OPEC joins Bush, Gingrich, and Lomborg in climate technology strategy

Research vs. cap-and-trade

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 12:18 AM on 20 Nov 2007

Yes, OPEC is now "pledging $750 million for research into climate change technology" (while opposing a cap-and-trade system).

[Note to President Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Bjørn Lomborg -- it ain't a good sign when your climate strategy is the same as OPEC's.]

OPEC, however, seems a tad confused on just what a technology-based strategy could do for oil:

OPEC is worried that a new international accord could cramp fast-growing Middle East economies, where oil use is rising more than 4 percent a year. And the oil cartel is concerned that a broader cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions could place heavy costs of petroleum products and reduce consumption.

While declaring its opposition to such plans, OPEC said it took climate change seriously. Saudi Arabia pledged $300 million for research, citing the potential for carbon capture-and-storage [CCS] technology. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar each promised to give $150 million.

Well, CCS might save coal, since coal is used at large-scale power plants, where separation, capture, and storage is at least plausible. But most oil is used in small, mobile platforms (cars, trucks, planes) where separation, capture, and storage of carbon dioxide is wildly implausible. So I seriously doubt whether $750 million in research, or even ten times that, could avoid the need for a dramatically reduced consumption of fossil-based oil in a carbon-constrained world.

[Note to Reuters: Given OPEC's Bush/Gingrich-esque opposition to a central part of the solution -- a cap-and-trade system -- you really need a better headline for this story than "OPEC summit to Back Climate Change Fight."]

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: OPEC joins Bush, Gingrich, and Lomborg in climate technology strategy
11 Comments | Post a Comment

OPEC's CCS

Carbon capture would not have to be where it is emitted: OPEC people are probably thinking about putting "back" the CO2/carbon into the depleted oil fields - you still take it out of the atmosphere (capture) and store it, and you could offer to do so if a trading system were enacted... And as long as it isn't (widely) enacted, you can still say you are doing something.
Are "greens" who only buy offsets but don't change their way of life not doing basically the same thing?

Dr. Gerald Schmidt Positive Ecology Project www.positive-ecology.org

by GSchmidt at 3:38 AM on 20 Nov 2007

Gerald - follow the carbon

Sticking CO2 in the ground so that you can accelerate the recovery of fossil fuels that you can subsequently burn to emit more carbon into the atmosphere isn't a carbon mitigation strategy any more than sticking quarters in a slot machine is an investment strategy.

I guess if you're really putting it in depleted oil fields that's another story, but I'd want to watch that pretty carefully before giving it too much credit.

by Sean Casten at 7:43 AM on 20 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

Good point, Joeseph

If they had a clue (and I don't think they do) they would not fund carbon capture from coal plants. They are probably hoping to find a way to pull CO2 out of the air in an attempt to stop the pursuit of higher transport energy efficiency. It will be a colossal waste of funds that could go into research for renewable technologies and efficiency gains.

I suspect that CO2 is too diffuse to capture in quantities that could be used to pressurize old wells unless captured at point of combustion like in a coal plant. Maybe they plan to start importing coal.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 7:48 AM on 20 Nov 2007

Trust OPEC

What is good for Saudi Arabia is good for america.

The same theory behind the Iraq war. And look how well that is working out. Only 1.5 trillion so far and Iraq is a showplace for freedom and "free" market gas guzzling.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:49 AM on 20 Nov 2007

If research were the key

If research were the key

Then we'd need a hell of a lot more than this.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png

Especially if it were placed in something BESIDES Coal, Nuclear, BioFuels, and Hydrogen.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 8:29 AM on 20 Nov 2007

Saudi Arabia is the sunniest country on Earth

They could use solar desalination to make Arabia a green oasis paradise with a river running under it, and export such technology to the poor around the world.

by sunflower at 8:39 AM on 20 Nov 2007

What about the congressional candidates?

I'm so glad to see that Grist's forum put climate change on the presidential forum. I don't see any such effort focused on the congressionals. I ran against a 14 year anti-environment incumbent Republican, Joe Knollenberg, last November and almost beat him 47-51% after being outspent 7 to 1. My signature issue was global warming and I live smack dab in the home of the auto industry. Robert Kennedy Jr. did my first ad endorsing me for my leadership on global warming. Watch it on YouTube.linked text Now the DCCC has recruited a candidate to run against me in this cycle who will be much more in the Dingell camp on energy issues I'm sure.

Is there any effort among those of us who want immediate congressional action after the election to get behind the candidates who will run with the ball? See my most recent blog post at www.skinnerforcongress.com on the lack of leadership right now on this issue. I'd be very open to hearing how we can rally the troops behind the "Climate Candidates" and see some progress come November.

Thanks

Nancy Skinner
Democratic Candidate MI-09

PS - Joe Rhomm will know me from my work years ago to rebuild two Midwestern flood stricken-towns as models of sustainable development with DOE good guy Bill Becker.

by Nancy Skinner at 9:51 AM on 20 Nov 2007

OPEC fears warm weather

OPEC and the rest of the Old Guard fear warming temperatures.

Warm weather == less oil use.

They will probably embark on some insane Edward Teller-esque scheme to "cool" the Earth.

This will insure that we all continue to keep paying heating bills.

by jabailo at 12:27 PM on 20 Nov 2007

OPEC wants cheap oil

According to my understanding, and with the exception of Venezuela and Iraq, OPEC is deeply concerned about rising crude oil costs on the market. Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade would only make it more expensive.

Yes, when oil was $10 pbbl they were very concerned because that did not allow for infrastructure development. No, $100 USD oil doesn't make them more money and is quite a pain to deal with.

Selling less oil, such as a 43% reduction over 43 years so as to achieve climate change goals freaks them out. It has nothing to do with magic technology other than they're showing some good faith efforts. Where to folks read otherwise?

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 8:26 PM on 20 Nov 2007

oil price

No, $100 USD oil doesn't make them more money and is quite a pain to deal with.

What makes you say this? By all reports, they are rolling in (even more) money these days.

There was a period of time when they were very worried about controlling the price, for two reasons:

The received wisdom was that oil over $40-50/bbl would crash the world economy.
They wanted to maintain control over the oil markets for political reasons.

Now they seem to believe that #1 isn't true. #2 is still presumably a concern for them, but it's not clear that they (in this case, Saudi specifically) have enough production to maintain that degree of control. IF they do, they haven't demonstrated it.

by GreenEngineer at 10:07 AM on 21 Nov 2007

The shrinking dollar

I guess my point is because the dollar is traded so low compared to other foreign currencies, it is worth less to them. If paid in Euros (currently 1.47 USD:1.00 EU) they'd get a lot more, which is why OPEC plans to study a "mixed basket" of currencies that doesn't depend on the shrinking dollar.

However, I'm not a foreign currency expert to know what the real impact of this is. All I can say is that China and OPEC are puling money out of the US treasury because it is losing value so fast.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 10:36 AM on 21 Nov 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.