Rocking the World

I strongly recommend that you read the article at The Atlantic on methane hydrate and how it might rock the economics and politics of the world, much as petroleum did when it supplanted coal in the 20th century. Here’s a sample of how high the stakes are:

If methane hydrate allows much of the world to switch from oil to gas, the conversion would undermine governments that depend on oil revenues, especially petro-autocracies like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Unless oil states are exceptionally well run, a gush of petroleum revenues can actually weaken their economies by crowding out other business. Worse, most oil nations are so corrupt that social scientists argue over whether there is an inherent bond—a “resource curse”—between big petroleum deposits and political malfeasance. It seems safe to say that few Americans would be upset if a plunge in demand eliminated these countries’ hold over the U.S. economy. But those same people might not relish the global instability—a belt of financial and political turmoil from Venezuela to Turkmenistan—that their collapse could well unleash.

On a broader level still, cheap, plentiful natural gas throws a wrench into efforts to combat climate change. Avoiding the worst effects of climate change, scientists increasingly believe, will require “a complete phase-out of carbon emissions … over 50 years,” in the words of one widely touted scientific estimate that appeared in January. A big, necessary step toward that goal is moving away from coal, still the second-most-important energy source worldwide. Natural gas burns so much cleaner than coal that converting power plants from coal to gas—a switch promoted by the deluge of gas from fracking—has already reduced U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions to their lowest levels since Newt Gingrich’s heyday.

Yet natural gas isn’t that clean; burning it produces carbon dioxide. Researchers view it as a temporary “bridge fuel,” something that can power nations while they make the transition away from oil and coal. But if societies do not take advantage of that bridge to enact anti-carbon policies, says Michael Levi, the director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations, natural gas could be “a bridge from the coal-fired past to the coal-fired future.”

Interesting times.

6 comments… add one
  • sam Link

    “Interesting times”

    I trust we all know the old Chinese curse.

    If methane hydrate exploitation is not approached with extreme caution, our “interesting times” might well involve Armagasdon. Well, your’s maybe. I’ll probably be dead by then.

  • Tom Strong Link

    Great article, but just the thought makes my head spin.

  • Red Barchetta Link

    Maybe I can become famous………..”the only things certain are death, taxes…..and change.”

    Does anyone really worry, after considering the trouble those petro-autocracies have caused, about this potential outcome? We will be fine, and their internal issues will come to roost.

  • Trumwill Mobile Link

    Given the amount of instability in a lot of countries woth powerful and demagogue leaders, will we be fine?

  • Cannons Call Link

    Natural gas will not be cheap. That is the issue. The decline curves are underestimated. Alot of money was thrown at these deals which now will need to be paid back. This is when the true cost will be found (hint: its closer to $7/$8 not $4, oh yeah, coal wins at $5 and above) Coal will make a comeback when electricity costs are double to triple in 2015 or so. All this hope about natural gas is a fantasy. There is plenty of it which is great but it wont come out of the ground cheaply.

  • Red Barchetta Link

    Cannons Call

    I share your view. We have discovered that natgas can be cheap what with fracking and all, and the reserves are ginormous. But tremendous resources have been poured in.

    50 years from now, when all the brou-hah-hah of current politics has been set aside, historians will look back at the Obama administration’s decisions on coal – and his supposed brilliant former “are you with me Dr Wu,” er, Choo, and ask “what the hell were they thinking?” I would milk natgas because of its lower carbon footprint for all its worth. But coal is the mother of all energy sources. And tell me again why we are at war or concerned about the Middle East when we have what amounts to practically infinate coal resources?

    If honesty wins out, the answer to my question will be “they weren’t,” they just wanted to tax something.

Leave a Comment