Progress Report: Fri, 09 Dec 2005

[Guest guest]

Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:01:19 -0800

Progress Report: Balancing On the Peak

" American Progress Action Fund "

<progress

 

 

 

 

AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND

 

The Progress Report

by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney

Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin

 

www.progressreport.org

12/9/2005

 

For news and updates throughout the day, check out our new blog at

ThinkProgress.org.

 

ENERGY

Balancing On the Peak

 

Syriana, a film depicting the seedy world of global oil politics,

opens today in theaters. It is Hollywood fare -- at times a bit

oversimplified -- but comes at an important time. Americans today are

questioning our nation's energy security as never before. Most

understand that without rapid and radical changes, our continued

dependence on fossil fuels will undermine our national security, do

grave and irreversible harm to the environment, and generate new and

higher costs to be paid by working Americans. Yet reducing our

dependence on oil is also increasingly understood as a geological

imperative. A House energy subcommittee on Tuesday held its first

hearing on the " peaking " of oil production, a reference to " a term

used in oil geology to define the critical point at which reservoirs

can no longer produce increasing amounts of oil. " Recent articles --

in the New York Times, Time, National Geographic, Washington Monthly,

and Rolling Stone -- have also examined the issue. Though many

questions about peak oil theory remain, it is clear that the costs of

inaction are high, and that the status quo is not sustainable.

 

THE END OF OIL? No, we're not literally running out of oil -- about a

trillion barrels remain beneath the earth. " Rather, the theory of peak

oil derives from a simpler but less widely understood question: How

fast can the stuff be pumped out of the ground? " In other words, the

concern is with " capacity " -- " the amount of oil that can be pumped to

the surface on a daily basis. " Currently, the world consumes about 84

million barrels per day (bpd). " If the world's oil suppliers can

continue to increase this production rate as demand grows, the global

economy is in good shape. If they can't, we're in trouble no matter

how many barrels of crude oil are lying under the ground. "

 

PROBLEM -- DEMAND IS GROWING: Oil prices hit record levels this summer

and remain high. Why? Mostly from " refinery shortages and surging

demand, " notably in the United States, China, and India. This boom in

demand has " strained the capacity of oil producers and especially

Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of all. " The Department of Energy

(DoE) predicts that " for all future energy needs to be satisfied,

total world oil output will have to climb by 50% between now and

2025. " In other words, we need to move from producing 84 million

barrels per day to 120 million. " A staggering increase in global

production, that extra 40 million barrels per day would be the

equivalent of total world daily consumption in 1969. "

 

WILL SUPPLY KEEP UP? Current trends do not elicit optimism: " Twenty

years ago, OPEC had spare production capacity of about 15 million bpd.

A decade ago that had dropped to 5.5 million bpd. By 1990, spare

capacity has dropped almost to zero. " According to a 2004 DoE

analysis, global oil reserves are already being depleted three times

faster than new reserves are being discovered. A February report

commissioned by the federal National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL) offered a similar conclusion. " If recent trends hold, there is

little reason to expect that exploration success will dramatically

improve in the future. ... The image is one of a world moving from a

long period in which reserves additions were much greater than

consumption to an era in which annual additions are falling

increasingly short of annual consumption. " The bottom line is that, to

keep up with demand, every year the world would need to produce an

additional six to eight million barrels a day. " That's like a whole

new Saudi Arabia every couple of years, " says Sadad al-Husseini, who

served until last year as Saudi Aramco's top executive for exploration

and production. " It can't be done indefinitely. It's not sustainable. "

 

PEAK OIL -- WHAT AND WHY: Why isn't it sustainable, if there's so much

oil underground? Therein lies the notion of " peak oil " : after about

half the oil has been extracted from a field, production rates start

to go down. " There's still oil left, but declining pressure,

exhaustion of the best oil pockets, and increasing contamination bring

it to the surface ever more slowly. " And ever less profitably. In

other words, the problem isn't that the world will run out of oil --

it's that, at one point, it will no longer be profitable to extract

it. So no one will. This theory, it's worth noting, is neither new nor

controversial. In 1956, M. King Hubbert of Shell Oil used it to

predict that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970s. His

analysis was disregarded, if not derided. U.S. oil extraction peaked

in December 1970.

 

BUT IS IT HAPPENING GLOBALLY? The short answer is yes. " All or nearly

all of the largest oil fields have already been discovered and are

being produced. Production is, indeed, clearly past its peak in some

of the most prolific basins, " the U.S. Energy Information

Administration said in a recent report. The NETL report likewise

detailed " a number of trends that suggest the world is fast

approaching the inevitable peaking of conventional world oil

production. " The natural follow-up question -- when will the global

peak occur? -- is inherently speculative, and thus quite contentious.

