 | USA Grain Exports - Where to, how much? | The Oil Drum | CLJ08 closed above $104 today...in the next 60 days, the front month price of CL will... |  |
Book Review: Gusher of Lies
Posted by Robert Rapier on March 5, 2008 - 10:00am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: book review, energy independence, robert bryce [list all tags]
I have been a fan of Robert Bryce’s writing for a long time. His style is witty and entertaining, and he is a debunker-extraordinaire. His newest book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
If you aren't familiar with Bryce, he is the Managing Editor of Energy Tribune, a cornucopia of energy news and analyses (and a regular stop for me), as well as the author of several other books topical to energy. For more, here is his biography from Amazon:
About the Author
Robert Bryce is one of America's foremost energy journalists. He is currently the managing editor of Energy Tribune and a contributing writer for the Texas Observer. The author of Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron
, and Cronies: Oil, The Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate
, he lives in Austin with his wife, Lorin, their three children, and a hyperactive bird dog named Biscuit.
In the book, Bryce takes on many of the myths that are ingrained in the collective psyche of politicians and the general public. He explains why we are so attracted to the idea of energy independence, but then spends the bulk of the book arguing that the idea of energy independence is delusional.
He takes on Thomas Friedman, calling him the loudest, most influential, and least informed proponent of energy independence. Amory Lovins is also a target; Bryce points out that Lovins testified before the U.S. Senate in 2006 that we could make cellulosic ethanol for $18/bbl. (For more on Lovins, see Bryce go after him here). He targets the delusions of both Democrats and Republicans, suggesting that neither major party is serious about addressing America’s energy needs. As Bryce states (and this would be a good description of my own position): “I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I am a charter member of the Disgusted Party.”
Thoroughly researched, with hundreds of references, the book is full of thought provoking and interesting facts. One of the most interesting bits to me was a table showing just how dependent the U.S. is on a wide range of strategic materials. We are at the 100% dependence level on quite a few of them. But the book's real strength lies in the myth-busting. The book debunks such energy independence myths as: 1). We can farm our way to energy independence; 2). We could abandon the Persian Gulf if we achieved energy independence; 3). Energy independence would reduce the flow of money to terrorists. For a flavor of Bryce’s writing – including some of the themes he tackles in the book, see his Washington Post editorial:
5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit
In this editorial, Bryce writes:
With oil prices still flirting with $100 a barrel, everyone is talking about the need for "energy independence." Late last year, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Sen. John McCain has declared, "We need energy independence"; and Sen. Barack Obama has called for "serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence."
This may all be good politics. But the idea that the United States, the world's single largest energy consumer, can be independent of the $5 trillion-per-year energy business -- the world's single biggest industry -- is ludicrous on its face. The push for energy independence is based on a series of false premises. Here are a few of the most pernicious ones...
While you will often find yourself nodding in agreement while reading the book (or thinking "I did not know that"), there will be things in the book that each reader will disagree with - and perhaps sharply. You may raise your eyebrows at Bryce’s assertion that energy independence is not desirable. I read that, and I thought “Not achievable any time soon? Sure. But not desirable?” Some won't like his take on Peak Oil. Some will feel that some of his writing on terrorism is a digression. I disagree with him on the subject of carbon taxes (more on that below). And corn ethanol supporters will need to round up an army of lobbyists to address his chapter on ethanol.
The ethanol chapter alone is greatness. [Full Disclosure: Bryce referenced me a number of times in the book, but especially in the ethanol chapter. You could thus argue that I have a conflict of interest in this book review - if that makes you happy ;)]. Bryce goes further than I ever have by tying all of the arguments up in one neat package. He covers the subject from angles I have barely touched upon. I can probably now retire from ethanol debunking, because after reading the ethanol chapter I thought “There’s nothing left to debunk.” (In fact, progress on the ethanol FAQ I have been working on ground to a halt after I read Bryce's ethanol chapter. He covered everything I covered, and more.)
This is not a Peak Oil book. Peak Oil is covered over just a few pages, and the subject is treated agnostically – or maybe even slightly atheistically. The Oil Drum does get a mention in this section, as well as peakoil.com and hubbertpeak.com. But if you are expecting a long discussion of peak oil, that's not what this book is about.
There was a time when I couldn't see an iota of difference between Bryce’s positions on various energy topics and my own. It seemed we agreed on everything – right down to small details. However, Bryce gradually abandoned his position that we needed higher carbon taxes, and this is an issue upon which we now clearly diverge. And it took me a while to really pin down why we now disagree on this issue.
I am looking at the issue of carbon taxes through Peak Oil lenses. I see carbon taxes as a way individuals and individual countries can ramp down their energy usage so they are less impacted by supply shocks. I think is more concerned about seeing policies implemented that will increase energy supplies, rather than those that reduce demand. This became clear to me when reading his chapter on energy efficiency. Bryce also feels like it will be impossible to make the tax revenue neutral such that it isn't regressive. He feels like the U.S. will be putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world if we pass higher carbon taxes.
However, to that I say that Europe already has very high carbon taxes, and I don't believe it is a coincidence that they drive much more fuel efficient cars, don't have a lot of suburban sprawl, have excellent public transportation, have about half the per capita energy consumption of the average American, and yet still enjoy a very high standard of living. They are more insulated from price shocks than we are, because they are less dependent on fossil fuels than we are in the U.S. But because of the fossil fuel usage habits of the U.S., enabled by a long history of cheap fossil fuels, the world will approach peak oil much more quickly. I see high carbon taxes as a way of slowing down that approach and subsequent decline.
Furthermore, I don't believe Bryce is consistent on this issue. At one point in the book, he writes "Motorists respond to high fuel prices", and then he gives examples of how sales of fuel efficient vehicles have taken off as fuel prices crept higher. Isn't this something we should have been encouraging all along with higher fuel prices? He reiterates this in a section on Brazil, when he points out that Brazil imposes much higher fuel taxes, and this helps explain why their per capita usage is so low. If Brazil can deal with higher fuel taxes, I expect that we can as well in the U.S.
Concluding, I highly recommend this book. It is the best overall book on the reality of the energy situation in the U.S. that I have read in a long time. In fact, specific to that topic, it is probably the best book I have ever read. There are arguments that you won't like. There are some minor errors (e.g., Saudi's claimed oil production capacity was reported as their oil production). And even after reading the book I still feel the attraction of energy independence. But I didn't find a whole lot to quibble with as I read the book.
Oak Ridge puts possible biofuels Imports from Latin America as high as 38 Billion gpy by 2017.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNum...
LOL.
The thing about engineers and scientists is their perfect willingness to cite unmoored facts as if they are helpful.
What they don't say is, "If we cut down the rain forest and destroy the lungs of the planet, we can plant millions of acres in automobile food and thus kill everyone. Hooray for the automobile!"
Unless the automobile gains sentience soon and can grow its own crops, it will die with us.
Cherenkov,
President Lula states that Brazil has approx. 150 Million Acres of fertile, non forested land lying fallow, as we speak. Colombia seems to have plenty of non-Rain Forest Coca Bushes.
Folks, There are, literally, Billions of acres of usable land lying fallow around the world. We have over 700 Million Acres of land in the U.S. that is loosely defined as "Grazing" land. This is in addition to the 440 Million acres we define as "cropland." In the "Cropland" is 36 Million Acres that we pay farmers NOT to Farm. There Are Issues. BUT, "Available" Land is not one of them.
I disagree with this to the extent that less land should be used to grow food and biofuels, and more land should be used to restore ecosystem services and suck carbon out of the air. There may be some methods of food and fuel production that are carbon sinks, but optimizing carbon sequestration is different from optimizing food production.
Yes, you might say that there is really no such thing as land 'lying fallow' as the 'weeds' and trees it is now supporting are an increasingly vital part of the overburdened ecosystem.
Kdolliso,
Not to be too blunt, but you could not be more mistaken.
Spend some time studying up on the Brazilian Cerrudo(sp) that President Lula is speaking of. It is not hard to see that exploiting this land will only have a short term benefit and will result in long term adverse consequences. Not to mention that as the Amazon rain forest shrinks and becomes more arid that the Cerrudo will become even more arid as its rainfall comes primarily from evaporation in the Amazon.
As one who grew up in "grazing land" I can assure you that if this land was suitable for any other agricultural use it would already be being used for that. We are currently having millions of acres of land being downgraded from grain production to grazing due to it no longer being fertile enough for grains. In many areas grazing land is no longer suitable for that use either. There are large acreages in the West and Australia that fit this description.
The reason there is a government program (CRP) to pay farmers not to use land is that (in general of course as scaming goes on everywhere) the land under this program was unsuitable for most kinds of cropping and the environmental consequences of continuing was not acceptable. Such land is really more suitable for grazing.
One can go on for hundreds of pages, which are all out there to find and read, about how our current forms of agriculture are way beyond sustainability already. Not to mention that the world is pretty much hell-bent on making the situation worse as fast as we can. Don't want to miss any opportunity for a short term financial gain. After all, we don't owe our children and grandchildren anything. When was the last time they did anything for us.
Wyoming,
Anecdotes, of course, abound. However, let Me give one.
I drive through Arkansas, from time to time, and observe tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of acres of good, fertile, formerly-rice land sitting there and drawing CRP Dollars. It is, quite simply, a natural resource that is being wasted.
Add into the mix Pioneers statement, yesterday, that they expect to increase corn, and soy bean yields by 40% in the next decade, and we are Awash in wasted Potential.
Sounds like the Green Revolution. Which is now collapsing in a heap of high fertilizer costs, drought, and overshoot.
kdolliso,
Yes they do, however I have studied this and you clearly have not. Sure there are CRP acres not in use that could be put inito good production. Thus my comment about scaming the system. It proves nothing. You are talking about many millions of acres that you seem to think are just being wasted because we are not growing something on them. This kind of opinion was underestandable in the 1800's when there was a virtually complete ignorance of how the natural systems functioned. It is not excusable in todays world. No one who has spent any time studying the various scientific disciplines that cover how life exists and sustains itself on this planet would even think of arguing that it is a good idea to fully utilize all arable land in the world. It would be suicidal. Taking Pioneers statement at face value is not a good plan. Look into the effects of over using land. There will be serious consequences for doing what the current plan proposes. It is hard for us today to understand how utterly humans have transformed the world if we have not lived long enough to see it or studied well enough to understand what has happened to it.
Human agriculture is long past the point where current practices can be considered susstainable in any way. We are degrading the land at a significant rate and thus having millions of acres fall out of production every year. This land is damaged and much of it will take millenia to recover, if ever. If humans just took the amount of virgin land into cultivation that replaced the same amount of production land we are having to abandon each year it is straightforward to see that even that is not sustainable.
It all boils down to a choice between short term gratification or taking into account future generations.
A great problem runs through these types of issues in our culture. The argument between development and conservation has been morphed into one between liberal/conservative or democratic/republican. Politics always twists complicated issues to some percieved advantage. Once it is successfull in a new labeling those who are proponents of either ideology seldom if ever actually check into the facts again. If they ever had in the first place. These issues are independent of politics just like morals and ethics are not owned by individual religions. I grew up a republican in one of the most conservative places in the US, but I have always believed that we did not make this world and we do not own it. We have a moral obligation to take care of it just like we have an obligation to protect children who cannot take care of themselves. Those who would destroy it through either ignorance or greed must be opposed because it is our joint obligation. Our children and grandchildren on into time will pay the price for our failures far beyond any accounting we might personally recieve.
Well said....
The World turns, with or without U.S.
BZ
"Folks, There are, literally, Billions of acres of usable land lying fallow around the world."
Bullshit.
Which is not to say that some small part of these 'fallow' acres could not support a crop like hemp, which provides food and feedstock for useful products. Roadsides would be a good place to start.
As for the land farmers in the US are paid not to farm:
"The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a voluntary land retirement program that helps agricultural producers protect environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground and surface water."
This program is a small recognition of our need to regain the economic advantages of nature's service industry. To waste these services so that some jerk can make a few bucks producing ethanol, a process which lowers economic efficiency no matter what land it uses, is beyond stupid.
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=cep
RR: Good review. I'm going to request the book at our local library.
The CREP is/was a scheme to take farmland out of production, and lower the cost to the government of price supports. Period.
You and the rest of your ilk working intentionally, ignorantly or indifferently to bring on the die-off, to further degrade the natural environment, and to exacerbate inefficiencies in the economy certainly seem to know no shame.
The incessant repetition of falsehoods such as the idea that 'spare' arable land is bountiful suggests that your efforts are more intentional than the result of ignorance.
Many people have worked for many years to reduce the destructive impacts of industrial agriculture. The CREP was a significant victory for them and us.
Don't feed the troll!
Are you totally out of your freaking mind or what? You gotta be crazy. To view things from your shrunken perspective (oh, what's a few million acres here or there)is why we're (the rest of us, not yu) in the predicament we're in. Let me guess, you voted for the shrub.
Jeff
kdolliso,
I'm skeptical of this supposed claim by Lula. The people ripping into the rain forests are destroying the rain forests to get more grazing land. Why are they doing this if lots of already cleared rain forest land could be used instead?
Land used for grazing is not unused.
Futurepundit, they're logging the rainforest to get the logs.
After the logging the grazers move in for a couple of years; then the subsistence farmers give it a go for another three or four years. Then it's over. Back to nature.
