We may eventually be grateful to OPEC for doing nothing to reduce fuel costs, and to the tree huggers who are making us aware of the true cost of polluting our environment.

(editor’s note – I would just remind everyone that the power to charge these vehicles and their batteries has to come from somewhere.  More and more EVs means more pressure on the grid.  We need more power generation now, both to replace older generation plants with more efficient newer ones as well as to add extra capacity.  That means wind, that means solar, that means nuclear, that means clean coal.)

One of the claims in the Pickens Plan is that the world reached peak oil production in 2005. On its surface, this statement is more or less correct. According to the BP Statistical Review (pdf file), global oil production in 2005 was 81.255 million barrels per day (mbd), 81.659 mbd in 2006 and 81.533 mbd in 2007; and, according to Energy Information Administration data (Excel file), the numbers were 84.63 mbd in 2005, 84.60 mbd in 2006 and 84.52 mbd in 2007, with an estimate based on first quarter numbers of 85.64 in 2008.

The question, though, to me is this: Is this a peak of oil production, or is it a plateau? I suspect the latter. There is plenty of oil supply in the world, but there are many reasons for suppliers to hold down production. Some nations will under-produce in order to keep the prices high and maximize profits. The United States, which is the 3rd largest oil producer in the world, limits production and exploration for domestic political reasons. Iraq under-produces due to years of mismanagement and violence.

So, what we are experiencing is more likely a peak, or a plateau, in production, but not in supply. This is an important distinction. “Peak Oil” theorists have been predicting an imminent peak, and consequent decline, in oil stocks for nearly 40 years. When oil supply peaks, the theory goes, so, too, will the industrial economy that it feeds. The Peak Oil concept has attracted increasing interest over the years, and even more so recently as prices of both crude oil and its refined products have risen dramatically. So, using the term “peak production” is probably a poor choice of words, as it is easily confused with “peak supply,” and feeds into the doomsday fantasies of the Peak Oil crowd. Personally, I think that “Peak Oil” is functionally bunk. The world will run out of oil someday, and will therefore reach a peak someday, but it will not happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this post, nor, probably, in the lifetime of any of their children. When you include non-traditional stocks, the fact of the matter is that the world is absolutely awash in oil.

The answer to the current plateau in production is to build more capacity into the system. Drilling into known reserves would help. Increasing exploration would help. Bringing stability to Iraq and, finally, fully exploring that oil-rich nation would help immensely. It is all a matter of will.

There are two broad themes that this blog is going to deal with: Climate and Energy. In discussing those themes, the basic philosophical foundation is what I am going to call “technological positivism.” By that, I mean a working assumption that the solution to the crises of climate change and rising demand for energy (and the consequent upward spiral in energy prices) can be found, relatively quickly, in technological innovation. Regarding energy, that means taking the affirmative steps to maximize the immense energy sources that we know are available right now. Regarding climate, that means exploring and endorsing the various geo-engineering solutions to climate change.

Now, among many of the post-structuralist bent, the word “positivism” is a pejorative – and doubly so for a combination of technology and positivism – but there are few real solutions to these crises likely to come from that crowd. Climate change, to the degree that it is anthropogenically created, is a product of our technology. A technological problem should have a technological solution, not a sociological one; a re-ordering of technologies rather than a radical re-ordering of societal priorities

Essentially, it is our belief that what we face is not an energy crisis, not a climate crisis, but rather a crisis of the will. We have the ability within our grasp to relieve pressure on both the climate and the energy fronts, if only we will find within ourselves the will to do so.