(The U.S. government puts the date at 2037; " most mainstream analysts "

suggest it will come earlier, " in 10 or 15 years at around 100 million

bpd. " ) But the question is also somewhat academic. " No matter who's

right, what we can say with some certainty is that even if oil

production continues to grow, it will grow slowly, which means that

supply will barely keep up with rising demand. In other words, it's

likely that we're now in a permanent state of near zero spare

capacity, which in turn will lead to an increasingly unstable world. "

 

THE HIGH PRICE OF INACTION: The impact of an actual shortfall of

supply would be immense. The DoE states plainly, " The world has never

faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a

decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be

temporary. " According to the New York Times, " If consumption begins to

exceed production by even a small amount, the price of a barrel of oil

could soar to triple-digit levels. This, in turn, could bring on a

global recession, a result of exorbitant prices for transport fuels

and for products that rely on petrochemicals -- which is to say,

almost every product on the market. "

 

SECURING OUR ENERGY FUTURE: The United States needs more from a

strategic energy policy than drilling our nation's remaining oil and

gas supplies, cajoling Saudi Arabia and the other " allies " upon whom

we depend for more oil, increasing the subsidies paid to oil

companies, and holding the occasional congressional hearing on

gasoline prices to make it look like the government cares. There is an

alternative. By empowering our domestic agricultural sector to produce

renewable energy, we can reduce our dependence on despots and increase

the chances of meaningful democratic reform in the Middle East. By

bringing to bear a commitment to self-reliance and innovation, we can

produce sufficient energy to meet our growing needs, even as we

protect our environment, revitalizes our economy, promote global

development, and extend the benefits of trade at home and abroad. How?

Get the details in American Progress's new report, " Resources for

Global Growth: Agriculture, Energy and Trade in the 21st Century. "

 

 

CIVIL LIBERTIES

An Un-PATRIOT-ic Compromise

 

" Benjamin Franklin once said that a country that would give up their

liberties for security deserves neither, " Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

remarked yesterday. " Well, we can have our security. We can have our

liberties. " Unfortunately, the Patriot Act deal reached by House and

Senate negotiators yesterday does not accomplish that. Specifically,

it doesn't do enough to protect the privacy rights of ordinary

Americans. Government investigators can still obtain personal data too

easily and operate without proper supervision from the courts. The

bill is already causing a stir on Capitol Hill. A bipartisan group of

six Senators -- Sens. Larry Craig (R-ID), John Sununu (R-NH), Lisa

Murkowski (R-AK), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Russ

Feingold (D-WI) -- have come out against it, saying they are " gravely

disappointed, " and Feingold has threatened to block the legislation

with a filibuster. To learn more about why Congress should reject the

Patriot Act conference report, read this statement from American Progress.

 

WEAK PROTECTIONS AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS: The government

began issuing National Security Letters (NSLs) in the 1970s as " narrow

exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in

secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. " The Patriot

Act " transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of

U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or

spies. " NSL recipients are not allowed to tell anyone they have

received them. The Washington Post reported last month that the FBI

now hands out over 30,000 national security letters per year, " a

hundredfold increase over historic norms, " which are allowing the

government to view " as never before into the telephone calls,

correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans. " Yesterday's

compromise does not do enough to protect the civil liberties of the

citizens these letters target. The extended NSL authority will not

sunset like other controversial sections of the Patriot Act and

investigators can still force courts to accept the government's

argument that NSL gag orders should not be lifted.

 

OBTAINING PERSONAL RECORDS STILL TOO EASY: The controversial issue of

library record searches intensified earlier this year, after an

American Library Association (ALA) report found that " U.S. law

enforcement authorities made more than 200 requests for information

from libraries since October 2001. " The ALA said at the time, " What

this says to us is that agents are coming to libraries and they are

asking for information at a level that is significant, and the

findings are completely contrary to what the Justice Department has

been trying to convince the public. " The compromise sunsets the

Patriot Act's infamous " library provisions " in four years, but will

not tighten the standards the government needs to subpoena personal

information. The government can still obtain personal data merely by

showing " relevance " to a terrorism investigation.

 

 

INTERNSHIPS

 

The research team that brings you The Progress Report and Think

Progress needs interns! Click here for more information.

