[pea-jay]

Knowing what we know about the future of oil and gas production and the likely outcome of coal use, do we still need to worry about global warming? If every indicator shows a decline in the use of carbon based fossil fuels, would stand to reason that would translate into a decline in CO2 production? Then factor in the likely decline in global population levels (and a corresponding drop in ecological impacts that accompany such a decline) and suddenly global warming doesn't seem so likely. Now I am not a climatologist but wouldn't a substantial year after year decrease in CO2 production ease the global warming pressure as some of the planetary mechanisms absorb the excess CO2, removing it from the atmospheres.

I haven't read much more on this beyond the theoretical arguments so I don't have much more scientific background in this.

But, barring some development that can convert unaccessible coalbeds into natural gas, is the possibility of global warming precluded by an overall limit to the amount of fossil fuels available to burn?

[Aaron]

http://peakoil.com/article834.html

[url]javascript:playWin('3','pbssaf1404','492097','2398931');[/url]

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('patrickjford', 'B')ut, barring some development that can convert unaccessible coalbeds into natural gas, is the possibility of global warming precluded by an overall limit to the amount of fossil fuels available to burn?

[Licho]

I'v read bbc news article about study, that concluded, there is no way worst doomsday global warming scenario can happen if we take into account remaining supplies. Unfortunatelly I was unable to find it.
But global warming is on its way already, we already see effects and temperature will continue to raise even if we stop all industry today.

[RIPSmithianEconomics]

As Epicurus was wise, I hope they are. Coping with climate change with mass unemployment and resource depletion would be unmanagable, surely, even with the power of the "human spirit".

[Pops]

Peak oil is only that, the peak of production. If it arrives as advertised, we'll have only used half the oil we will ultimately use. As humanity continues to multiply we will continue escalating our assault on the environment.

I think that as cheap energy goes away, so will all pretense of environmentalism, we are already opening previously off limits areas and relaxing air quality standards will come soon.

[Rincewind]

Dear All

I work in the environmental area and I share Pop's concerns. My concern is that in trying to keep our unsustainable lifestyles going for a bit longer we start using all those other fossil fool options (coal into gas, hydrates, oil shale/sands). All of which have crap EROEIs and are even more carbon intensive, feeding climate change just as we run out of the capacity to adapt to, or mitigate its effect.

The other concern is the inherent momentum that CC has. its not going to stop just because we decrease our FF usage over the next decade. What will 2100 look like if we are moving back to subsistence agriculture in the face of increasingly uncertain weather (say hello to Famine)?

The other one is nuclear. What concerns me here is the scale of nuclear that would be required to meet current needs. I have seen estimates of 5000 nuclear reactors in the U.S. alone. Where is all the fuel going to come from and more importantly were is it all going to go. Don't get me started on fast breeders (if they work) just imagine all that plutonium moving around the world. Talk about an opportunity for some fanatic.

Cheers Rincewind (Doug)

[gg3]

Either way it appears we have to deal with both issues. Both of these have lag-times before the worst hits, and they appear to be converging. Speaking of perfect storms.

[Peachy]

Lagtime. That's a key issue with global warming. Remember the ocean conveyer belt. That's the world ocean circulation that includes the gulf stream and which many believe is in danger of stopping or slowing down significantly because of a fresh water influx due to melting glaciers in greenland.

The ocean conveyer has a circulation time of something like 1000 years. When that water sinks in the north atlantic it takes with it some thermal mass along with all sorts of atmospheric constituants, including CO2. When that water comes back to the surface down around Australia it brings the CO2 back with it insuring that our little 200 year flirtatin with fossil fuels continues to affect the planet for years to come.

Not to mention the fact that when the oil runs out we'll burn more coal and when the clean coal runs out we'll burn the dirty stuff. What that means, I think, is that even though our economy will be and ruins and the world entering the dieoff we may well be pumping more, not less, CO2 into the atmosphere.

Ain't that just peachy.

[Cynus]

Yes, I am greatly concerned with the environmental affects of the global freak out. On the one hand, if there is far less cheap transportation people will need to live in the cities, and that will put an end to sprawl and its resulting habitat destruction. Also, if population and energy use follow the same trends, as many have argued, then the population crash will result in less habitat destruction and over-fishing. On the other hand, if people are desperate for energy, the switch to coal will result in removing clear air requirements, and nuclear will result in greater nuclear waste in the environment. And the worst case scenario has the cities emptying as people look for food resulting in the destruction of all wildlife for food and the clearcutting of forests for fuel.

[Canuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rincewind', 'T')he other one is nuclear. What concerns me here is the scale of nuclear that would be required to meet current needs. I have seen estimates of 5000 nuclear reactors in the U.S. alone. Where is all the fuel going to come from and more importantly were is it all going to go.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'I')'v read bbc news article about study, that concluded, there is no way worst doomsday global warming scenario can happen if we take into account remaining supplies. Unfortunatelly I was unable to find it.
But global warming is on its way already, we already see effects and temperature will continue to raise even if we stop all industry today.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cynus', ' ')and nuclear will result in greater nuclear waste in the environment.

[Peachy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'I')'v read bbc news article about study, that concluded, there is no way worst doomsday global warming scenario can happen if we take into account remaining supplies. Unfortunatelly I was unable to find it.
But global warming is on its way already, we already see effects and temperature will continue to raise even if we stop all industry today.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peachy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'I')'v read bbc news article about study, that concluded, there is no way worst doomsday global warming scenario can happen if we take into account remaining supplies. Unfortunatelly I was unable to find it.
But global warming is on its way already, we already see effects and temperature will continue to raise even if we stop all industry today.

[gg3]

Cynus, burning coal results in a significant release of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere, which are difficult to control in even a clean coal plant. Far more radiation released from the use of coal as an energy source than from the nuclear power cycle.

Nuclear waste can also be recycled into fuel. True the technology has not been as well developed as it could be. But if it's done, it will extend a 40-year supply of uranium to a 240-year supply of recycled fuel.

Yes, terrorists might like to get their hands on some of that. But nuclear fuel is far better protected than the numerous industrial chemicals and processing plants for same, so realistically, terrs are going to go for the easier targets that will do much more damage. Everyone knows a "dirty bomb" is mostly a psychological weapon, limited radius of action and easy to avoid contamination (go indoors until the cloud blows past, and then if the area is contaminated, evacuate in a closed vehicle). However, blowing up a liquified natural gas tanker would have the same effect as dropping a small atomic bomb.

So realistically, one of our best hopes is to build as much nuclear as we can, right alongside with the wind and solar capacity, and all the rest of it. The best way to make the transition to a more energy-efficient economy is via a deliberate and careful transition rather than a crash.

[Markos101]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3654042.stm

Oh dear. Yes! Shocking climate change!

Yet another Blair spin. Looks like more 'oil use cutting strategies' must be implemented very soon to limit this shocking climate change! It's even worse than the threat of terrorism according to 'government scientists'.

Expect there to be gradual releases to the press about supposed climate change issues in the coming months. I'll also expect - and remember this - that the Bush adminsitration if it is voted in again after November will suddenly take a big 'climate change' stance and start trying to cut fossil fuel usage.

All this, at and at the same time 'terror threats in the Middle East' will continue to be a problem of course, requiring further military action in Iran. Of course!

It's nothing to do with peak oil, is it?! Peak oil doesn't exist!

Continue with your consumption people! That's it, consume!

[Markos101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e will warn of forecasts that sea levels could rise by another 88cm by the end of the 21st Century, threatening 100 million people around the planet.

[Permanently_Baffled]

I guess the only hope here is that Blair uses his spin abilities to enforce renewable energies and conservation under the banner of 'Stopping Climate Change' instead of 'oil production is about to peak' in the hope people will accept it.

I wont bank on it though , as per usual the changes he enforces will be too little too late...

PB

[Markos101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')r Blair said he wanted to develop technologies such as solar energy.

He added: "The problem for a lot of people as individuals, is that it's not that they don't care, they just don't know how to implement environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

"They get confused about whether they are really making a difference or not, and is it just a waste of time."

After the meeting, he told Radio 1's Newsbeat: "This is a serious issue and it is going to get worse... because every year we are piling more green house gases in to the atmosphere...

"There are whole communities that are going to be affected. The time to act is now."