By Izabella Kaminska
We didn’t say that..
Stephen Schork of the daily energy Schork report did. And here’s the graph, charting exactly that. Gasoline versus err, bimbos, by which he actually means entertainment spending in the US as a percentage of total consumption expenditure (the reference is to Snooki in case you’re really curious):
Now, the reason he’s pointing the above out is because gasoline spending as a percentage of total expenditure, according to his stats, has been heading steadily higher since January 2009. Spending on entertainment, meanwhile, has been falling. Which appears to indicate a fine balance between the two.
Although, as he also points out, savings — which dropped to their lowest point since November 2008 — should be considered in that equation too.
Nevertheless, the point is, will refiners shortly be coming up against a consumer demand threshold with respect to the prices consumers will or will not be capable of tolerating? And if they do, how will they respond?
- Saudi Arabian-Indian economics, geopolitical ties strengthen
- Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
- A US official names 2011 as possible decline point for oil production
- A new race for the US: lithium-ion batteries
- Sierra Club would fight a climate bill that took away new EPA powers
- Hydro-fracturing hits roadblocks in NYC
- The future of oil production in Venezuela
- The UK’s oceanology offshore engineering adventure
- Sweden wants more nuclear power
A new climate bill in the US senate that puts a tax on oil companies might be expected to raise howls of protest from the industry, but ConocoPhillips’ chief executive Jim Mulva likes the sound of the bill expected to be published by senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman.
He may not agree with everything in the senators’ plan. But given that carbon dioxide emissions need to be controlled, he believes the senators’ plan is likely to be clearly superior to the other options. In particular, it looks much better for the oil and gas industry than the Waxman-Markey bill passed in the House of Representatives last year.
The most striking thing is that he is backing something that looks very much like a carbon tax.
In the video below, the International Energy Agency’s executive director Nobuo Tanaka told the FT’s Carola Hoyos that the group, which represents the energy interests of western oil-consuming countries, may be becoming less relevant as growth in energy demand shifts to emerging markets:
Some highlights follow:
It’s a very good question. Our relevance is under question. Half of already the energy consumption is in non-OECD countries. For oil, it soon happens that the majority of consumption is in non-OECD countries.
Most players in energy outside the country are fascinated and intrigued by China. Everyone wants more clarity on its international oil and gas plans, its coal consumption, and, more than anything else, what its long-term strategic plans are with regards to climate and energy security. Because China, of course, does plan ahead. It is clear from the country’s numerous efforts to secure long-term supplies of fossil fuels that it takes energy security very seriously – and this ties in well with expanding its own renewables capacity and regulations, such as supporting low-emissions cars.
But is all this enough to counter its fast-growing fossil fuel consumption?
We know that China wants the social stability that economic growth has so far brought. But how much does China care about climate change, once energy security is addressed?