Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 8, 2014
Climate Change, Peak Oil and Renewable Resources
Climate change is the reality we are living in. It is not going away; it has been clearly established as a fact, IOMCO — or immediately obvious to the most casual observer. The weather is simply becoming more extreme. More tornados, more flooding, more drought, stronger hurricanes and other extreme weather events are only the tip of the iceberg. Climate change is not something that you can change overnight.
It has taken a few hundred years for man to have the negative impact that it has on the climate; even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, it would take hundreds more to reverse the trend.
We hit the big time lottery when we discovered oil and gas. It was like we stumbled upon a treasure chest with millions of years of stored energy and just like some lottery winners, we became mesmerized by the wealth and spent it without even thinking of the future. Many scientists have agreed that the world has probably reached “peak oil.” This means that we have extracted and burned the easy 50% of the world’s supply of fossil fuels.
The remaining 50% will be harder to get, more expensive in the process, and perhaps spurning significant challenges to both the environment and political stability as nations compete for this precious resource. We have always depended upon discovering new sources of oil when the old ones were depleted but we are running out of new sources and some are much more complicated.
Take fracking for example. Our current oil and gas supplies are coming more and more frequently as a result of fracking. This is a process of injecting water and some witches brew of chemicals into a depleted well in the hopes of creating small fractures which will allow oil, gas or other stuff to migrate to that well. This is a more expensive way of getting that second half of the oil and gas out of the ground. It is costly to the environment, costly to the consumer and there have been reports of the oil and gas from fracturing leaching into water supplies.
Additionally, there are increases in earthquake activity associated with these fractures. I have a good friend who makes his living driving trucks full of fracking fluid from well sites in Montana to some random dumping ground. He doesn’t like the work, but it is work. My point here is that future fossil fuel resources come with higher costs both to the environment and to consumers, while continuing our negative impact on climate.
The most sensible alternatives are very strict conservation of resources and renewable energy. I will not get into the debate over nuclear energy other than to say that given its financial and environmental record, I cannot see it as part of our future energy portfolio. While fossil fuels are in fact, renewable, it just takes a few million years for them to renew. On the other hand, wind, water, biomass and sun are renewable on a daily basis.
Any source of energy has its drawbacks. Other than discovering that treasure chest again, each form of energy carries a burden. Burning fossil fuels creates climate change, harms the environment in extraction and use. Wind energy requires space for turbines and some may object to the changes to the landscape or the noise. Solar energy requires land and huge arrays to generate enough meaningful power. Hydro power requires dams and impacts local environments, too. But the most benign sources of energy are renewable resources.
We must do two things if we are to impact climate change. We must reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. We can do this by making more energy efficient vehicles, heating systems, lighting, etc. Energy conservation is the least expensive and least harmful source of energy and we have a tremendous amount of energy we can save by simply not using as much. The other is to shift the search for new sources of energy from fracking and oil shales to major support and deployment of renewable energy resources.
It is really our only choice and people have been warning us for decades about the impending implications of unrestrained fossil fuel use and the impact upon our planet. Right now, I would say we are moving way, way too slowly — baby steps are not going to even have baby impact on climate change.
16 Comments on "Climate Change, Peak Oil and Renewable Resources"
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 3:31 pm
The most sensible alternatives are very strict conservation of resources and renewable energy.
We must reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels
Too little too late for climate. I have read we need to stop every other activity in our complex global world but agriculture to even begin to effectively mitigate a climate disaster.
The above ideas are great but again if taken to an effective level you are talking collapsing the world economy. Some may relish that idea but have not thought out the consequences. A collapse hard and long enough and all bets are off for our survival as a species.
