Skip to main content

Oil price fall not so good

What is good news for the consumer is bad news for the environment. The fall in the price of oil is probably bad news for the market in renewable energy.  Higher crude prices make biofuels more viable, then the converse is true, lower crude prices make biofuels less viable. Most biofuels are produced from crops that can also be used for food production. Biofuels are not without environmental impact. As demand grows so more land is likely to be devoted to production with impact on forests and biodiversity.  But at leat it is renewable.

The market in biofuels increased in recent years primarily to meet demand from the transport sector, especially road vehicles, which use biofuels either in pure form or as blend into conventional fossil fuels.  With rising crude prices the biofuels industry became more or less self sustainable and less reliant on subsidies to promote green energy production.  The falling price of crude may put that in jeopardy.  This may in turn have debilitating impact in developing economies where production of biofuels is the greatest. Nevertheless, Brazil and the US still account for the majority of global bioethanool production. 

The growth of alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels may be halted by price constraints. Alternative sources still account for a very limited share of primary energy demand.  They have not been regarded as a replacement for fossil fuels but more as a supplement.  There was a time when it was estimated that the source of fossil fuels would run dry. It is after all finite. It is estimated that 970 billion barrels of oil have been consumed so far, while around 1 669 billion barrels at the end of 2012 are still to be extracted, which should take not more than 35 years at the current rate of production. 

That is a sobering thought.  We have 35 years to develop alternatives. Time is precious.  Falling crude prices may give us false optimism, a 'feel good' factor as we fill our tanks.  But it is a false prospectus.  


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba
7 comments
Read more

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The
Post a Comment
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more