Printer Friendly

Don't worry, be profitable.

Editor's note: World Watch's Peak Oil Forum (January/February 2006) generated the strongest reaction from readers since we published "A Challenge to Conservationists" in late 2004. As with that article, passions ran high, as you'll see from the sample of letters printed on the following pages. Many correspondents objected strongly to Vaclav Smil's views, so we have grouped them at the end and included his response.

Worldwatch has performed an important service with its Peak Oil Forum, as with its splendid Renewables 2005: Global Status Report. Yet two key meta-observations about peak oil are missing.

First, nobody can know who's right. The reserves data are a mess, many are sketchy or secret, and 94 percent of reserves belong to governments, which have every incentive to lie about what they have.

Second, it doesn't matter who's right, because we should do the same things anyway just to save money, no matter whether oil is scarce or abundant. For example, Winning the Oil Endgame (free at www.oilendgame.com) provides an independent, peer-reviewed, detailed, transparent, and uncontested roadmap for eliminating U.S. oil use by the 2040s, led by business for profit. This Pentagon-cosponsored study shows that half of U.S. oil use can be saved by efficient use and the rest substituted by saved natural gas and advanced biofuels, at respective average costs (in 2000 dollars) of $12/barrel and $18/barrel. Thus, reducing U.S. oil use to zero will cost (as of 2025, partway through the transition) $70 billion a year less than buying the officially forecast $26/barrel oil, even if all its externalities were zero. Early stages of implementation are showing much promise.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Despite my respect for experts on both sides of the peak-oil debate, both these reasons suggest that it's not a problem meriting much attention. Let's focus instead on implementing the practical solutions that make sense and make money regardless. If we get off oil earlier than we turned out to need to, the worst that can happen is that we'll make more profit sooner.

AMORY B. LOVINS

Rocky Mountain Institute

Snowmass, Colorado, U.S.A.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Worldwatch Institute
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:FROM READERS
Author:Lovins, Amory B.
Publication:World Watch
Article Type:Letter to the editor
Date:May 1, 2006
Words:353
Previous Article:Michael Renner: reconciliation from destruction in Aceh.
Next Article:State of action.


Related Articles
How to write better upgrade letters.
WORDS TO STRIVE BY: Don't worry, make money.
"Because I say so.".
E-mail inspiring a 'Sun' revolution.
Many fight a lonely battle: let's keep real voices, original writing, and unique perspectives in our letters.
Letters. We like letters.
Letters. We like letters.
Letters. We like letters.
What NCEW members said about Jeff Jarvis.
Becoming old-fashioned: bringing readers inside the opinions: an editorial writer interviews himself.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters