STWR - Share The World's Resources

12th November 07, Michael T Klare, The Nation

This past May, in an unheralded and almost unnoticed move, the Energy Department signaled a fundamental, near epochal shift in US and indeed world history: we are nearing the end of the Petroleum Age and have entered the Age of Insufficiency. The department stopped talking about "oil" in its projections of future petroleum availability and began speaking of "liquids." The global output of "liquids," the department indicated, would rise from 84 million barrels of oil equivalent (mboe) per day in 2005 to a projected 117.7 mboe in 2030 -- barely enough to satisfy anticipated world demand of 117.6 mboe. Aside from suggesting the degree to which oil companies have ceased being mere suppliers of petroleum and are now purveyors of a wide variety of liquid products -- including synthetic fuels derived from natural gas, corn, coal and other substances -- this change hints at something more fundamental: we have entered a new era of intensified energy competition and growing reliance on the use of force to protect overseas sources of petroleum.

31st October 07 - Kevin Danaher, Shannon Biggs and Jason Mark, Alternet

Is it possible to get our power from local sources? Yes, and an interview with one expert explains how. 

David Morris: Local control of everything makes sense. But local control of energy makes sense for two reasons: one is that ten cents on the local dollar of the community goes directly to pay for fuel, and all of it is imported. Only between ten and fifteen cents on the dollar spent on that fuel stays in the local community. So from an economic development standpoint, it is probably the worst expenditure that you can make in a community. The other reason is that you don't have to. Cities, unless they are high-density cities, can in fact generate much, if not all, of their own energy, either internal to themselves or within 50 to 100 miles.

On a hot, dusty highway some 40 miles (70km) from Delhi, a human column snakes its way towards the Indian capital carrying a unique message of defiance to the country's leaders: "Give us back our land."

22nd October 07 - Ashley Seager, The Guardian (UK)

World oil production has already peaked and will fall by half as soon as 2030, according to a report which also warns that extreme shortages of fossil fuels will lead to wars and social breakdown.

Around 2.64 billion people, 40% of the world's population, lack modern fuels for cooking and heating. 1.6 billion have no access to electricity, three-quarters of them living in rural areas. 

28th August 07 - Peter Montague, Rachel's News

A path-breaking new report concludes that the U.S. could develop a sustainable energy policy -- one that is both carbon-free and nuclear- free -- in 60 years or less.

The book-length study by Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) in Takoma Park, Maryland offers a detailed plan for powering the nation's economy with zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and no nuclear power plants.

The study resulted from a joint project of IEER and the Nuclear Policy Research Institute. Such an energy policy would solve four pressing problems:

1. Global climate disruption: carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels are the main human contribution to climate disruption, which is threatening the global economy, human societies, and many of the ecosystems upon which humans depend;

2. Disruption of marine food webs by ocean acidification, which is occurring now as atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed into the oceans;

3. Insecurity of oil supply. Increases in global oil consumption, and conflicts in oil-producing regions, are making oil prices volatile and supplies insecure;

4. Nuclear proliferation: As we know from the experience of India, North Korea, and Pakistan, among others, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is being enabled by the spread of nuclear power plants, which are being promoted as a solution for carbon dioxide emissions.

The new IEER report, which will be published by RDR Books in the fall (and on the web sooner than that), is available now in summary, and as a special issue of IEER's newsletter, Science for Democratic Action. It can provide a blueprint and an agenda for climate justice activists and for state and local officials.

The study offers seven main findings:

1. A goal of zero carbon dioxide emissions is necessary to minimize harm related to climate change.

2. A hard cap on carbon dioxide emissions -- that is, a fixed emissions limit that declines year by year until it reaches zero some before the year 2060 -- would provide large carbon emitters a flexible way to phase out CO2. However, current "carbon trading" programs would undermine and defeat the hard cap, and so would have to be abandoned. See related carbon trading story in Rachel's News #888.

3. A reliable U.S. electricity sector can be achieved without CO2 emissions and without nuclear power.

4. The use of nuclear power entails risks of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and serious accidents. It exacerbates the problem of nuclear waste and perpetuates vulnerabilities in the nation's energy system that can be avoided.

5. The use of available highly-efficient energy technologies, and building designs could greatly ease the transition to a carbon-free, nuclear-free energy system. IEER calculates that a two percent annual increase in efficiency per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could produce a one percent decline in energy use per year while providing three percent annual growth in GDP. "This is well within the capacity of available technological performance," the report concludes.

6. Biofuels, broadly defined, could be an important part of the solution, or could actually make the problem worse -- depending on the choices that we make. The report points to ethanol from corn, and biodiesel from palm oil as two examples of damaging biofuels. On the other hand, the report says microalgae grown in a high-CO2 environment can provide substantial energy benefits with minimal environmental harm, delivering 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of liquid fuels per acre of land per year.

7. Much of the reduction in CO2 emissions can be done without increased cost (for example, efficient lighting and refrigeration). The remainder of the CO2 reduction would likely cost $10 to $30 per metric tonne of CO2. (A metric tonne is 1000 kilograms or 2200 pounds).

8. The transition to a zero-CO2 system can be made in a manner compatible with local economic development in areas currently producing fossil fuels.

Link to original source