Robert --
The Bryce stuff sounds good as far as it goes. It's strange that he starts off his Washington Post editorial with
and then doesn't say another word about why the oil price is at that level. That's a very large blind spot.
Obviously a smart guy, but he needs to think this through.
best,
Dave
I'd say Bryce has a blind spot on climate change too.
I read my first Bryce essay over at Counterpunch. Here is the essay I'm referring to:
http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce02082008.html
For those who want the short version, he states:
He is agnostic about global warming, and he criticises the greens/lefties who think we can reduce our carbon footprint and maintain some semblance of our affluent lifestyle. He states:
1) energy efficiency will only lead to greater consumption of energy
2) renewable sources just can't scale up to meet future energy needs
3) Biofuels are a joke - they can't come close to replacing fossil fuels.
He then says that we need to increase fossil fuel energy supplies because that is the only way to lift the world's poor out of poverty.
I sent him an email, saying that I agree with his points 1, 2 and 3, but:
1) Resource exhaustion may make increasing supplies impossible
2) Climate change impacts could be large enough to offset any benefits of increased energy usage
His response was polite, but basically a brush off. It was pretty clear to me he doesn't believe in either peak oil or (or peak energy) or in climate change as a serious problem, and that he isn't really interested in discussing those topics.
This shouldn't take anything away from his messages about energy efficiency, but I would be skeptical of any policy proposals he might offer in light of his views on peak oil/energy and climate change.
He is agnostic about global warming, and he criticises the greens/lefties who think we can reduce our carbon footprint and maintain some semblance of our affluent lifestyle.
While I am not agnostic about global warming - as I have said I think the scientific consensus is overwhelming - I think his position on this issue is similar to my own: He doesn't think there's anything we will realistically do about it. The evidence he cited in the book backs him up. For instance, a small minority of the original signatories of Kyoto are actually meeting their targets. If even the most committed can't or won't do it, what hope is there for the Chinas and Indias that promise to greatly increase emissions? CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere just continue to go up year after year. None of our efforts to date have changed that curve a bit.
Here is the depressing reality:
That doesn't give me any reason to believe we are going to solve this problem.
I had the opportunity of talking to an IPCC climatologist one time and he told me after the presentation what you could probably only mention in private. He had showed a chart of co2 emissions scenarios with the highest bringing us up to 1000ppm in 2100. He said that the scenarios were created 6 or so years ago and if you look at what the actual increase has been, it was considerably higher than the highest emission scenario. So, I don't think people will respond until it's an outright crisis and god knows how many people will die before we figure it out, which we might not.. Sorry, I'm just a realist...
Hi Robert,
His position is clearly not similar to yours - he has claimed to be agnostic about human induced climate change, not convinced that it is happening. In practice, this difference may not matter much, since, as you say, the world is clearly not serious about trying to reduce emissions. I agree with that position.
However, I do not agree we should aim to increase fossil fuel supply in the hope of bringing the world's poor out of poverty. There is a difference between realizing the world won't do anything to mitigate climate change, and proposing we pump ever more CO2 into the atmoshpere by extracting ever more oil, coal and gas. He doesn't actually say he wants supplies to increase, but he does say the developed nations have a moral obligation to help the poor get realiable and cheap energy. And it's pretty clear he means oil, gas and coal will be the energy source, so I don't know how you can avoid that conclusion after reading his article.
First off, there isn't enough of the stuff to achieve what he wants. In his Counterpunch article, he asks the question, if CO2 emissions are bad, then what are the poor to do? It's a good question, but one he basically ignores. He simply says it would be morally wrong not to raise the standard of living of the world's poor, and that requires energy, and that requires fossil fuels.
The obvious response is how, exactly, can we do that if fossil fuel supplies are about to decline due to resource exhaustion? More energy for the poor would indeed be nice, but it isn't a realistic position to take. He sees the problem with people who tout biofuels as the answer to high oil prices, but fails to see the problem of peaking fossil fuel supply.
Secondly, the more we push for growth, the more damage we do to the long term carrying capacity of the planet, and the greater the immiseration of future generations. Just because someone is poor today, doesn't mean they can't be even poorer in the future. His unwillingness to consider the downside of climate change, and only consider the plight of people who don't have access to enough energy to lift them out of poverty, is a real problem.
Maybe the best thing to do is keep the party going as long as possible since the consequences can't be avoided. If we've imbibed enough beer that we'll die from alcohol poisoning in the morning anyway, we might as well have another shot of tequila now. But these things should at least be acknowledged, there should be a sense of intellectual honesty. In my (admittedly limited) exposure to Mr. Bryce, he just doesn't want to consider the possible nightmares that peak energy or rampant climate change may wreak on the Earth.
