Michael Moore, peak oil and food
Here are two quick videos. First up every Neo-Con’s favourite documentary maker, Michael Moore, suggests to Larry King that the real danger from peak oil is not its impact on energy but its impact on food production.
Then this one on both food miles and the oil that goes into into growing food. Both videos are American but sadly entirely relevant here too.
Hat tip: Global Public Media and Oil Release
Bookmark to:
May 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I’d just like to get in the first ad-hominem attack on Moore - ‘he’s wearing a cap but he’s rich!’
Tricksey frog, making us think it was the OTHER Moore…
May 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
moore talks about ‘wasting 8 years under this (rightwing/bush) administration’..
kinda ironic eh that we have wasted 8 years..(and counting)..under a left/labour administration..
kinda ironic..and kinda depressing..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
phil u Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
> moore talks about ‘wasting 8 years under this (rightwing/bush) administration’..
> kinda ironic eh that we have wasted 8 years..(and counting)..under a left/labour administration..
> kinda ironic..and kinda depressing..
> eh..?
not ironic. Just depressing.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
So NZers shouldn’t export food then? You’re buying into this food miles snake oil that means that less efficient US farmers should gain business at the expense of more efficient NZ ones? You support the mammoth subsidies and protectionism to prop up these inefficient farmers in the US (and Europe and Japan).
Yes and Michael Moore, funny how this wealthy purveyor of what is little more than manufactured propaganda is some sort of pin up. He’s an entertainer at best, nothing very in depth about this man at all.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:26 am
New Zealanders should export food that it can grow, transport, process, and distribute more efficiently overall than our export markets can- before taking subsidies into account on either end, and counting externalities like pollution, ecosystem disruption, soil degradation, and public health consequences. Food miles are part of the equation of food’s overall carbon footprint. I also think food miles are somewhat important for produce that doesn’t preserve well- tomatoes are pointed out as a very good example in that second video.
I think that there’s space for some mildly inefficient local production of some foods, just to ensure that we’re not overly reliant on our long-range transport infrastructure. We should add some independence to our interdependence.
On the topic of food- will we see some posts on Green vegetarianism leading up to the election, Frog? I noticed that the efficiency of vegetarianism has been one of the issues recently in some of the party stuff I’ve been recieving.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:56 am
The problem with food miles is that it ignores the drastic differences in energy intensity for different freight modes and therefore how far goods can be moved for the same amount of carbon emitted. A simple example is a tonne of potatoes. The carbon emitted by a farmer’s pick-up travelling 10 miles to a farmer’s market is equal to moving one tonne of potatoes (as part of an average load) approximately:
Pick-up to farmer’s market - 10 miles
Average truck without trailer - 40 miles
Average truck/trailer combo - 150 miles
Train or barge - 650 miles
Container ship - 2,500 miles
Source of energy intensities:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/0/2/Michaelowa2c20Krause20(2000).p df
With our current distribution systems there is a very good chance that a tonne of potatoes actually does travel these sorts of miles on each of these types of vehicles/vessels to get from farm to home.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:27 am
That’s right Kevyn.
It so happens that Tescos in the UK is doing the overall carbon footprint from the *whole* supply chain, somehow. Difficult, but much more effective than the ‘miles’ argument, which hopefully most people know is barely useful at all.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Time after time Moore has been proven to be a liar yet so many still hang of his every word.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Now, come on BB, you’re falling back into your old ways of making broad brush assertions without providing any evidence. How many instances can you cite that MM has “been proven to be a liar” and what is the evidence that proves this?
May 9th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Lets assume oil is “running out”.
Roughly what % of total oil consumption is taken up by cars? The construction of, and the running of?
May 9th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I trust you’re keeping in mind that no one actually thinks the world is going to run out of oil, it’ll just get to the point where it is un-economical. Role in agriculture important too. And plastics(made from waste though?)
May 9th, 2008 at 9:04 am
StephenR
Yes. Extraction limited by whatever means, resulting in a decrease in supply.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:12 am
toad
Yep…I really should provide some evidence, have a gander at this then…mind you I imagine it will be written off as the ranting of a “neo con”
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/#
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
http://www.moorewatch.com/
May 9th, 2008 at 9:16 am
This is something of a distraction, but didn’t he write his own rebuttals too? Who cares, all that matters here is whether, as he suggested, the ‘real danger from peak oil is not its impact on energy but its impact on food production.’
May 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Because Moores point is that we’ll solve the transport and energy needs with alternatives.
If that happens, then that reduces demand for oil, driving down the price, and extending the lifetime of the reserves, assuming these reserves are actually limited according to Peak Oil thory.
So, with transport and energy taken out of the loop, the lifetime of reserves would be significantly extended, ergo we’d still be able to fly planes and make eye glasses?
May 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Fair enough, BB - I have read Dude, Where’s My Country and Stupid White Men and I do accept that MM’s not always accurate - whether he is deliberately inaccurate is a matter of opinion. I don’t know enough to say one way or another.
Unlike one Richard B Cheney, I might add, who there is no doubt deliberately told porkies to Congress to get support for the Iraq war.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
BP - I see that you’re up to the same old red herrings. Peak Oil is not a theory, it is a geological fact. What is theory is when it may happen on a global scale, not if. We will never run out of oil. Ever. It is the energy return on energy invested that is about to peak or may be peaking now, and it is this EROI that will decline until the point is reached that we can’t be bothered trying to pump any more of the stuff. This will still leave significant quantities in the ground. Peak Oil is not the end of oil. It’s the end of cheap oil.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Frogger,
Peak Oil *is* a theory. However, if you read my argument, I’m assuming Peak Oil to be true.