I do not know the answer to climate instability. Do we choose death now or down the road? If you think you can save the world and climate by collapsing the business as usual you are naïve. Who will manage the 400 plus nuclear spent fuel ponds for example? Multiply that by 1000 dangerous and potentially earth ending industrial poisons across the earth. Who is going to manage the 1000’s of nukes as a prime example
The only hope is a gradual decent down the slope of complexity. There are no examples of an orderly decent of a complex ecosystem like our society have become. There is mainly examples of disorder, dysfunction, chaos, and crashing. I might add the coming collapse will be global and all inclusive!
Northwest Resident on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 4:46 pm
I have read in a couple of places that in the “theoretical” event that BAU came to a sudden halt and earth’s population dropped by a nominal amount — say, 6 billion or so — that the earth would be in a position to rapidly heal itself and reverse climate change. Trees would grow, nearly zero CO2 would be produced by humans, oceans would repopulate — all fairly quickly. Whether that is true or not, I don’t know. The sources seemed credible.
I agree with Davy that the above ideas are great — and well-intentioned — but this global machine called BAU cannot be stopped by incremental power downs. BAU is a mechanical monster that needs to constantly consume and plunder, spewing out mounds of waste as it sucks in all manner of natural resources. It will keep going until there’s nothing left, or until it is deprived of the resources that keep it in growth mode. No growth = a rather rapid freezing up of the gears and standstill. That, of course, is what Davy calls “collapsing the world economy”. I hope that Davy is right, that there is a way that TPTB might incrementally slow that monster machine down. But doing so will be extremely difficult — I personally think impossible — and there’s only two options: 1) Let the machine keep grinding away until it dies due to lack of sufficient input (nothing left to consume) or 2) Through radical means deprive that machine of the resources that it needs — no more credit, no more oil, no more natural resources — and face the consequences. One choice leaves the world scarred and damaged and humans left to eke out a living on the parched soil. The other choice results in a sudden reduction of human population, but leaves enough oil and natural resources for a much smaller (and hopefully much smarter) population of humans to exist comfortably into the distant future. — Final note: Davy, assuming “somebody” goes with option number two, they’ll probably want to make sure that all the nuclear engineers and nuclear weapons disposal experts and chemical waste disposal experts are secured and ready to mobilize to take care of all that mess — otherwise, nothing will save us.
clifman on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 5:16 pm
I’d say the two commenters above me have a better handle on the situation than stated in the article. I just wanted to add that the ‘negative impact’ humans have had on the climate is even more dire than the article indicates. Due to the nature of growing population and growing economic activity, it has not really taken ‘a few hundred years’ to have the impact we have on the climate. The great bulk of human carbon emissions have been since 1950, as pop. & econ. growth exploded after WWII. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/TrendsGlobalEmissions.png Further, there is about a 40 year lag in the effects of carbon loading showing up in the climate. So what we are experiencing now is the result of carbon added to the atmosphere by the time of the first oil crisis, in the early 70’s. And we’ve added a huge amount more since then. Look at the linked graph and do your own eyeball calculus. Those impacts yet await us. All of this is due to what the late Al Bartlett called the ‘greatest failing of the human race’ – the inability to understand the exponential function.
J-Gav on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 5:28 pm
“Energy conservation is the least expensive and least harmful source of energy.” Okay, but let’s call that by its real name: A major economic contraction accompanied by profound life-style changes throughout the ‘developed’ world.
Jerry McManus on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 6:13 pm
Carbon Dioxide is resident in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries. If humans disappeared tomorrow the climate would continue to destabilize and sea levels continue to rise for hundreds of years, if not thousands. Not to mention all of the nuclear fuel that would either explode or melt down into the Earth’s crust, releasing insanely toxic radioactive substances that also have half lives measured in thousands of years.
And let’s not forget that it wasn’t that long ago that the human population was only about 1 billion, around 1800 or so as I recall. Just removing the people without destroying the infrastructure is not going to solve the problem, as long as the machinery is there to enable a quick return to BAU.