Again, I agree with his criticism of a lot of the blather about biofuels will save us, or energy efficiency will save us, etc. Right on, Mr. Bryce. But his overall thinking about energy use and its consequences is still a bit muddled, IMHO.
His position is clearly not similar to yours - he has claimed to be agnostic about human induced climate change, not convinced that it is happening.
What he has written on the subject is that he is not convinced, but he is not unconvinced either. That's what agnostic means to me - not that I am not convinced of God, but that I just don't know.
What he explained to me is that he simply hasn't delved into the matter. I am OK with that. Personally, I haven't delved deeply into the science, but being a science type myself, I put a lot of stock when there is an overwhelming scientific consensus.
Hi Robert,
Well, OK, he hasn't looked into it. That's fine, as far as it goes, but not when you start taking sides in policy debates where climate change has something important to add to the conversation.
It's a simple point - if you're going to make assertions about what is the best course for energy policy (his take is the poor need adequate access to fossil fuels to lift them out of poverty), then you should take responsibility for educating yourself on the relevant issues.
I agree that there has been little progress to date on reversing the trend in this graph, and the the future prospects for doing so are daunting. However, I object to the technique, employed all too often on this blog, of presenting a time series graph and stating with certainty that the historical trend will inevitably continue. Has it been forgotten that the basic premise behind this blog is that one time series trend, namely oil production, will soon reverse a 150-year history of rising production and go into decline? Perhaps all such charts should contain that disclaimer, so common to financial marketing, that "past performance is no guarantee of future results."
Has it been forgotten that the basic premise behind this blog is that one time series trend, namely oil production, will soon reverse a 150-year history of rising production and go into decline?
And then there's coal.
That's the problem. It isn't just based on that graph. It is based on the politics of the situation; the reality of how people and governments use energy.
But if the Peak Coal pessimists (David Rutledge, Energy Watch Group, etc) are correct how can the trend line on this graph continue? It won't continue from burning more oil and natural gas.
It will continue upwards, it is just that depletion will eventually arrest it. That's my argument: That the trend will stop only when we run out of the fossil fuels that are causing the trend.
So when does the trend stop? Sure, depletion will stop and reverse the trend. But when will CO2 emissions peak? It seems to depend on when we hit Peak Coal.
If the peak is soon then we can stop worrying about how to adjust to melting polar ice caps. If the peak is 70 year from now then I want to invest in ocean front property before it becomes ocean front.
But when will CO2 emissions peak? It seems to depend on when we hit Peak Coal.
Maybe. On the other hand, there's a lot of oil shale, and you can burn it straight out of the ground, just like coal. A number of countries are doing just that today. I don't believe any one has decisively ruled out a big oil shale burn by the U.S. and China. I don't believe clathrates have been decisively ruled out either. Or in situ gasification of the massive undersea coal deposits in the North Sea.
But when will CO2 emissions peak? It seems to depend on when we hit Peak Coal.
The rate of emissions may peak then, but the accumulation in the atmosphere won't stop. It will continue to rise as long as we are burning fossil fuels, unless some kind of equilibrium is established with the ocean.
With a sufficient temperature rise, the oceans will go from carbon sink to carbon source and it won't matter if we continue to burn fossil fuels or not. Methane clathrates and thawing permafrost may be an even earlier tipping point.
1) energy efficiency will only lead to greater consumption of energy
He makes the same Jevon's-based argument in the piece on Amory Lovins. However, this argument will self-destruct in the face of energy supplies which can't increase, like liquids in the post-peak period. At that point, efficiency *can't* lead to greater consumption of liquids. The role of efficiency will be to maintain functionality while using decreasing amounts of liquid fuel, and Lovins approach will be vindicated.
I think Devon's argument is fairly close to bunk even with growing energy supplies. There's a strong saturation point for most energy uses.
For instance, nobody went and converted a room to a walk-in freezer when the efficiency of freezers improved by around a factor 5 since the 60's.
People used the money they saved on refrigerator electricity and bought plasma TVs and took trips to Europe.
They also bought that beer fridge in the garage, and that chest freezer in the basement etc etc
" The role of efficiency will be to maintain functionality while using decreasing amounts of liquid fuel,and Lovins approach will be vindicated"
You are assuming, of course, that we will behave like rational beings and won't waste whats left in shoot 'em up bid to control whats left.
History argues Lovins approach DOA.