When John Carlson is wrong
Local right wing radio host and conservative Washington Policy Center founder John Carlson frequently uses the column space he gets from King County Publications, Ltd. (publisher of the Reporter newspapers on the Eastside) to trash Sound Transit’s light rail and the science of global warming. His latest column “When everyone is wrong” is quite the doozy.
John argues that global warming must be hyped, because, well, because:
A decline in oil production is on the horizon, and when it does get here (as it undeniably will), there will be very little time for us to react.
But we will have trouble even sooner. The non-OPEC controlled oil is going to peak first. If we do nothing by then, we will be at the mercy of a cartel of unfriendly countries for our energy.
Thirty years ago, John, the world did seem to be out of oil.
1971 was the year when U.S. production peaked. Today, we are dependent on other oil rich nations for our supply. But just as U.S. production peaked and declined all those years ago, world production will also peak, and when it does, the age of oil will come to a close whether humans like it or not.
The oil industry, in response to the OPEC embargo, became a lot cleverer. They reinvented their surveying, exploration, and production methods. New drills, sensors, and supercomputers made it possible to get oil that was previously unreachable. The amount that could be extracted from a field was increased dramatically – recovery rates shot up. And harsh environments (unfortunately) became conventional locations to drill.
But these innovations, while they may have postponed the end of oil, are only half measures. Oil is a finite resource. It’s not a random geological event, something that can occur just anywhere. It’s the product of complex geological processes that take place only under very specific conditions. (Since John has no qualms about dismissing a scientific consensus, perhaps he’ll challenge the conclusions reached by the geological community over the years as well).
Again, the worldwide supply of oil is limited, and a day of reckoning is coming. When that day arrives, our economy will be in the toilet overnight.
And what about global warming? Well, maybe it won’t matter by then because our planet will be too polluted for us to save. The window that we have to solve the climate crisis is shrinking fast.
In his column, Carlson ridicules President Jimmy Carter for predicting an end to oil, but Carter was correct. He may not have predicted the right date, but he was unmistaken in pointing out that cheap fossil fuels would not last.
John's analogy to climate change is funny, since the burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming. If we would have learned our lesson from that crisis in the 1970s, we might not be in such bad shape today. As Paul Roberts says in The End of Oil, (an objective look at our energy economy, despite the title):
So they make use of their noise machine and their media platforms, hoping to convince fellow citizens to disregard facts.
They just don’t want to believe the science.
Perhaps because, as Al Gore’s work points out, it is an inconvenient truth. It does not fit the conservative worldview. Consequently, we get these absurd columns from Carlson with titles like “When everyone is wrong”.
John trots out one or two skeptics at the end of his column - and these people are supposed to represent a legitimate challenge to the consensus of the scientific community! If a consensus had to be entirely unanimous, there would never be a consensus. There will always be individual scientists who have different opinions.
Because people like John are in charge of our national public policy, we dither, when we could be taking the lead:
There will be no price warning to signal that the oil supply is being exhausted.
If the market is failing, why doesn’t our government do something? Well, it might, if it wasn’t controlled by a right wing administration that does not want to admit we must change our energy policy. The ideologues in control of our government don’t even care about improving efficiency. Listen to Dick Cheney:
But let’s go back to Carlson’s premise.
Let’s adopt his mindset for a second – give him the benefit of the doubt (though he doesn’t deserve it) and pretend he’s correct. Let’s assume that all those who say the climate crisis is real...are all, somehow, wrong. How does that justify continuing our current approach to energy?
It doesn’t. As John Kerry observed when he came to Seattle last March:
John Carlson can dispute the existence of the climate crisis all he wants. He can argue that humankind is not responsible for global warming until he’s blue in the face. But he cannot deny that America will benefit from a massive change in our energy policy. Change won’t be easy, but it can and it must happen – over the objections of the right wing.
They are an impediment, but not an insurmountable obstacle. After all, Carlson’s perspective is the worldview that the best in American values has defeated over and over again in the course of our history.
As Al Gore has recognized, political will is a renewable resource.
John argues that global warming must be hyped, because, well, because:
Back in the late 1970s, there were people who believed that the world was running low on oil and would be out entirely by the 1990s....Many prominent academics, government officials, economists, the Democratic Party, and a good chunk of the Republican Party all shared this belief.Hey, John, I have news for you: there is a finite supply of oil on Earth and we are going to run out of it! If the demand for oil continues at the present rate, the world will need 140 million barrels a day by 2035.
...And what about those who claimed that the “energy crisis” was caused by bad economics, not geology? They were attacked and ridiculed as extremists or dismissed as lackeys of the oil industry.
A decline in oil production is on the horizon, and when it does get here (as it undeniably will), there will be very little time for us to react.
But we will have trouble even sooner. The non-OPEC controlled oil is going to peak first. If we do nothing by then, we will be at the mercy of a cartel of unfriendly countries for our energy.
Thirty years ago, John, the world did seem to be out of oil.
1971 was the year when U.S. production peaked. Today, we are dependent on other oil rich nations for our supply. But just as U.S. production peaked and declined all those years ago, world production will also peak, and when it does, the age of oil will come to a close whether humans like it or not.
The oil industry, in response to the OPEC embargo, became a lot cleverer. They reinvented their surveying, exploration, and production methods. New drills, sensors, and supercomputers made it possible to get oil that was previously unreachable. The amount that could be extracted from a field was increased dramatically – recovery rates shot up. And harsh environments (unfortunately) became conventional locations to drill.
But these innovations, while they may have postponed the end of oil, are only half measures. Oil is a finite resource. It’s not a random geological event, something that can occur just anywhere. It’s the product of complex geological processes that take place only under very specific conditions. (Since John has no qualms about dismissing a scientific consensus, perhaps he’ll challenge the conclusions reached by the geological community over the years as well).