As for conservation, well, try telling that to the billions of desperate impoverished people who would gladly kill for a shot at a wealthy western lifestyle. Any energy and resources that the wealthy industrialized countries don’t consume will gladly be gobbled up by billions of people who have no such compunction.
In other words, trying to solve the other problems (if they can be “solved”) without dealing with population growth is like trying to mop the floor with the faucet overflowing.
The most “sensible” alternative, as has already been pointed out, would be a complete 180 degree change in how every human views the world and their place in it. All seven-billion-going-on-nine-billion of us.
Failing that, then a global nuclear holocaust would certainly solve all of our problems.
bobinget on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 9:14 pm
NW Resident states:
“Trees would grow, nearly zero CO2 would be produced by humans”
The above sentence is as contradictory as it is inaccurate. But, well intentioned I’m sure.
If one thinks about it, breathing mammals, humans included, breathe out CO/2. Trees intake CO/2 the same way we humans need oxygen. WE all learned this in school long before GW was politicized.
AGW, such an emotional issue if, when, GW deniers
read opening sentences such as the one chosen by
our NW Resident it will either turn them off completely
or offer denier propaganda ammunition.
Deep down we know that CO/2 pipeline has been filling for the last hundred years and by now is having significant, visible effects. One problem is confusion of terms ‘weather’ and ‘climate’. Oddly enough is was a right wing wordsmith who coined the term “Climate Change”. At the time CC sounded far more benign then ‘GW’ . As it happens this so called conservative got it exactly right. The key word being ‘change’.
We simple need to deal with change. No more hand wringing, depression, wishing half (always the other half) dead. No more fighting birth control on religious
grounds either. That need for poorly educated “working class” (underclass) cheap labor pool got filled generations ago. No one is really pro-abortion any more then so called ‘pro life’ folks are anti-war or
anti gun ownership. Stop and think. What keeps one percent in power over ninety-nine? Wealthy classes
have no problems accessing health care, housing,
transportion, healthy foods etc. America’s political contributors on the right don’t give a hoot about marriage, gender equality, (there must be an equal number of ‘gay’ children born into Republican homes as Democrats). Wealthy Americans can’t be bothered about skin color as long as that individual is of ‘their
class’ or the ‘servant class’. (everyone else) Rich Democrats, by and large hate the idea of Social Security, minimum wages, health care they end up paying for in taxes the same as Rich Republicans.
Both ‘sides’ know however what their bases are against or favor and instinctively know what to say.
Fossil fuel interests it’s safe to say, are in the US owned
by wealthy ‘ruling classes’. These corporations and individuals see global warming as both a threat to BAU
AND a great business opportunity. These ‘one per centers’ have spent big bucks on denial propaganda.
It’s safe to say billions have gone into PR spreading disinformation creating THE fiction of doubt.
For better or worse, we are entering a new era where ruling classes are beginning to see there is more money to be made on actual global warming than
science bashing.
Slowly but surly, from Arctic navigation, mineral exploration in Greenland, oil and gas exploration, geo
engineering, croplands in favored regions, tidal control
around costal cities, drinking water transportation and purification, cleaner air for the ‘chosen’,
watch Republicans and Democrats to embrace GW as a positive force. (to make more money).
One big problem, remains: How to bring all those GW deniers back to believing AGW is really profitable?
Simple, admit GW is in-fact real but deny culpability.
By the time deniers understand they have been had,
corporations with longer lifespans, will have new CEO’s
and deniers will have mostly died. Get on board now or keep up useless anti pipeline stands, bound to fail.
In so many ways ardent followers of both left and right wing causes would rather lose every battle, soldier on like Muslim suicide bombers, knowing for sure they are being righteous.
Deny magic thinking.
Northwest Resident on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 9:21 pm
bobinget — Your points are accurate and I find myself agreeing with just about everything you write. One small point — I did say “Whether that is true or not, I don’t know.” I was just repeating something I read, and attempting to qualify it. Don’t nail me to the wall for being stupid — at least, not yet…
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 10:09 pm
Final note: Davy, assuming “somebody” goes with option number two, they’ll probably want to make sure that all the nuclear engineers and nuclear weapons disposal experts and chemical waste disposal experts are secured and ready to mobilize to take care of all that mess — otherwise, nothing will save us.