 

GOOD NEWS

 

" U.S. life expectancy hits all-time high. "

 

 

STATE WATCH

 

NEW YORK: State appeals court reverses a Manhattan judge's ruling

embracing same-sex marriage, arguing that the state has a " strong

interest in fostering heterosexual marriage. "

 

FLORIDA: State lawmakers ban lobbyist gifts.

 

MICHIGAN: Middle-class lifestyle on the decline.

 

 

BLOG WATCH

 

THINK PROGRESS: Bush's Iraq PR campaign falling flat.

 

POGO BLOG: Justice Department's Federal Bureau of Prisons has refused

to help a security officer whose life has been threatened for blowing

the whistle.

 

FIREDOGLAKE: " Your move, Mr. Fitzgerald. " Latest insights into the CIA

leak scandal.

 

DAILY KOS: Study: People feel politically empowered by Internet.

 

 

DAILY GRILL

 

" I don't know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the

number or the length of the war or the cost of the war. I just don't

-- no one I know went out and said these are how those three metrics

ought to be considered. And you can take it to the bank. "

-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 12/8/05

 

VERSUS

 

" It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. "

-- Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

 

UNDER THER RADAR

 

HOMELAND SECURITY -- 80,000 NAMES ON U.S. TERRORIST WATCHLIST: The

U.S. " no-fly " list used for pre-flight checks of airline passengers is

now 80,000 names long. The list had just 16 names before Sept. 11,

2001, 1,000 names at the end of 2001, then jumped to 40,000 names a

year later. But not all 80,000 people on this terrorist watchlist may

belong there. In March 2004, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was stopped and

questioned five times because his name appeared on the government's

list; it took him more than 3 weeks to get his name removed.

Similarly, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has been detained before boarding

flights -- and sometimes even after he boarded the plane -- because

his name was also on the secretive list.

 

HUMAN RIGHTS -- BOLTON ATTACKS U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEF: U.S.

ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, is commemorating

International Human Rights Day (Dec. 10) by denouncing individuals who

are working to uphold human rights. Bolton has attacked Louise Arbour,

the U.N. human rights chief for her comments that the " absolute ban on

torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice...is

becoming a casualty of the so-called 'war on terror,' " singling out

reports of U.S. practices of torture on detainees. Bolton countered

that it is " inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil

servant to second guess the conduct that we're engaged in the war on

terror, with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the

newspapers. " Secretary General Kofi Annan backed up Arbour, saying he

had " no disagreement " with her comments and he " is confident that she

will carry out her work without being impressed or intimidated by what

happened. "

 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS -- BUSH'S DEMOCRACY CALL RINGS HOLLOW IN ARAB

WORLD: A poll carried out by the Arab American Institute in Lebanon,

Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates

found that the Arab world's opinion of the U.S. seems to have hardened

over the past year, due primarily to opposition to the Iraq war and

perceptions of U.S. treatment of Arabs and Muslims. AAI president

James Zogby said, " Of the four percent in Egypt and nine percent in

Saudi Arabia who said that 'President Bush's promotion of democracy

and reform' was the most important factor determining their attitudes

toward the U.S., over 80 percent said this effort worsened their view

of the U.S. "

 

LABOR -- JOINING A UNION BECOMING MORE DANGEROUS: A new report

released by American Rights at Work shows that a majority of employers

are aggressively using both legal and illegal anti-union tactics

before union representation votes to undermine union support. Thirty

percent of employers fire pro-union workers, 82 percent hire

high-priced " unionbusting " consultants, and 91 percent of employers

force employees to have one-on-one anti-union meetings with their

supervisors. The report concludes that " union membership in the United

States is not declining because workers no longer want, need, or

attempt to form unions [but] is related to employers' systematic use

of legal and illegal tactics to stymie union organizing. " American

Progress is also engaged in an international campaign to promote human

rights and a decent work agenda through Global Progress.

 

IRAQ -- AL QAEDA DETAINEE'S FALSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WHILE IN

EGYPTIAN CUSTODY: In November, the New York Times revealed that an al

Qaeda official whose statements formed the foundation for the false

claim that Iraq trained al Qaeda to use biological and chemical

weapons was known to be a fabricator by the Defense Intelligence

Agency in early 2002. Today, the Times adds further details to the

story. The false claims by the al Qaeda prisoner were made while he

was in Egyptian custody. " The new disclosure provides the first public

evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from

the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out

interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of

American counterterrorism efforts. " The detainee claimed that he had

been treated harshly while in Egyptian custody.