Again, the worldwide supply of oil is limited, and a day of reckoning is coming. When that day arrives, our economy will be in the toilet overnight.
And what about global warming? Well, maybe it won’t matter by then because our planet will be too polluted for us to save. The window that we have to solve the climate crisis is shrinking fast.
In his column, Carlson ridicules President Jimmy Carter for predicting an end to oil, but Carter was correct. He may not have predicted the right date, but he was unmistaken in pointing out that cheap fossil fuels would not last.
John's analogy to climate change is funny, since the burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming. If we would have learned our lesson from that crisis in the 1970s, we might not be in such bad shape today. As Paul Roberts says in The End of Oil, (an objective look at our energy economy, despite the title):
Worse, it is now clear to all but a handful of ideologues and ignoramuses [ahem, John Carlson] that our steadily increasing reliance on fossil fuels is connected in some way to subtle but significant changes in our climate.We have been having the debate about global warming for a very long time. John and other conservatives want to keep it going, indefinitely.
Burning hydrocarbons releases not only energy, but carbon dioxide, a compound that, when it reaches the atmosphere, acts like a planet-sized greenhouse window, trapping the sun’s heat and pushing up global temperatures.
The only way to slow global warming is to cease emitting carbon dioxide – a monumental and expensive task that will require us to reengineer completely the way we produce and consume energy.
So they make use of their noise machine and their media platforms, hoping to convince fellow citizens to disregard facts.
They just don’t want to believe the science.
Perhaps because, as Al Gore’s work points out, it is an inconvenient truth. It does not fit the conservative worldview. Consequently, we get these absurd columns from Carlson with titles like “When everyone is wrong”.
John trots out one or two skeptics at the end of his column - and these people are supposed to represent a legitimate challenge to the consensus of the scientific community! If a consensus had to be entirely unanimous, there would never be a consensus. There will always be individual scientists who have different opinions.
Because people like John are in charge of our national public policy, we dither, when we could be taking the lead:
The United States is the only country with the economic muscle, the technological expertise, and the international standing truly to mold the next energy system. If the U.S. government and its citizens decided to launch a new energy system and have it in place within twenty years, not only would the energy system be built, but the rest of the world would be forced to follow along.Incidentally, we won’t see the tipping point that signals the end of our non-OPEC oil supply even when it gets here. Because OPEC countries keep a surplus on hand to use when there is a worldwide shortage, the supply depletion picture is murky. Matt Simmons, an oil industry investment banker, has stated this best:
Instead, American policymakers are too paralyzed to act, terrified that to change U.S. energy patterns would threaten the nation’s economy and geopolitical status – not to mention outrage tens of millions of American voters. Where Europe has taken small but important steps toward regulating carbon dioxide (steps modeled, paradoxically, on an American pollution law) the United States has made only theatrical gestures over alternative fuels, improved efficiency, or policies that would harness the markets to reduce carbon.
As a result the energy superpower has not only surrendered its once awesome edge in such energy technologies as solar and wind to competitions in Europe and Japan but made it less and less likely that an effective solution for climate change will be deployed in time to make a difference.
“Peaking of oil and gas will occur, if it has not already happened, and we will never know when the event has happened until we see it ‘in our rear view mirrors.’”Another factor is the inverse production dynamic. Normally, in a “free market”, the most accessible oil would be pumped out of the ground first. It's cheaper. But because OPEC controls that, ExxonMobil and other gargantuan oil companies are drilling for the more expensive oil instead, and charging accordingly to cover their higher production costs. OPEC, meanwhile, cleverly sells its oil at the same price and pockets the profit at our expense.
There will be no price warning to signal that the oil supply is being exhausted.
If the market is failing, why doesn’t our government do something? Well, it might, if it wasn’t controlled by a right wing administration that does not want to admit we must change our energy policy. The ideologues in control of our government don’t even care about improving efficiency. Listen to Dick Cheney:
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."Uh huh. That's Dick! If conservation isn’t an even an answer, then forget about exploring renewable energy alternatives with these guys. The most we’ll get is lip service in George W. Bush’s State of the Union speeches.
But let’s go back to Carlson’s premise.
Let’s adopt his mindset for a second – give him the benefit of the doubt (though he doesn’t deserve it) and pretend he’s correct. Let’s assume that all those who say the climate crisis is real...are all, somehow, wrong. How does that justify continuing our current approach to energy?
It doesn’t. As John Kerry observed when he came to Seattle last March:
“What if...938 scientific reports, what if scientists from around the globe, what if ministers all over the world….what if all of those people are wrong? What’s the worst that’s going to happen to us?Kerry could have also mentioned the benefits to our national security. By kicking our fossil fuel habit, we’ll become energy independent, and that means we won’t be at the mercy of OPEC and autocratic despots. The United States of America would be a freer, safer nation – and a leader in sustainability.
We’re going to have cleaner air. We’re going to have less disease. We’re going to be healthier. We’re going to have new technologies. Because the solutions to global warming include conversation, invention, and changing bad habits that adversely affect us.
What’s the downside if they’re wrong? Catastrophe.”
John Carlson can dispute the existence of the climate crisis all he wants. He can argue that humankind is not responsible for global warming until he’s blue in the face. But he cannot deny that America will benefit from a massive change in our energy policy. Change won’t be easy, but it can and it must happen – over the objections of the right wing.
They are an impediment, but not an insurmountable obstacle. After all, Carlson’s perspective is the worldview that the best in American values has defeated over and over again in the course of our history.
As Al Gore has recognized, political will is a renewable resource.
