Post by blueneck on May 8, 2008 19:11:27 GMT -6
Here is our "friend" again, the so called economist who has no economics to back up his assertions - Raymond J Keating. He spouts off the usual energy industry corporate line then jumps to a copletely erroneous conclusion not supported by the facts. he also completely ignores that easily obtainable oil is a finite resource and that global demand will continue to rise
As Bugs Bunny would say "What a Maroon!"
Meeting the Rise in Global Energy Demand
by Raymond J. Keating
Where is energy demand going, and how will the world meet the energy needs of the future?
Obviously, these are big questions for consumers, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and the economy. And this all is very much affected by energy policy decisions not only in the U.S., but around the globe.
In April, the American Petroleum Institute released a report titled "The Truth About Oil and Gasoline" that gathered data from various sources, including the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The IEA broke down how global energy demand was met in 2005, and projected where energy will come from in 2030. If the IEA projections are somewhere in the ballpark, the agency is not expecting any radical changes in sources of energy. That's striking, given the political debate raging about alternative energy sources right now.
Global Energy Demand: Percent of World Total
2005
2030
Oil
35.0%
31.5%
Coal
25.3%
28.2%
Natural Gas
20.6%
22.3%
Biomass and Renewables
10.6%
10.9%
Nuclear
6.3%
4.8%
Hydro
2.2%
2.3%
Indeed, under the IEA's projection of 3.6 percent annual growth in the global economy, world oil supplies will need to increase by 40 percent by 2030, and natural gas production will have to expand by 68 percent.
All of this should be quite sobering for policymakers. Barring a very dramatic breakthrough in efficacy regarding renewables, the idea that fossil fuels are going away as our main energy source over the next couple of decades is wishful thinking, and that's no way to guide energy policy.
Energy policy must both move beyond subsidies for alternative energy, and exclude tax and regulatory policies that explicitly make it more costly to explore for and develop fossil fuel sources. Instead, governmental obstacles to the private sector producing energy - from whatever the source - must be removed.
The choice really is quite simple in the U.S.: either open up areas like ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf for energy development and thereby help meet growing energy demands, or keep such areas off limits and assure that energy costs rise and economic growth declines.
_______
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
As Bugs Bunny would say "What a Maroon!"
Meeting the Rise in Global Energy Demand
by Raymond J. Keating
Where is energy demand going, and how will the world meet the energy needs of the future?
Obviously, these are big questions for consumers, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and the economy. And this all is very much affected by energy policy decisions not only in the U.S., but around the globe.
In April, the American Petroleum Institute released a report titled "The Truth About Oil and Gasoline" that gathered data from various sources, including the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The IEA broke down how global energy demand was met in 2005, and projected where energy will come from in 2030. If the IEA projections are somewhere in the ballpark, the agency is not expecting any radical changes in sources of energy. That's striking, given the political debate raging about alternative energy sources right now.
Global Energy Demand: Percent of World Total
2005
2030
Oil
35.0%
31.5%
Coal
25.3%
28.2%
Natural Gas
20.6%
22.3%
Biomass and Renewables
10.6%
10.9%
Nuclear
6.3%
4.8%
Hydro
2.2%
2.3%
Indeed, under the IEA's projection of 3.6 percent annual growth in the global economy, world oil supplies will need to increase by 40 percent by 2030, and natural gas production will have to expand by 68 percent.
All of this should be quite sobering for policymakers. Barring a very dramatic breakthrough in efficacy regarding renewables, the idea that fossil fuels are going away as our main energy source over the next couple of decades is wishful thinking, and that's no way to guide energy policy.
Energy policy must both move beyond subsidies for alternative energy, and exclude tax and regulatory policies that explicitly make it more costly to explore for and develop fossil fuel sources. Instead, governmental obstacles to the private sector producing energy - from whatever the source - must be removed.
The choice really is quite simple in the U.S.: either open up areas like ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf for energy development and thereby help meet growing energy demands, or keep such areas off limits and assure that energy costs rise and economic growth declines.
_______
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council