[Graeme]

Why do peak oilers and climate changers not get along better?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m currently attending Ohio State University's Moving Ahead 2010 conference, focused on transitioning to sustainable transportation. I'll be moderating a panel tonight. I think it will be filmed -- I'll let you know, assuming it's not a disaster.

I had an interesting experience this morning at a presentation by Robert Hirsch (oil industry vet, now a consultant, author of famed Hirsch Report) on peak oil. It was pretty familiar stuff to anyone who's followed the issue: oil production is going to head into inexorable decline in the next few years, oil prices will spike, electrification won't be fast enough to replace liquid fuels, and the only near-term options are coal-to-liquids, tar sands, and to a lesser extent, efficiency.

Afterwards I asked him about climate change, which he hadn't mentioned in his presentation. I noted that all his short-term mitigation options involve increasing CO2 emissions, despite the fact that scientists are recommending U.S. emissions fall to effectively zero by 2050.

He said, basically, that people and their suffering matter more to him than the climate.

I followed up by noting that droughts, severe storms, loss of freshwater supplies, declining agricultural output, and disease migration do, in fact, impact people and create suffering (what with the climate containing so many humans).

He said, and I quote: "Don't believe everything you read."

[GoghGoner]

Many peak oilers also work or come from the energy industry -- Hirsch is no exception. His whole "productive" life has been spent possibly destroying civilization. Why would he want to realize that? People don't live in complete reality.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '[')b]Why do peak oilers and climate changers not get along better?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')He said, and I quote: "Don't believe everything you read."

[hillsidedigger]

The 2 issues go hand in hand. You can bet as oil declines that the use of coal will increase

although, I am convinced, that worldwide financial collapse can't be far off and will be followed by technological collapse which would tend to somewhat alleviate the climate crisis with peak oil no longer an issue either except people won't go quietly and big war will be the actual outcome consuming the last resources that can be mustered and thoroughly fouling the world's climate and world in general. At least then, peak oil won't matter.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoghGoner', 'M')any peak oilers also work or come from the energy industry -- Hirsch is no exception. His whole "productive" life has been spent possibly destroying civilization. Why would he want to realize that? People don't live in complete reality.

[KevO]

but they do

ttp://www.transitiontowns.org/

[bobcousins]

It's a good question, I have wondered the same thing. I think a large part of it is the linear, one dimensional though processes humans apply. A lot of "single issue" causes are blinkered and believe only their issue is important. Talk to the scientists at realclimate.org, and they are adamant that only massive CO2 reduction can solve the problem and that no other solution is to be considered, even though CO2 reduction is looking less likely with each failed international agreement.

The single issue response is the same kind of thinking that got us into the mess in the first place of course. In the UK instead of a balanced mix we went all out for NG plants and running down nuclear. Now we are very vulnerable to NG supply, and looking to ramp up nuclear again, not something that can be done overnight.

Anyone taking a step back and looking at the big picture should see that a controlled decline in FF use and concomitant increase in renewables should be the way to go. Everyone seems to know that putting all the eggs in the same basket is a bad idea - yet collectively we seem unable to act on such a simple principle.

[SeaGypsy]

I agree, it is a very good question.
On the one hand most AGW folks don't seem to take economics and the intrinsic relationship with oil very seriously. Most AGW's seem to think ecomomics are 'bad' and that there is plenty enough oil (and coal, gas) to destroy life on the planet. The idea seems to be that 'If ecomomic capitalism is allowed to run it's course, life will be over, or at least life as we know it.'
While the idea has some merit, it's scope is limited, because it ignores depletion factors as well as the complexity of capitalism.

The idea that life on the planet can't exist with all that carbon in the apmosphere ignores the fact that the oldest oil, gas and coal deposits in the world were put in the ground, from the apmosphere, by thriving life. To deny this is to believe in abiotic oil, to believe we can carbonise the apmosphere to death because there is more in the ground than the apmosphere can handle. Abiotic oil has been thoroughly debunked.

