While they are neither mutually exclusive nor inseparable, the two serious threats currently facing the world are the prospects of energy and food shortages. Unfortunately, the old “Follow the Money” dictum shows how financial interests cloud thinking and possible solutions to mitigate the problems.
It is fair to say that those responsible for making critical decisions are completely insulated and protected from those negative situations, and have no skin in the game other than how much financial reward they can gain as quickly as possible.
The hypocrisy of the admonitory order “do as I say, not as I do” has gone far beyond ironic when every year there are headlines such as this. Forbes, November 5, 2021: “118 Private Jets Take Leaders To COP26 Climate Summit.”
The argument that this involves only a few people and only a few events is not acceptable either. Per capita, the richest 80 million people in the world—1.1 percent of the total population—account for 15 percent of total global emissions, more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity, which produces 7 percent.
But people have to travel, and to eat and what the rich eat also flash insincerity. At the state dinner hosted by President Barack Obama in 2011 honoring South Korea President Lee Myung-bak, the menu included “Masago Rice Pearl Crispies.” Masago Arare Rice Pearl sells for over $30 (P1,700) per kilo.
As of January 2020, estimates are that globally, 10 percent of the world—700 million people—is living on less than $2 a day. There is obviously nothing wrong with people who can afford to enjoy the finer things in life. Nonetheless, to be feasting while talking about food insecurity and widespread hunger is confusing.
The same contradictions happen with energy security and availability.
The greatest leap in human quality of life came in the 20th century with the availability of inexpensive energy through fossil fuels. In 1820, about 90 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty. That was reduced to 74 percent in 1910. But by 2015, only 10 percent live in extreme poverty globally and it is not a coincidence that this trend goes along with energy availability.
But since the mid-1950s fossil fuels have been increasingly demonized. The greatest fossil fuel “fraud” was in a 1956 paper by American geologist Marion King Hubbert—which has been treated as fact by many “ecologists”—predicting overall petroleum production would peak in the US between 1965 and 1970. In 1974, Hubbert projected that global oil production would peak in 1995. As of 2021, forecasts for the year of peak oil point to 2040.
Limited and finite resources are a fact. However, what the “peak oil” enthusiasts always forget to mention is that Hubbert wrote that nuclear energy would be able to sustain humanity for centuries. Earlier this month, US Treasury Secretary and former head of the Federal Reserve—and now energy expert—Janet Yellen spoke, “We will rid ourselves from our current dependence on fossil fuels. Instead, America would come to depend on the wind and the sun.”
Initially, we cannot simply walk away from this essential determinant of our future in a few decades, never mind years. Moreover, nuclear plants remain the safest way to make electricity and are among the most benign of all human activities.
Underinvestment in hydrocarbons and associated infrastructure is driven by political pressure and it is the less-developed economies that suffer the most. But “climate-change” cry some environmentalists. Deaths from severe weather declined by over 90 percent since 1920 because wealthier societies with abundant access to energy have become safer places to live.
A large majority of deaths caused by severe weather are concentrated in poorer nations blighted by energy poverty. We need to change that, but it will not come from windmills and solar panels.