The Eerily Prescient Professor Krugman

Paul Krugman smites the bio-fools today, describing how the quest for ethanol has driven up food prices in the third world without actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Since this message risks offending an ardent environmentalist somewhere (and because he is PaulKrugman), he feels an obligation to smite the right (and lie about McCain) as well.  The result is comical:

O.K., I said that these factors behind the food crisis aren’t anyone’s fault, but that’s not quite true. The rise of China and other emerging economies is the main force driving oil prices, but the invasion of Iraq — which proponents promised would lead to cheap oil — has also reduced oil supplies below what they would have been otherwise.

Oh, my.  It is true that folks forecast slightly higher oil production from Iraq - the US Energy Information Administration reports that Iraqi production is roughly 2 million barrels per day, down from the 1978 peak of 3.7 million BPD but not far from the roughly 2.6 million BPD peak of 2000.

But Krugman isn't talking only about a shortfall of optimistic projections following the liberation of Iraq; he is asserting that, absent the invasion, Iraqi oil production would be notably higher than it is currently.  So, in what alternative history would that have happened?  Let's imagine that Saddam is still "in the box" with UN sanctions and vigilant arms inspections continuing apace, that he hasn't attacked Israel, and that Iran has not attacked him.  Does Krugman seriously believe that foreign investors would have been merrily developing and modernizing Iraq's oil fields in that environment?

I wonder if Krugman attended this lecture at Princeton last fall by a former Iraqi oil minister, who described the history of Iraq's oil production (I know, it sure sounds like a can't miss for the holiday season!):

Once the UN oil-for-food program was initiated in December 1996, oil production started to climb, as did exports, although they were limited by a ceiling for over 18 months. Once the ceiling was lifted in 1999, Iraq increased its production and exports gradually and at times output exceeded 2.8mn b/d and exports around 2.5mn b/d, plus exports (though was not legitimized by the UN) of a good amount of oil products through Turkey, Jordan, Syria and the Gulf. Those figures were admittedly detrimental to the oil industry and particularly to the state of the reservoirs, since Iraq almost halted its maintenance, drilling and upgrading programs due to the sanctions, a state of affairs that continued until March 2003, and also due to the over-production policy that was adopted in order to maximize oil revenues.

The UN, from 1998 onwards, issued many reports warning of the deteriorating situation in Iraq’s oil industry. But Iraq was being shut off from the outside world and companies were not willing to cooperate for fear of being in violation of sanctions. The Sanctions Committee in New York was reluctant to allow many materials, equipment and chemicals to go to Iraq on the assumption that they could be of multiple uses. In its report of June 1998 the UN said that the Iraqi oil industry was in a lamentable state, adding that “thanks to over-production policies, 20% of wells have been irreparably damaged.” And in its July 1999 report it said: “Productivity of existing oil wells has been seriously reduced, in some cases irreparably. Decline of annual 2% has resulted in new fields and up to 15% in old fields, as in Kirkuk.”

So in Krugman's alternative history, not only would Bush (OK, it's Krugman's fantasy, Al Gore) have chosen not to invade Iraq, but the President would have solved the problem created by Saddam, the UN, and the Clinton Administration, to wit, persuading investors to put money, equipment, and people into Iraq.  The result would have been an upgraded and expanded Iraqi oil capacity ultimately controlled by Saddam, and this would have been a good thing.  Whoa.  Who else believe this?  We're here to help.

Krugman's speculative fiction continued:

And bad weather, especially the Australian drought, is probably related to climate change. So politicians and governments that have stood in the way of action on greenhouse gases bear some responsibility for food shortages.

Oh my goodness.  Man-made carbon dioxide has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.  If by "politicians and governments" Krugman means the people who turned a deaf ear to Luddites chanting "No Coal" in 1830, well, he may be on to something.  But as best I can read this with my vision strained by tears of laughter, Krugman is telling us both that (a) changes in specific weather patterns "probably" have (in part) a human cause, and (b) if we had only adopted, for instance, the Kyoto Protocol, these weather patterns would be both different and more benign.

Is there anyone inclined to defend this fantasy with something resembling actual science?  Let me just set the first hurdle, noted and ignored by Krugman himself - here is the IPCC from their Nov 2007 climate report summary (from page 6 of the .pdf), with emphasis added:

Human influences have:

very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter
half of the 20th century

likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting
extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns

likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold
nights and cold days

more likely than not increased risk of heat waves, area
affected by drought since the 1970s and frequency of heavy
precipitation events.

Human influences have "More likely than not" affected droughts.  "More likely" means between 50% and 66% probability (page 5 of this report).  So it is a bit better than 50/50 that human activity has had a role in creating some of the current droughts, which jibes with Krugman's use of "probably".  And from there, Krugman wants to leap to the conclusion that policy interventions would have prevented the droughts that maybe humans didn't even cause?  I have a hard time squaring that with this assessment of the Kyoto Protocol, as presented in Nature and quoted in the Telegraph:

"The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments' concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed," say the authors.

"It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change."

I will tell you right now it is more likely that the IPCC would never have signed off on Krugman's speculative leap.  And as a bonus bit of speculation, the economic development of China and India has lifted many millions of people out of poverty - dare we note that hunger and starvation have many causes, some of which China has put aside?

Ah, well.  I am currently enjoying a fruit juice based drink that is a mere 13% "real fruit juice".  I suspect Prof. Krugman's "reality-based" analysis is offered in similar proportions.

VICIOUS PILING ON:  Krugman has been a long-time foe of US based subsidized ethanol production, as evidenced by this June 25 2000 column.  But how about the Brazilian version?  This is from Jan 2007:

There is a place for ethanol in the world’s energy future — but that place is in the tropics. Brazil has managed to replace a lot of its gasoline consumption with ethanol. But Brazil’s ethanol comes from sugar cane.

Fourteen months later, here we are, from today's column:

The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a “scam.”

This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly “good” biofuel policies, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.

And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.

HIDE THE BALL:  Krugman says this about the Presidential candidates on offer:

Oh, and in case you’re wondering: all the remaining presidential contenders  are terrible on this issue.

Oh, and in case you are wondering - Krugman is a liar.  Here is a new post with more.

PRPOHET WITHOUT HONOR:  UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek was saying in 2005 that the energy balance for ethanol was not favorable and that the Brazilian rainforest was at risk from their ethanol program.  But was this an out-of-the-mainstream insight?  Beats me, but by March 2007 Counterpunch was all over the Brazilian problem, as was this paper in Aug 2007.  OTOH, here is Fortune magazine lauding ethanol as a panacea in 2006, and of course George Bush promoted ethanol in the Jan 2007 State of the Union in which Krugman lauded the Brazilian alternative.

Comments

[clarice]

You like that juice water,TM? For a small fee I'll water down all your food..

Again--why is any govt step to protect us against terrorism an outrageous expansion of the executive power, but when it comes to thie weather carp and nanny state health stuff, no executive can have enough power to immiserate us?
(I know your post is about Krugman. And, yes, it is a masterpiece of a shredding. But it's Krugman for pity sake--You get few points for wrestling with the likes of Krugman or andrew Sullivan. Way too easy a target.)

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

I imagine you reading the NYT this morning, nodding your head up and down while reading Krugman's not all that bad column. Then, to your horror, you find yourself actually agreeing with the dreaded Paul. Well, this will not do! There is now a stain upon you, which even a hot shower with bleach will not cure.

So, paragraphs later, you have expiated your guilt. But, do you have strong feelings about ethanol? (And, if you are being critical, how about Klugman's claim that McCain is "terrible" on the issue. of all the folks on biofeuls, I thought he was the most willing to say the ethanol subsidy was crap?

Thought you would have torn after Krugmans inability to say nothing nice about a Republican. Instead, I am left to tear after your inability to say anything nice about Krugman!

P.S. Was that your long awaited global warming post in the second half of this thing? Hopefully not.

[Enlightened]

Well...every once in a while I read Rolling Stone - not sure why I get it in the mail - and they had a pretty interesting take on Ethanol also -

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/ethanol_scam_ethanol_hurts_the_environment_and_is_one_of_americas_biggest_political_boondoggles

[Syl]

The Left will come apart over the issue of ethanol vs starvation.

The humanity helpers vs the oil company slayers.

Get out the popcorn.

[Tom Maguire]

Instead, I am left to tear after your inability to say anything nice about Krugman!

Well, if I hadn't linked to a better piece a day earlier or posted on the same topic a while back, I might have relented. But he is hardly ahead of the curve here.

P.S. Was that your long awaited global warming post in the second half of this thing? Hopefully not.

