... or being against the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration. But his facts on US oil demand are hugely distorted, which is disappointing as he really didn't need them to make his point.
Here's a graph of US petroleum consumption, with the actual figures included in the image off to the left:
Oil demand peaked all the way back in 2005, and is 5 quadrillion btu's less than it was that year.
The reason is that people have been driving less. Vehicle miles driven has, for the first time in the history of the car, decoupled from employment:
The blue line is vehicle miles driven, the red is total employment. The statement that US demand increased in 2013 by more than it did in China is correct, but does not point out that it was a small increase that does not at all change the declining trend in demand since 2005.
The coal hyperbole is equally incorrect. Coal usage increased modestly last year, but didn't even rise back to the level of 2011, much less reverse the declining trend in the use of that fuel. You can see that in the first image up there as well, to the left. The same is true for petroleum, by the way: demand increased last year, but didn't even recover back to 2011, much less break the trend.
Total use of fossil fuels? Same thing: increased last year, but didn't even get back to the 2011 level, and is well off its peak, reached in 2004 in the case of all of the fossil fuels together.
The headline is wrong as far as consumption. It's correct as far as policy towards drilling and exploration, but dragging in consumption only gives opponents a big fat target to hit him with.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read