Denning writes about energy for Bloomberg
Opinion in New York. This column
doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinion
of Bloomberg LP and its owners.“greenwashing.” The point is that they’ve
acknowledged that man-made carbon
emissions cause climate change. That
particular cat won’t go back in the bag.
It’s also easy to dismiss Pope
Francis’ recent convening of oil bosses
in the Vatican as political theater. But as
Kevin Book of Washington-based
ClearView Energy Partners says, the
church epitomizes conservatism and
tradition: “The activists are already
persuaded about climate change, and
now the Vatican is, too.” In a pleasing
irony, the pope pushed the case for
climate science in the same building
where Galileo was tried by the church
for his own bit of scientific insight.
Even in the U.S., where discussion
of climate policy so often regresses into
theological positions of “believing”
or “disbelieving” scientific consensus,
there are signs of a shift. Polls show
rising concern about the dangers
of climate change, particularly among
younger voters. The Green New Deal may
be a mere scrap of a proposal, but it’s
nonetheless dragged the politics of
climate left. There’s no chance anything
like the #GND will be enacted into law
while Kentucky Republican Mitch
McConnell runs the Senate. But
Democratic presidential primary
candidates now speak openly about
scrapping the filibuster precisely to push
through legislation on issues such as
climate change. If the past few years have
taught us anything, it’s that while nothing
is a given, nothing is fixed, either.
The same applies to the seas on
which fossil fuels are shipped across the
world. In June, Trump unleashed a
tweeted torpedo at the Carter Doctrine
when he questioned the U.S. Navy’s role
in ensuring freedom of navigation,
especially for oil tankers.
Homo hydrocarbon is largely a
product of the American-led free-trading
era after 1945. Absent the U.S. Navy
policing sea lanes, it’s debatable whether
oil-importing countries would have
allowed themselves to rely on barrels
shipped from the Middle East and other
hot spots. Yellin’s supertanker is a
product of this: a bulk-storage
technology adopted after the 1956 Suez
Crisis, making it economical to ship oil on
longer routes avoiding such chokepoints.
Yet these lumbering leviathans wouldn’t
have been feasible without the implicit
protection of American sea power.Today, with its shale-inspired sense
of energy dominance, the U.S. is rethinking
this. China’s planners have taken notice of
the potential change: It’s one rationale for
Beijing’s pro-electric-vehicle industrial
policy. Likewise, faced with the upheaval
of the Arab Spring and collapse of
Venezuela, oil producers such as Saudi
Arabia are trying to remake themselves for
a world where oil’s primacy and U.S.
backing aren’t guaranteed.
Like the shadow that The Bridge
may cast one day, darkness is gathering
on the hydrocarbon horizon. There
will always be those who doubt climate
change, but their platform is literally
burning. Even many fossil fuel producers
have leapt to politically safer ground. The
end of the dominance of hydrocarbons
begins with the end of innocence about
their hidden costs. The implications of
this knowledge will only grow.
Hydrocarbons achieved their
preeminence on the back of one
overriding imperative: growth. Growth in
wealth, living standards, and population.
This is how the 20th century world was
made, and it’s why we fretted about
energy running out. It’s also why we
could ignore the environmental and
political costs of an energy system that
wastes two-thirds of its input as heat.
Now we know that such growth,
unchecked, will ultimately undo us.
A central argument for fossil fuels’
continued dominance is that humanity
will surpass 10 billion at some point, and
all those people will want something like
the Western living standards built over
the past 100 years on the back of coal,
gas, and oil. Yet what a poverty of
imagination this betrays, especially in
light of climate change, which hits the
poorest hardest. How can that be
the pinnacle of civilization? What even
constitutes “higher living standards” in
a world where the costs of our existing
technologies are so transparent? Far
from securing hydrocarbon dominance
for another 100 years, the needs
and aspirations of future generations
demand it give way to something
more sustainable.Loss of Influence
Weighting of the energy sector in the S&P 500, monthly
6/
16.2%1/1990 6/010515%VOLUME 28 / ISSUE 4 17