Would you care to address my actual point? i.e. what percentage of oil is currently consumed by passenger vehicle transport and energy?
May 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
BluePeter Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
> Because Moores point is that we’ll solve the transport and energy needs with alternatives.
> If that happens, then that reduces demand for oil, driving down the price, and extending the lifetime of the reserves, assuming these reserves are actually limited according to Peak Oil thory.
Only if the price of the alternatives is low enough. It can only drive it down to parity with the price of the alternatives, or to the actual cost of oil extraction, whichever is higher. And bear in mind that the actual cost of extraction is rising all the time, due to the exhausting of the more accessible reserves.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:00 am
The price of the alternative appears to be lower now? For example, teslamotors.com uses 2 cents per mile, running on electricity.
I guess we’d need to compare total cost of electricity infrastructure and delivery mechanisms vs fuel, but if it does hold true that electricity is a as cheap or cheaper source overall, and if vehicle transport and energy were taken out of the loop, then we may not have an oil scarcity issue, as significant demand would fall away….
This is why I’m asking what percentage of oil stocks do cars and energy use now.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:05 am
kahikatea,
What BluePeter is saying is that you don’t need to completely replace oil usage in order for the price to fall, but merely to supplement it. If demand falls as energy use diversifies, with current production levels then the price per barrel will drop.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Yah….
May 9th, 2008 at 11:15 am
frog,
Oil consumption will HAVE to fall if prices continues to rise and it WILL if the global credit cruch continues and consumers are not able to afford their current energy consumption.
The only way it will continue to rise is if Western governments subsidise energy consumption as nations do in the Gulf States, Asia, and Latin America and if the financial markets can convince U.S. consumers to go back into debt to utilise the recycled money from the Gulf States and China thats flowing through the world’s financial system.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am
As an addendum
Research has found that people are willing to absorb extra costs as long it doesn’t reach a certain threshold, most commonly a certain proportion or if price increases begin to exceed rises in incomes, before they change their failure, so a mere 8 cent tax on petrol will be fail to make any meaningful difference to carbon emissions and will just prove very unpopular with the voting public across the board, because it will just make them poorer for no benefit at all.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I meant
…most commonly a certain proportion of income or if price increases begin to exceed rises in incomes, before they change their behaviour…
May 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“New Zealanders should export food that it can grow, transport, process, and distribute more efficiently overall than our export markets can- before taking subsidies into account on either end, and counting externalities like pollution, ecosystem disruption, soil degradation, and public health consequences. Food miles are part of the equation of food’s overall carbon footprint.”
AND how the hell are the average exporters meant to know anything about this once it is outside their control? Ah I bet it is governments, and there is no incentive at all for a protectionist US or EU administration to use this as a ruse to shut us out - no never.
Food miles is a ruse for protectionism, it is spreading like wildfire through environmentalists worldwide, and you’re just promoting it more here. As with a lot of the armageddon laden environmental movement, all that matters to most is people understand a message - the message is anti-trade and I know, as the Green Party wrote to its UK counterpart on this, that the Greens know this is potentially devastating to the NZ economy.
Make no bones about it, if most food consumers in the world adopt this fad the NZ economy will be devastated.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Economists Rethink Free Trade
It’s no wholesale repudiation, to be sure, but something momentous is happening as doubts begin to creep in
by Jane Sasseen
But something momentous is happening inside the church of free trade: Doubts are creeping in. We’re not talking wholesale, dramatic repudiation of the theory. Economists are, however, noting that their ideas can’t explain the disturbing stagnation in income that much of the middle class is experiencing.
/ /
Yet concern is rising that the gains from free trade may increasingly be going to a small group at the top. For the vast majority of Americans, Dartmouth’s Slaughter points out, income growth has all but disappeared in recent years. And it’s not just the low-skilled who are getting slammed. Inflation-adjusted earnings have fallen in every educational category other than the 4% who hold doctorates or professional degrees. Such numbers, Slaughter argues, suggest the share of Americans who aren’t included in the gains from trade may be very big. “[That’s] a very important change from earlier generations, and it should give pause to people who say they know what’s going on,” he says.
/ /
In an interview with the Financial Times late last year, Hillary Clinton agreed with economist Paul A. Samuelson’s argument that traditional notions of comparative advantage may no longer apply.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_06/b4070032762393.htm? campaign_id=rss_null
———————–
and when we have a trade deficit or the housing market slumps we encourage immigration from anywhere and everywhere: property developers make the money; we pay for light rail etc,etc.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Has anyone taken into consideration that the Oil cartels may be getting the world into a softened up state where they will be ready to let them get into the oil in Antartica?
The world’s money keeps being sucked in by fewer & fewer big companies.
Stopping userous profits might be more to the point but don’t ask me how.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Kelpie I wouldn’t be suprised if Antartica does end up getting drilled for oil in the near future.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
From the Telegraph:
A new report by UBS says the scramble for scarce raw materials is turning ever more political, with ominous implications for ill-endowed societies that rely on imports.
“The bottom line is that countries with resources, particularly in food and energy are becoming more protective of these resources,” it said.
Nationalist policies are making the crisis worse. Governments are blocking foreign investments in sensitive sectors, imposing arbitary taxes, or meddling in details.
So we have some limited oil resources, and what are we doing? Continuing to export all we can.
Perhaps we should be thinking the unthinkable, and look a bit further than the next election…
May 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
You’re saying we shouldn’t be exporting our 9 and a half barrels a day of oil?
May 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Well, not all of them, anyway