Finding the oil that isn’t supposed to be there

A linchpin in the environmentalists’ push to constrain economic growth and to restrict energy usage is that we are running out of oil. For a while, during 2007/2008’s speculative run-up of oil prices, we were regaled with frequent tales about “peak oil,” that oil production was on a shorter or longer fade-out to oblivion. Therefore, we needed to curtail consumption to make oil supplies last a few years longer. But, of course, just in case oil and similar energy resource production wasn’t going the way of a dying star, we had to curtail consumption anyway to keep the sea levels from rising to the point that in 500 years, certain island atolls would be under the sea.

Even in California, there is still oil to be found, much to the chagrin, no doubt, of “Call me Senator” Barbara Boxer and John Kerry. And that is on dry land, thanks, apparently, to the the state’s maze of earthquake faults. Much more is available and even more likely to be discovered, offshore. But in California the secular priesthood of environmentalism (one can picture them in their caftans and sandals driving their Priuses) insists on putting such offshore drilling off-limits. Meanwhile the state’s finances crumble along with its job prospects. Oh, and with its water resources.

Incidentally, in the link to the Boxer-Kerry cap-and-tax bill, which Kerry with a straight face called an anti-pollution bill, because he had no idea what cap-and-trade was, there is a wonderful “defense” of the bill by the Democrats. “Wonderful” in the sense of its cluelessness. The bill is supposed to cut emissions by 2020 to 20% below what they were in 2005, and 83% below that 2005 figure by 2050. The Democrats claim that should be easy to achieve, because emissions have dropped since the House enacted its version and are now already 6% below 2005 levels. Leaving aside the question why we need such a bill if a 6% cut has already been achieved without it, one needs to look at the reason for the cut. It is due to the recession. So, 10% unemployment produces a 6% cut, what will be the slowdown in economic growth and rise in unemployment necessary for a 20% cut in emissions? Assuming that we have a linear progression (a big assumption), why, 33% unemployment should do it. And that won’t even do it globally. The Chinese and Indians (or the Africans and South Americans) won’t be so economically stupid and civilizationally suicidal as to go along with this nonsense, assuming this is more than just political posturing and an attempt to benefit a few politically well-connected actors such as GE and Al Gore’s carbon-trading enterprise.