N/R a romantic part of me loves the thought of the dice rolling for a large population reduction and the earth and some humans’ swims out of this mess to return to the innocent hunter gather bands roaming the earth in an avatar type world that is true to our spirit and nature.
The trouble with this, is like Jerry and you commented on, we need to rid ourselves of BAU to offer a chance for the ecosystem to heal yet this would have to be done with a group of BAU citizens to remain to control the immense poisons, bio hazards, and nuclear weapons & fuels. If you end BAU you end any hope of having a group of engineers, scientist, and workers to maintain and clean up the mess. It takes the BAU machinery to support BAU engineers, scientist, and works. Sounds like a great Hollywood sci-fi adventure but I see no reality in it.
Folks I care about the kids. I have lived a good life if I go because of all this fine. I would even accept death if they asked the old folks to do a “Logan’s run” I also want you folks to know I do not wish any of this shit on any of us. I sometimes lay in bed at night and just think “Shit!” What have we got ourselves into to. So, I give thanks for what I have. Every meal is appreciated. I am an extra good dad. I try to be humble and understanding of all people and cultures. Sure I hate the corrupt and corruption but I am beyond that because I see no way forward. This is in Natures hands.
Northwest Resident on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 10:40 pm
Davy — That’s why I like the “somebody is in control” point of view — because if in fact nobody is in control and BAU is a locomotive speeding down the tracks without an engineer at the helm, then at the end only disaster awaits. In times like these, supreme optimism is the only defense against total depression, at least for me. Theoretically, if the U.S. Military and enough engineers/scientists and oil production workers survived an Armageddon style de-population and collapse, they could regroup and gather up miscellaneous survivors, enough to make a long term project out of neutralizing all the nukes and biohazards. Pure theory, based on pure optimism. Realistic? Probably not. Excuse me while I push that depressing thought out of my mind.
J-Gav on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 11:35 pm
NW – Depressing thoughts are the same as any other thoughts i.e. just ‘thoughts,’ if you think about it. Just watch them go by and gather together your real self somewhere else … slightly beyond the constant parade of possibly conflicting opinions/dichotomies (pessimist-optimist etc).
Northwest Resident on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 11:59 pm
J-Gav — Good advice. And a sufficient quantity of well-aged Beaujolais doesn’t hurt either… or in a pinch, a six pack of Bud. 🙂
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 12:25 am
J-Gav, I may appear to be an emotional basket case but I am not. I am at the age now when everyday you get up and feel good well, that’s a good day. This whole study we do here on this site is a passion of mine but I have many passions. So, not that it matter but don’t worry I don’t have a gun to my head.
Harquebus on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 1:07 am
Declining crude oil production means that we ain’t gonna feed 7 billion people. Climate change will be relegated to the back seat.
Makati1 on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 2:34 am
“…We can do this by making more energy efficient vehicles, heating systems, lighting, etc….”
Too little, too late. We have already dumped too much into our atmosphere and oceans. The time lag means that if we stopped today, the numbers would continue to grow for the next 30-40 years. Since we will NOT change, it is ‘game over’ for the world we grew up in, and a much more difficult one for our kids and theirs.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 1:24 pm
Exactly Makati!
The big question I have is when, where, how much and how long a contraction or collapse. None of us can answer those questions. We can just speculate or practice denial.
RICHARD RALPH ROEHL on Mon, 10th Feb 2014 10:12 pm
This guy is a idiot.
NOT single word on the NUMBER ONE DRIVER that pushes humanity toward EXTINCTION.
Can ewe-folks say:
O-V-E-R-P-O-P-U-L-A-T-I-O-N?