Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Global Energy Problems: Statistics
Global Energy Problems: Statistics
pictured a world of rivalry, protection- 2020, respectively). This is offset by most important and least certain in
ism and 'increasing international ten- the South, where the oil share rises their forecasts, the regional groups
sions'. from 28% in 1978 to 30-36% in 2000, came up with the following order of
Despite all these efforts, the study falling to 26-30% in 2020. By this frequency: coal supply and demand,
contains few surprises for anyone latter date the Third World is sup- trade deficits for energy importers,
familiar with global energy forecasts, posed to be using over a half of global energy demand levels, nuclear supply,
and many grounds for scepticsm. At oil production, with consumption non-commercial energy supply, level
the global level, the demand forecasts levels some three to five times higher of oil exports . . . The book gives no
are lower than before. Comparing the than now. One reason for this upsurge indication of how these issues were
three W E C forecasts for 2000, in is substitution on a massive scale for treated in the forecasts themselves.
chronological order, primary energy firewood and other bio-energy sources There are surely simpler routes to
demand/supply is 12.8, 12.9 and 11.8 which now sustain two billion people such obvious conclusions.
billion toe for the optimistic scenarios, with little ability to pay for substitutes: The other set of doubts concerns the
11.7, 11.8 and 10.1 for the gloomier Third World firewood consumption in basic forecasting methodology. De-
view. By 2020 the downturn is even 2020 is no higher than today's despite spite the variety of methods, the
more marked: 22.7, 20.1 and 18.0 a near doubling of population. Never- approach used for commercial energy
(optimistic), 19.0, 17.9 and 13.8 (pes- theless, thanks to heroic oil substitu- was to define primary consumption
simistic). Comparing Munich and New tion and conservation in the North, only in terms of G D P per capita and
Delhi, some 25% of this difference for global oil production in 2020 is held to an income elasticity. The latter was
2000 and 45% for 2020 derives from 3.0-4.2 billion toe under Scenarios 2 established on only two years of data -
lower population and GDP/capita and 1 respectively, compared to 3.0 1960 and 1978 - even though it is well
forecasts, the remainder being due to billion toe in 1978. known that there were sharp changes
lower energy/GDP intensities. both within this period and since. No
On the supply side, there is a allowance was made for energy prices,
resurgence of coal in the North (up
Statistics except indirectly through effects on
from a 28% share in 1978 to 38% in The bulk of the book contains a forest G D P growth. Non-commercial fuels
2020) but the share in the South of such statistics for each of the 10 were handled 'on an exogenous basis'
remains roughly static. A similar mis- regions, as well as global aggregates. - a polite phrase for 'guessed'. Energy
match affects nuclear power: in the Yet it takes little native scepticsm to forecasting may be a difficult game but
South its share hardly grows while in question sharply the value of all this surely the rules have advanced a little
the North it booms from 3% in 1978 to effort. One set of doubts concerns the beyond this in the past decade.
17-18% by 2020. These and lesser book's main conclusion, presented
movements in natural gas, hydropow- under the heading 'The essential re- Gerald Leach
er and 'new energies' produce a sharp gional questions', that in every impor- International Institute
decline of the oil share in the North tant respect the future is uncertain. for Environment and Development
(43%, 26% and 13% in 1978, 2000 and Asked to list the issues that were both London, UK
Osborn does not have the slightest
Global energy problems idea of what is going on in the real
world oil market - or at least he did
OPEC AND THE WORLD OIL and an intention to examine the more not at the time he published his paper
MARKET: 1973-1983 sophisticated propositions in the book 'Cartel problems'. ~ Furthermore, the
for 'slips', 'oversights' and misconcep- authors have also made a curious
by A. M. EI-Mokadem, D. Hawdon, C. tions. There are too many of these for mistake in their interpretation of this
Robinson and P.J. Stevens only 80 pages of text, which is the joint model. What they call 'cheat-cheat'
effort of four authors, all of whom are does not belong to the 'Pareto Set' of
Eastlords, London, 1984, 93 pp, £5.50 well known to serious energy econom- this game. In fact, this non-Pareto
ists. The other way, which is more efficient outcome is a unique Nash
LA CRISE DE L'ENERGIE: LE MAL, rewarding, is to sit in an easy chair or a Equilibrium. The reader will find a
LE REMI~DIE train seat, with a distinguished lack of detailed explanation of why this is so
concern for mathematical or theoretic- in my book, The Political Economy of
by Pierre Desprairies al niceties. Then the book is an Coal. 2 In addition, there is no proof
interesting and important contribution that the emergence of futures mar-
Editions Technip, Paris, 1982, 154 pp to the great debate on what is going to kets, together with reduced stock-
happen to the oil price. building will tend to result in more
There are two ways to approach the L e t us s t a r t with the w r o n g market instabilities, although I would
study by E I - M o k a d e m , H a w d o n , approach. Just why Dale Osborn's like to congratulate the authors for
Robinson and Stevens. The first, treatment of cartel problems attracted bringing up this issue. Ceteris paribus,
which is the wrong way, is to sit in a the attention of these authors is a as the average inventory level is de-
straight wooden chair, with a pad, pen m y s t e r y to me, b e c a u s e clearly creased, the market will become more