Expectation, projections, contradictions.
Sometimes things just do not go as everyone expects them to go or as they have been projected to go.
In this issue there are again a few examples for this, in different forms, in different places.
So there is Latin America that is not only ever more taking its resources back into its own hands, but is now also
withdrawing from institutes as the Worldbank and the IMF and organising their own financial institute to support
their development. The reasoning that is being given is that the mentioned institutes are seen to be instruments of
the big industries and powers that have created havoc in their economies and actually were instrumental in keeping
the population poor, or making them even poorer, whilst pulling huge profits from the resources they extracted from
the different countries.
Seen within the bigger context of the developments around these institutes also in other places it is very
interesting and worth keeping an eye on.
Then there are the biofuels; the big hope for replacing the hydrocarbon fuels in the future, reducing dependence on
“foreign” sources and also reducing emissions in an attempt to reduce the impact of our non-sustainable
way of living.
However, after the discovery that huge areas of prime rainforest were being cut down to plant monocultures of
palm-oil trees, it is now ever more becoming clear that most biofuels-crops demand more, or far more, energy, than
ever can be saved by or gotten out of the biofuels. The Energy Returned on Energy Invested is in most cases simply
negative. And when then the excessive amounts of water needed to grow these crops are taking into account, as well as
the erosion, the replacement of food-crops by fuel-crops and the subsequent effects this has, we are looking at a
picture which in many cases is even worse than having hydrocarbon fuels. But these are the ones we want to get away
from, or reduce our dependence from. So it seems we have a slight dilemma here.
But then we may rejoice, for in Asia some huge oil and gas fields have been discovered, with several billions of barrels oil and very substantial quantities of gas and the promise for more. But then there is some sobering consideration here as well: A field with “proven” reserves of 10 billion barrel gives, with extraction-figures of about 20 – 30 %, a quantity of 2 – 3 billion barrel, still very substantial. When we then look at the current global usage of 87 million barrel per day, meaning one billion barrel of oil every 11,5 day, we look at the fact that even such a huge field of 10 billion barrel, can only “help out” for a period of one month of global usage, if and when it has come on stream.
At the same time world-leaders are gathering and bickering about reducing emissions, whether “voluntarily” or not, but we also see all statistics and projections telling us that energy-consumptions will rise very substantially in the future and oil-demand may be rising to 20, 30 or even 50 % over the current level. This seems somehow contradictory, and it is.
By the politicians and the controlled media, we are being lulled in the belief that something is being done to save our future. And something is being done, but whether, looking at the bigger picture and the reality of the situation, it is actually helpful, may be questioned.
As Einstein once said: “You can”t solve a problem from the mindset that has created it.”
It may seem that we need to look at the mindset that has created our problem, to see what needs to change there,
before we can come to any substantial, long-term reality-based solution.
But changing a mind-set or a way of thinking may prove to be much more challenging than changing a technology,
especially because it can only start with each individual looking at themselves.
Enjoy the reading,
Alexander
