel of the middle east as far as tourism goes. Dubai caters to the super rich as well as to the more ordinary run of the mill rich.

According to the CBC documentary, Dubai's prospects seem very good. However Dubai could be ground zero for the combined impact of peak oil and global warming. Dubai is only 16m above sea level with much of the built up area right on the shore line. Dubai may not have to wait for rising sea levels to swamp the city. Tropical cyclones could become more common and severe in the Arabian Gulf. A cyclone reach the Arabian Gulf just this year and caused more than a ripple in the world oil markets. Dubai's growing tourism industry could be an early casualty of declining worldwide oil production. While the countries of the middle east will likely have sufficient oil supplies to support their tourism industry for years to come, the rich countries that import oil will likely put heating their homes and growing food ahead of mass tourism. It is unlikely Dubai can sustain a tourism industry on the back of just the oil wealth in the mid-east.

velomobility

Keeping our problems buried

I read a very thought provoking article yesterday on the The Oil Drum by Chris Vernon. Chris's basic premise is that if we can accept that climate change is largely being caused by humans and more specifically by humans burning carbon based fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) then our primary goal has to be to burn less carbon based fuels. We can run around trading carbon credits, planting trees or improving efficiency all we want but if doing these things does not result in less use of carbon based fuels then we haven't really accomplished anything. Chris is saying that by focusing on how we consume carbon based fuels we are missing the real opportunity. The only carbon not going into the atmosphere is carbon then is not produced in the first place. We need to focus on keeping the oil, natural gas and coal in the ground.

To any adherent of the theory of peak oil (peak gas, peak coal), this should really resonate. Becoming super efficient in the use of fossil fuels won't gain you any traction in the fight against global warming. In a world fast approaching peak oil or perhaps even past the peak, demand will always outstrip supply as we move forward. Spare capacity only exists where the cost of oil exceeds the cost of doing without. So far the only players that have been priced out of the oil markets as oil approaches $100 a barrel are poor countries. How much further do we need to go before leaving oil in the ground is more cost effective then producing it for the rich countries?

I have run up against this logic before but never made the link to how it will affect our response to global warming. Jevon's paradox states that increasing efficiency can sometimes lead to higher consumption not lower. We see this paradox in action when we look at CAFE standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) in the US. US Congress is currently debating the first increase in CAFE standards in 30 years. The senate already passed the bill and now the battle has moved to congress. The debate isn't on whether or not to increase CAFE standards but by how much. 35mpgby2020 is a lobby group that is pushing for the higher standard of 35mpg by 2020. The auto industry is lobbying for a lower target of 32mpg by 2022. The fact is that the auto industry could meet the higher standard in a couple of years if properly motivated. 35mpg is not a very high bar with the technologies that have been developed over the years. The auto industry has consistently improved fuel efficiency over the years but these improvements have been offset by increasing vehicle weights. Some people even believe the higher standard could be met without decreasing vehicle weights (See Saving Gas and Saving Lives).

Regardless of the outcome of the debate on CAFE standards, any fuel savings (and they are substantial) would only enable the US to drive more. If we are really looking at a near term peak in oil production then CAFE standards won't matter much by 2020 or 2022. In my opinion, whatever gas is being burnt in 13 or 15 years will be burnt as efficiently as possible regardless of what laws are in place.

As long as global oil production and global oil consumption is being driven by market forces, you can be certain that oil will be produced to maximize profits and every drop of oil produced will find an eager buyer. Will oil peak soon enough to save our planet? Can we change the nature of our markets to put the fight against global warming ahead of economics? Will the political will develop to combat climate change before we've done irreversible damage to our climate? I'm not optimistic but I certainly hope so.


velomobility

We're all in this together

My motivation for starting this blog was to try and organize my thoughts on issues currently confronting society that I feel we are collectively unprepared for. If we ever consider it, we all know and on some level understand that our society as we know it will not last forever. However even the small percentage of people that entertain such thoughts would quickly file away such doom and gloom thinking and carry on with their daily lives. Our culture frowns on pessimism or anything that can be construed as pessimism. Pessimist can sometimes be labeled as Chicken Little's who are forever waiting for the end of the world as we know it. Pessimism, in my experience, doesn't move one towards better actions or decisions but almost always towards poorer actions or decisions or even inaction or indecision. However optimism isn't any less dangerous in my opinion. Optimism almost always leads to more action vs. less action but not always better action. While there is definitely more to be gained by being optimistic, there is also more to be lost because optimism encourages one to risk more. If we are talking about our love lives or career choices then being a little risky might be well worth it, even if we loose out in the short term. However if we are talking about gambling our pay cheques at the roulette table then unguarded optimism might seems a little more out of place.

I would not characterize myself as optimistic or pessimistic. I am a realist. When presented with a problem or situation, I don't stop to consider if it's fair that I've been presented with such a problem. I also don't immediatly consider all the ramifications that this problem will have on me. I usually just deal with it. I don't spend much time or energy on deciding whether the problem or issue will lead to a good outcome or a bad one. I just do what I can to deal with it as best I can. I always strive for a good outcome and never look at a problem as being hopeless or impossible.

When I first started reading about global warming and all it's implications, I didn't worry. I wasn't pessimistic about my own future or that of my friends and family. I wasn't even worried about the fate of mankind. I just started questioning how what I was doing was impacting the issue of global warming. There didn't seem much more one person could do. The problem was and still remains somewhat controversial. The reading I was doing on global warming led me to the related yet distinct issue of peak oil. Since delving into that subject, I have read almost everything I could lay my hands on. My education on peak oil is ongoing as I have become fascinated with the issue. Peak Oil and Global warming have much in common as some of the actions we can take to mitigate one issue could also mitigate the other issue. Of course there are also some mitigating actions for peak oil that would make global warming worse.

Over the years I've seen many references to the 5 stages of grief. I've been very fortunate in my life to have never lost someone close to me. However this good fortune means I haven't developed any coping mechanism to deal with personal tragedy. I've been laid-off and dumped (more than once) and had to deal with some grief. However, I'm sure anyone who has lost a loved one could view my personal tragedies as you might compare a little indigestion to the pain of childbirth. I googled "stages of grief" and was instantly rewarded with the wiki on the Kübler-Ross model for dealing with grief. According to Kubler-Ross, the five stages are:

Denial: The initial stage: "It can't be happening."
Anger: "Why ME? It's not fair!" (either referring to God, oneself, or anybody perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "responsible")
Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my child(ren) graduate."
Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
Acceptance: "It's going to be OK."

I believe most individuals and society as a whole will have to deal with the grief of global warming and peak oil according to the Kubler-Ross model. I know I've been through all these stages. Starting this blog is part of my acceptance. I suspect most people and hence society as a whole are still in first stage denial. The reality of Peak Oil and Global Warming may mean that many are forced through each of the stages much more rapidly than I have been able to go through them.

I might disagree with Kubler-Ross. Acceptance of a personal tradegy might lead you to believe that "It's going to be OK". With Peak Oil and Global warming, it's not going to be OK. Or perhaps more accurately, It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I would also want to add a sixth stage to the model. Action! Once you have accepted that these issues are real and will impact everyone on this planet to some degree, it's time to get off you arse and do something about it.

velomobilty