Economic salvation from shale gas?

A lot of people believe economic salvation depends upon economic growth and some people believe that salvation will come as a result of shale gas.

It could be true.

However, in a previous reincarnation I was a charter member of the skeptics club.  A more likely scenario is that shale gas may give us a temporary reprieve.  There are environmental and economic concerns.

The environmental concerns relate to global warming and earthquakes.  Also the current availability of cheap shale gas is interfering with the development or renewable energies such as wind and solar.

The economic concern relates to marginal cost.  (Marginal cost is the cost of extracting the last unit sold.)  If shale gas is going to be our salvation, then the marginal cost of extracting it will have to decrease as more gas is taken.  If the marginal cost increases, then it will only slow down the rate of economic decline.

The exploitation of shale gas is the result of high oil prices and the development of new and expensive technology.  It takes a lot of energy to get it out of the ground.  Certainly the gas currently being extracted is the easiest and cheapest.  There is some probability that future extractions will be more difficult and expensive.

Another concern about the potential for a return to economic growth is what is happening to the marginal cost of other minerals and resources such as topsoil and copper.

Rather than seeking a return to economic growth we might be better off to adapt our lives and our economy to zero or negative growth.  For some ideas about how to do that please see my essay: LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic crisis.

Here are links to three articles on shale gas. One, two, three.

 

If you liked this post your are invited to comment, press the like button and/or click  one of the share buttons. If you disagree you are invited to say why in a comment.  While I like the idea of sharing this platform, my personality is such that I don’t reply to many comments.

Decision making and subsidies for bio fuels

In spite of low prices for shale gas there appear to be increasing concerns about energy availability.

We need energy to keep our bodies alive and we need energy to operate the machines upon which we depend. All energy comes from the sun and we use it in different forms for food and fuel.

The problem comes when the same form of energy can be used for both  as is the case with bio fuels such as corn and sugar.  Who is to decide the balance?

Some people concerned about fuel shortages have sought and been given subsides for bio fuels.

The chairman of Nestle, wanting people to buy more of his processed food products is complaining about the subsidies as they appear to be contributing to high food prices.

So long as the subsidies continue the balance is being determined by some politician and/or bureaucrat.

If there were no subsidies you and I would be making the decision in our shopping  decisions.

As we live a 45-minute drive from the store where we do most of our shopping our decisions would probably be different from yours. If all government subsidies for all products were to be dropped we would probably have to make some major lifestyle changes.

Even so, I repeat that subsidies should be given to consumers rather than producers.

 

If you liked this post your are invited to comment, press the like button and/or click  one of the share buttons. If you disagree you are invited to say why in a comment.  While I like the idea of sharing this platform, my personality is such that I don’t reply to many comments.

%d bloggers like this: