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

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As