American Automobile Fuel Consumption Debate


« Hernando de Soto: Poor People Need Formal Property Rights to Get Richer | Main | Race to the bottom »



So, I read the Schwartz/Randall scenario report. First thing first: The scenarios discussed here have very little to do with what we have generally started to call climate change. So this has not much to do with greenhouse gas emissions, nor should the implications of this report affect the debate on climate change as discussed in the context of greenhouse gas emissions.

What the scenario considers is the following:
In the past, it was observed that after an extended period of warming (such as one experienced by the earth in this past century), there have followed a rather abrupt, but lasting periods of cooling. In this report a scenario is painted where after a gradual warming until 2010, the climate cools suddenly in the next decade. As a result, the following three problems may arise:

* Food Shortages
* Water Shortages
* Materials and Energy shortages (the report says minerals)

The scenarios reveal that the U.S. will be relatively better placed than most of the world in such a case. However, they want point that several regional, continental or global fights may arise over access to these resources.

My take is as follows:
The scenarios are indeed plausible. Not only that, those might unfold even without abrupt climate change. The authors very cleverly allude to the carrying capacity of the earth. Whether you believe it or not, water is already a significant problem for much of the world. Energy resources are increasingly going to become a problem. We have done a little better on the food front.

So, it is not completely inconceivable to me that a scenario discussed in the report can not unfold over the next half a century without abrupt climate change (use of negatives in this sentence is really impressive ;-). The probability of that happening is small, but perhaps not smaller than the abrupt climate change discussed in the report.

Implications of this report are far reaching if taken seriously from the national security and defense point of view. In fact, the figure on page 3 in the executive summary is quite explicit. It emphasises tighter control over movement of people, preparedness for war at all times, and more importantly secure access and/or control over energy, and water resources.

douwe jan

it is totaly posibel that the green hous effect start a ice age. becouse of the ice is melting the hot water stream in the ocian stops. it haipend bevore in the ice age. i read it in a news paper today. and i made the conection whit the green hous effect i dont want to frees to dead. You? lets do someting about it


I haven't read the report, but it seems likely that our government should look forward to the future with a plan to deal it!

If we started now (using say $200 billion)to build windmill farms across the country, we could eliminate the need for oil to produce electricty nationwide. We might produce more than we need. That might drive the price for energy down worldwide. It might make war to obtain these energy sources unnecessary and therefore a more peaceful world.

Let's pray for the elections in Iraq to go better than expected.

The comments to this entry are closed.