Tough decisions coming soon

The air temperature in Baghdad the other day was 125 degrees Fahrenheit.

That’s not much compared to the 134 degrees recorded at California’s Furnace Creek Ranch in 1913 but it’s still uncomfortably close to the low setting on many barbecue grills.

Some people question the accuracy of the old 134-degree reading at the well-named Furnace Creek Ranch. But since global warming is a well-established reality — and humans are at fault — you can expect a renewed drive against the rising temperature in the years ahead.

Alaska has a lot at stake in the issue. This state is a major oil producer and fossil fuels will certainly be targeted when reality-check time comes. That is unlikely to change but one thing we really need to watch for is for the world to appreciate the role natural gas can play in the years ahead.

The burning of fossil fuels — both oil and gas — is a major source of the greenhouse gases that are warming the world’s environment. And the solution to the problem will necessarily require either that humans get away from using such fuels or find less harmful ways to harness their energy potential.

Finding new ways to generate energy will probably require a generation or more — and implementing whatever methods are finally chosen could take an equal or greater length of time. While that is going on things could get downright uncomfortable in Baghdad, Furnace Creek and even Southcentral Alaska.

One thing that Alaskans should keep in mind is that when decision-time comes, oil and gas should not be treated the same. While both oil and natural gas are major contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions problem, natural gas could have great offsetting value as an interim solution.

The world definitely needs to get moving in a more promising direction as soon as practical, but we should all keep in mind that natural gas is less damaging to the environment in many ways than is petroleum oil. And there is a very real possibility that gas could be used to power electric vehicles, which would have a major impact in reducing damaging emissions.

Gas could, in fact, become a viable substitute for oil during the big changeover. There may be other ways to go, approaches that would entail even less environmental degradation than continuing consumption of gas over the intervening years.

But Alaska’s oil production is now less than a quarter of the two million barrels a day carried by the trans-Alaska pipeline after startup in 1988. We still have 40 to 50 billion barrels of oil left to be produced, including both onshore and offshore sources. That could a major factor in this state’s economy for generations yet to come.

It’s important to remember, however, that this state also has something more than 200 trillion cubic feet of gas that is essentially untouched. There is a lot of gas in the world and Alaska’s potential output wouldn’t carry the United States for more than a few years — if it were the only source.

But the great value of the gas is that if put into production it could provide important support to our state’s economy for many years. We would need a lot more than that to provide enough jobs and taxes, but gas could be an important factor in the overall picture.

Right now companies like ConocoPhillips and Hilcorp are considering major investments in oil that could serve as the underpinning of Alaska’s economy in the years ahead.

It will be important that we make good decisions and vote against proposals like Proposition 1, which would jack up industry taxes and discourage such investments.

When it comes time to vote — that will be November 3 this year — let’s hope Alaskans keep their heads and kill Prop 1.