It's not.

[GMax]

It is far far easier for the left to back off and even demonize ethanol, than it is to admit its mistake and back true no impact energy like nuclear power plant.

One has the advantage of sticking it to the Man, somewhere somehow but the other can never be so styled. One is anarchistic the other is common sense. Of course anarchy will reign.

[Appalled Moderate]

Gmax:

As long as there is Sen Reid (D -- Yucca Mountain), there will be no Dem support for nuclear power. Unfortunate. It's one thing the French have over us.

[Rick Ballard]

I would wait until June to do an AGW piece. The Mauna Loa CO2 Motherlode is low on nuggets. Two more months like that and the IPCC just isn't going to be the gold standard on climate anymore. I'm just afraid that all the arm waving that will occur when the centerpiece disappears will anthropogenically exacerbate the possible cooling trend...

AM,

Reid is up for reelection in '10 - Daschle's lonely so it's up to Nevadans to give him some company.

[Enlightened]

Well, OT but still halfwit-nutroot related -

3 Protestors in SF have scaled the Golden Gate Bridge cables -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/07/MN6L101A0U.DTL

Seriously - no brains no headache apparently. How about that bridge security?

[GMax]

3 Protestors in SF have scaled the Golden Gate Bridge cables

Any hope of forecast for strong breezes?

[JorgXMcKie]

I figure even Krugman has to visit reality occasionally, if only to go to the bathroom. Therefore, I expect to agree with him occasionally. OTOH, when he does visit reality (briefly) and immediately attempts to mitigate this by his usual ideological spewing and arm-waving I am comforted by the fact that our agreement is only accidental.

I dunno about Tom, but I'm kinda interested in trying to figure out why the Hell Krugman deigned to extricate his cranial cavity from his anal aperture long enough to notice the problem.

[clarice]

I've got it! Why not propose we store the nuclear waste on GITMO and then we can proceed with a nuclear energy program as we move the thugees to Reid's district. Everybody's happy.

[Syl]

I'm not concerned about the protesters on the bridge (though the point about bridge security is well taken). They're not smashing windows at a recruiting office nor are they the slightest bit violent. It will probably cost the taxpayer less money than, say, rescuing some hiker lost in the fog. Though it might be fun to watch authorities figure out how to get the banners down.

If more AGW advocates would join these protesters' cause, the world would be a much better place.

Hansen said that we've reached the tipping point with the level of CO2 in the air...not to worry, though, he said, it's not too late to do something.

I guess he just changed the definition of tipping point.

[PeterUK]

Green is the new GREEN! A nice little earner.

[Soylent Red]

Clarice:

The fact that you referred to them as Thugees makes me happy anyway.

[PeterUK]

If you can get your cars to run on Big Macs,you are on to a winner

[PeterUK]

Hopefully,your lunatics are not as crazy as our lunatics. Though this seems tailor made for Barrack Hussein and Hillary Rodham.

[Enlightened]

Well being in the SF Bay Area - there are many cars that run on corn oil, or some just utterly disgustingly smelly crap - maybe it's the Big Macs. It literally smells like 5 day old cooking grease, and it's smoky as hell.

Most of these people are missing their daily or even weekly showers, so I guess a smelly car won't bother them much.

[MayBee]

My son's Berkley-educated young science teacher just taught them about the badness of biofuels. There is hope!

[glasater]

I had a job to photograph a bio-fuel plant in an area of the county that's not too highly populated for good reason. The place (bio-fuel) smelled like a MacDonald's and across the highway is a beef rendering plant. What a combination!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

So, in what alternative history would that have happened?

The one in which Krugman wasn't using the Times to plug for the Democrats?

[bgates]

Get out the popcorn.
Who can afford popcorn anymore? Didn't you read the article?

[JB]

Devestataing fisk.

But don't get the big head. After all, it's Krugman.

[M. Simon]

I dunno about Tom, but I'm kinda interested in trying to figure out why the Hell Krugman deigned to extricate his cranial cavity from his anal aperture long enough to notice the problem.

Greenies have stopped buying ethanol laced gasoline in Seattle. It is starting to catch on.

Krugman can't afford to be out of step with his audience. It might affect his pay packet.

And Tom let me second that. I was busy with Obama and global warming today. You did a much better gutting than I would have done. Well done lad. (The very highest compliment a Navy man can give).