Peak oil review - Nov 30
by Tom Whipple
1. Dubai’s early impact A week which started with an Iranian air defense exercise and yet another increase in US crude inventories turned into a mini-panic on Thursday when Dubai asked for a payment moratorium on $60 billion in debt. Oil prices, which briefly approached $80 a barrel on Monday, fell to the point that oil was trading at $72.39 a barrel. Prices later recovered, however, to close out the week just above $76 a barrel. Gold prices, which had reached a new high, and the dollar, which had reached a recent low, both reversed on the news from Dubai as the dollar and US securities started to look like a safer investment than indoor ski slopes in the desert. Although Dubai’s debt is relatively small by global standards and does have an as yet unknown amount of backing from the UAE’s oil wealth, the potential default is seen as symptomatic of the troubles that could be facing much of the heavily-in-debt, interconnected world. These problems are seen as slowing economic recovery and the demand for oil. Dubai has large investments in the fragile US commercial real estate market. Although it was initially thought that much of the country’s $60 billion debt was held by European banks, on Friday many banks scrambled to say their exposure was limited. Some of the reason for the plunge in oil prices was thought to be thin trading markets over the Thanksgiving weekend. In the long run Dubai’s problems may turn out to have only a minor impact on the global economy. Last week the Chinese and Russians joined with the US and Europe in censuring Tehran for continuing to conceal nuclear enrichment operations. Heretofore, Beijing and Moscow have been more interested in the economic opportunities provided by continuing to trade with Iran than in the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the stability of the Middle East. This week’s vote suggests that these attitudes could be changing and that Russia and China are starting to step up to their responsibilities as global powers. Unless Dubai’s troubles triggers off a wave of defaults and a still weaker global economy, the underlying oil market situation remains the same. Weak global demand, except from China, suggests that oil prices should move lower, while increasing US deficits continue to weigh on the dollar and push oil prices higher. Most agree that another $20 increase in the price of oil would occasion a serious impediment to economic recovery. 2. China in 2010 Beijing’s “Politburo” (shades of Stalin’s USSR) announced on Friday that it will continue its “proactive fiscal policy and moderately easy monetary policy” next year. The announcement, which mirrors the language used to describe its policies during the last year, suggests that Beijing will continue policies that resulted in bank lending and capital expenditure growing by 30 percent. The government claims that China GDP increased by nearly 9 percent in the third quarter, although many outside observers believe that Beijing is only creating a bubble at a time when exports – the mainstay of its economy – are weak. These observers say the investment is going into unneeded plant in infrastructure in government-owned firms and much higher real estate prices. The government realizes it may have overdone things in 2009 and directed banks to increase their capital and called for more efficiency in investment. As in the US and much of the world, Beijing realizes that it must do something to maintain economic development in the face of faltering economies. Whether the government is making progress, as it claims, or is creating a gigantic economic bubble remains to be seen. Beijing’s announcement of another year of stimulus suggests that its consumption of oil will continue to grow, perhaps rapidly, for another 12 months. Whether this growth will be enough to offset reserve capacity and new production during 2010, sending oil prices higher, is an open question. 3. Copenhagen Prospects for the Copenhagen climate talks improved last week with the announcement of specific emission targets by China and the Obama administration. However, the announced goals are far more modest than what is deemed necessary by most climate scientists. Many issues remain. Among the most important is how much the richer nations will pay to the poorer ones to forego economic development opportunities and pay for emissions-curbing technology. Last week Brazil joined the Arab oil exporters in demanding that the rich nations pay for any loss of income stemming from a global agreement on emissions. The fundamental problem remains that while most governments see the need to do something, nobody is willing to lock their country into higher energy costs or perpetual poverty unless they are assured that everyone else is sharing the burden equally. Given the great discrepancies in energy consumption around the world, this would be very difficult. Even the new Chinese plan still allows for unlimited economic growth and emissions, while calling for more efficiency in the use of fossil fuels. The furor over the hacked emails at University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit—those that purport to show that some evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been exaggerated—continued last week. Climate change deniers around the world have seized on the emails to bolster their case. Some commentators are going so far as to warn that prospects for the Copenhagen conference have been damaged by the leaks. The major climate scientists say the emails amount to nothing more than the usual academic feuding, and that if anything the global emissions situation is growing worse rapidly. Given the reluctance of many to forego short term economic benefits in return for forestalling climatic disasters that may be decades ahead, this fight likely will continue for many years. Correction Last week’s story on the possibility of uranium shortages ahead incorrectly attributed the story to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. While the story’s author, Michael Dittmar, worked for the Institute, the research for and publication of the report were carried out independently and were not under the auspices of the Institute. Quote of the Week
The Briefs
Original article available here |
news by category
- Resources
- Regions
- Related Issues
featured content
- Authors
- Dan Allen
- Cecile Andrews
- Sharon Astyk
- Megan Quinn Bachman
- Albert Bates
- Ugo Bardi
- Dan Bednarz
- Rebecca Burgess
- Sarah Byrnes
- Molly Scott Cato
- Kurt Cobb
- Dave Cohen
- Erik Curren
- Lindsay Curren
- Andrew Curry
- Herman Daly
- Kris De Decker
- Rob Dietz
- Charlotte Du Cann
- Rahul Goswami
- John Michael Greer
- Nate Hagens
- Richard Heinberg
- Øyvind Holmstad
- Rob Hopkins
- Robert Jensen
- Brian Kaller
- Frank Kaminski
- Paul Kingsnorth
- Amanda Kovattana
- Ellen LaConte
- Gene Logsdon
- Kathy McMahon
- Asher Miller
- Bill McKibben
- Rick Munroe
- Tom Murphy
- Andrew Nikiforuk
- Dmitry Orlov
- Christine Patton
- Damien Perrotin
- Dave Pollard
- Joanne Poyourow
- Barath Raghavan
- Wayne Roberts
- Stuart Staniford
- John Thackara
- Gail Tverberg
- Tom Whipple
- More authors...
- Publishers
- ASPO-USA
- Civil Eats
- Climate Progress
- Culture Change
- Energy Bulletin
- Fernand Braudel Center
- Feasta
- Nourishing the Planet
- Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
- On the Commons
- OpenDemocracy
- OpenEconomy
- Post Carbon Institute
- Shareable
- Solutions
- The Daly News
- The Oil Drum
- Shareable
- TomDispatch.com
- Transition Milwaukee
- Transition Voice
- Yale Environment 360
- Yes! Magazine
- Media Publishers
- Reviews
- Web chats
The Post Carbon Reader
A must-read collection by some of the world’s most provocative thinkers on the key issues shaping our new century. Buy now and receive a 20% discount.







