Peak oil has either passed or will occur any day now. Informed ecological professionals warn us that fossil fuels must be left in the ground. Where will the money come from to enable airlines to pay for their new aircraft? Where will the money come from to pay for airport expansion? Who is paying for dirty coal extraction and fracking? The answer is taxpayers! In a half an hour I was able to find reliable evidence at the incredible amount of worldwide government subsidies that underpin economic expansion. How can the expanding volume of CO2 and other GHGs be lowered if the obvious coalition of government policy and corporate profit objectives continue?
View references below: Note, increases in commercial aircraft, airports, coal fired power, oil extraction and extensive subsidies.
Airlines Add Capacity Strategically As Demand For Air Travel Soars
Trefis Team Trefis Team , Contributor 8/26/2014
Boeing’s profits surge as commercial aircraft sales increase
22 Apr 2015
“The world now consumes 85 million barrels of oil per day, or 40,000 gallons per second, and demand is growing exponentially.”
“Economic life is ultimately determined by the ability of an aircraft to generate profits for the airlines that operate it both in absolute terms and also relative to alternative aircraft types that might be available as competitors at the outset or introduced later in its life. As a broad rule of thumb, current generation 100+ seat commercial jets will have an economic life of around 25 years, although plenty will still be in commercial service beyond 30 years and life extension through cargo conversion is also possible for some aircraft.”
“In reality, some industries consistently achieve excess returns (ROIC [ return on invested capital > WACC) [,weighted average cost of capital] often due to structural or regulatory factors. In any regulated industry, entry – and exit – are typically distorted in some way. The airline sector achieves one of the lowest levels of ROIC of any industry and is one of the few that consistently fails to meet its WACC.”
“According to IATA’s Jun-2013 report “’Profitability and the air transport value chain’”
“the airline industry generated an average return on invested capital (ROIC) of 4.1% in the 2004 to 2011 business cycle, a very small improvement on the 3.8% achieved in the 1996 to 2004 cycle. This remains well below the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which falls in a range of 7% to 9%.”
“The airline sector achieves one of the lowest levels of ROIC of any industry and is one of the few that consistently fails to meet its WACC.”
“The failure to generate economic returns (i.e. where ROIC > WACC) reflects problems both with the airline industry supply chain and the structure of the industry. Every other element in the supply chain generates higher returns than airlines themselves, in some cases significantly higher.”
“A central argument of some U.S. airlines seeking government protection from foreign competition is that the Persian Gulf States have been inappropriately and unfairly helping the Gulf carriers become established with financial aid. What this report shines a bright light on is the simple fact that government assistance has long been provided on a very large scale to airlines around the world, including in the U.S.,” stated BTC [Business Travel Coalition] Chairman Kevin Mitchell.”
“In addition to federal subsidies, U.S. airlines also benefit from state subsidies. Unite Here, a union affiliated with the AFL-CIO, issued a report last month claiming that U.S. airlines receive state subsidies that it says amount to $1 billion a year.”
“It is time to ensure U.S. airlines and their workers are operating on a level playing field with their state-funded competitors in the Middle East. U.S. airlines shouldn’t have to compete with the treasuries of foreign governments who offer their state-owned carriers blank checks.”
“The petition, presented to the Parliament Petitions Committee chair Cecilia Wikström and Green MEP Keith Taylor, calls for an end to the absurd situation where European governments miss out on €40 billion every year because commercial airlines pay no tax on fuel and are exempt from VAT.”
Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF
‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments”
“A typical early fracture took 750 gallons of fluid (water, gelled crude oil, or gelled kerosene) and 400 lbm of sand. By contrast, modern methods can use up to 8 million gallons of water and 75,000 to 320,000 pounds of sand. Fracking fluids can take the form of foams, gels, or slickwater combinations and often include benzene, hydrochloric acid, friction reducers, guar gum, biocides, and diesel fuel. Likewise, the hydraulic horsepower (hhp) needed to pump fracking material has risen from an average of about 75 hhp in the early days to an average of more than 1,500 hhp today, with big jobs requiring more than 10,000 hhp.”
“Those concerns (environmental) were aggravated in 2005 when fracking was specifically exempted from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.”
Here is a good place to become informed as to the harmful effects already present from fracking.
“Many tribe members believe the coal ash has caused asthma attacks, cancer, heart disease and even some premature deaths among the 200 residents living here. They’ve noticed these illnesses since the 1980s, and can’t point to an exact number of deaths linked to the plant. But Vicki Simmons, who sits on the tribe’s environmental committee, said it includes her brother.”
New Scientist 13 February, 2014
Setting fire to coal underground could answer our energy prayers, or start an environmental disaster on a bigger scale than ever before
Surely they wouldn’t do this, or would they?
Ethanol industry is back in the black after some rough years. Boom times are back in the ethanol business. Major producers of the corn-based fuel are reporting record returns for the fourth quarter thanks to dramatically lower corn prices, increasing demand for motor fuel and strong ethanol exports. Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minnesota
I’ve suspected this all along. Fracking, polluting precious ground water and ethanol production, feeding vehicles instead of people, is not about lower prices for the consumer and a better life for US citizens. No, it is about exports and one of the factors in the 1% which is now .8% and rising.
Why should a corn farmer be concerned about nutrition and soil conservation with poisons readily available and corn prices high enough to afford them, when the crop will be used to feed cars? Wrecking the soil, which is an asset of the people, is ecocide and an insult to our grandchildren.
By Michael T. Klare
This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/world-energy-report-2012-1354118005. All rights are reserved.
No Hope for Averting Catastrophic Climate Change
“Of all the findings in the 2012 edition of the World Energy Outlook, the one that merits the greatest international attention is the one that received the least. Even if governments take vigorous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, the continuing increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in “a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C.”
This should stop everyone in their tracks. Most scientists believe that an increase of 2 degrees Celsius is about all the planet can accommodate without unimaginably catastrophic consequences: sea-level increases that will wipe out many coastal cities, persistent droughts that will destroy farmland on which hundreds of millions of people depend for their survival, the collapse of vital ecosystems, and far more. An increase of 3.6 degrees C essentially suggests the end of human civilization as we know it.
To put this in context, human activity has already warmed the planet by about 0.8 degrees C — enough to produce severe droughts around the world, trigger or intensify intense storms like Hurricane Sandy, and drastically reduce the Arctic ice cap. “Given those impacts,” writes noted environmental author and activist Bill McKibben, “many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target.” Among those cited by McKibben is Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes. “Any number much above one degree involves a gamble,” Emanuel writes, “and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up.” Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank’s chief biodiversity adviser, puts it this way: “If we’re seeing what we’re seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.”
“In a report that leads with the “good news” of impending U.S. oil supremacy, to calmly suggest that the world is headed for that 3.6 degree C mark is like placing a thermonuclear bomb in a gaudily-wrapped Christmas present. In fact, the “good news” is really the bad news: the energy industry’s ability to boost production of oil, coal, and natural gas in North America is feeding a global surge in demand for these commodities, ensuring ever higher levels of carbon emissions. As long as these trends persist — and the IEA report provides no evidence that they will be reversed in the coming years — we are all in a race to see who gets to the Apocalypse first.”
“ A new World Bank report indicates that a rise of 4 degrees Celsius is possible by century’s end, a prospect that bank president Jim Yong Kim termed a “doomsday scenario.”
In the meantime, the most comprehensive study to date of how humans have affected the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere predicts that the planet’s temperature could rise by an unimaginable 6 degrees Celsius by 2100. These days, it increasingly looks like we’ve entered the lottery from hell when it comes to Earth’s ultimate temperature — especially now that a recent report from the United Nations Environment Program suggests carbon in the atmosphere has increased by 20% since 2000 and that “there are few signs of global emissions falling.”
Tom Engelhardt http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175621/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_a_thermonuclear_energy_bomb_in_christmas_wrappings/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tomdispatch%2FesUU+%28TomDispatch%3A+The+latest+Tomgram%29
This is the first instance in recorded history that so few are responsible for such misery for so many. We so desperately need a world government that nourishes the welfare of the governed. We have a uniting principle before us and so obvious. We are first and foremost Earthlings. An eco-centric worldview that loves and cares for the sustaining factor in all beings is not outrageous. Perhaps we all need to look deeply into just what is causing the greed and disdain for the beautiful and intelligent world around us and within us.
The cost of petrol and oil: How it breaks down
8 November 2011 Last updated at 00:00
By Richard Anderson and Damian Kahya Business reporters, BBC News
“We all know petrol costs a lot, but how many of us actually know why, and who profits from selling the stuff?
The cost of petrol and diesel can actually be broken down fairly precisely, and it’s immediately obvious who the primary beneficiary is: the government.
Well over half, in fact about 60%, of the £1.34 odd we pay for a litre of unleaded is fuel duty and VAT.
Less than 5% goes to the petrol retailer, in some cases more like 1%, which helps in part to explain why so many are struggling despite recent rises in fuel costs.
Next to tax, the single biggest component in the price of petrol is… well, the petrol itself, which accounts for about 30% of the overall cost.
For example, a bog standard barrel of oil fromSaudi Arabiacosts about $2-$3 to extract from the ground, whereas a barrel taken from tar sands in Albertacan cost more than $60.”
Looks like the taxpayers are subsidizing tar sands, doesn’t it?