As one who leans more towards peak oil than to AGW, I do so because I believe peak oil is an imminent threat to society. Along with this I believe mitigation and efficiency strategies are crucial to survival, not of life itself, but of complex societies.
Peakers tend to be more aware of economic complexity and oil's vital, central position in complex society. We tend to be put off by claims by AGWers that AGW is far and away the most pressing problem on the planet; sidelining peak oil.

There needs to be more understanding between the two. Both issues are fundamental in importance.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KevO', 'b')ut they do

ttp://www.transitiontowns.org/

[SeaGypsy]

Good point Short. Transition towns are newspeak for 'alternative communities' and are more about escape from mainstream 'reality'; just as they were 40 years ago when they were called 'hippy communes'. Society at large coming to grips with these issues is the only possible fix. People running of and forming microcosms of self reinforced belief in sustainability has always happened and will continue; all well and good, but it won't 'save the world'.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'G')ood point Short. Transition towns are newspeak for 'alternative communities' and are more about escape from mainstream 'reality'; just as they were 40 years ago when they were called 'hippy communes'.

[AgentR]

The set of all PO affirmative folks, and the set of all AGW affirmative folks does overlap, but it is no where near a 100% match. So, to start with its "Why do SOME peak oilers and some climate changers not get along..."

You can look at each exclusive part, and see some reasons though. A PO person who either rejects or doesn't care about AGW could easily be of the opinion that oil shortages and economic collapse will more than meet any suggested, realistic targets suggested by the agw crowd. They might also be of the opinion that the suffering an ecological disaster created by the last desperate lunges of hydrocarbon consumption will vastly overwhelm any suggested AGW effects.

An AGW person that rejects PO, could easily assume that whatever energy is required to transition to lower emission target X, will always be readily available, economically viable, and comparatively inexpensive. All ideas that are anathema to a notion of PO. An AGW person could easily assume that outside of any mandated reduction in emissions, consumption of hydrocarbons can continue to rise indefinitely.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'G')ood point Short. Transition towns are newspeak for 'alternative communities' and are more about escape from mainstream 'reality'; just as they were 40 years ago when they were called 'hippy communes'.

[Pops]

It is a good question.

Perhaps because it's easy to buy your way to low carbon - a few twisty bulbs and a new hybrid car and you are instantly Green!

Harder maybe to buy your way to decoupling from the oil age, what with constant growth, hundreds of energy slaves at your call and all that.

Not trying to be snide but in my mind it really was just a while back that the next ice age was just around the corner. If you read the paper about particulates, as soon as we stop spouting all that crap into the air and global dimming diminishes, we're gonna cook!


I guess maybe the real point for me is that I don't believe we will stop burning ff's voluntarily and there is no easy, cheap, viable, scalable, alternative primary fuel - if there were we would already be using it and have left someone else to waste blood and money over oil.

So besides finding a better location in the next few decades there isn't much for me to do about GW but I can at least try to plan for some of the effects of PO.

[SeaGypsy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'G')ood point Short. Transition towns are newspeak for 'alternative communities' and are more about escape from mainstream 'reality'; just as they were 40 years ago when they were called 'hippy communes'.

[mos6507]

The Jury is still out on Transition. I too am very concerned that it is taking root only in "the usual" places, but there are a few exceptions. Richard Heinberg mentioned one initiative to me that he said didn't have "the usual" demography. I can't remember the town. I am kind of agnostic about it right now because it's still early. But then I don't think there's much time left either. So it's kind of now or never. Even if Transition takes off like wildfire, it will still be a nascent phenomenon when TSHTF. I don't think we have until 2025 for these energy descent action plans to go from point A to point B.

[americandream]

The two don't necessarily coincide. One can reasonably hold a view on peak oil and BAU's wasteful use of resources whilst contemplating a BAU that is more efficient.

In contrast, advocacy of climate risk is much more broader in scope.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '[')b]Why do peak oilers and climate changers not get along better?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m currently attending Ohio State University's Moving Ahead 2010 conference, focused on transitioning to sustainable transportation. I'll be moderating a panel tonight. I think it will be filmed -- I'll let you know, assuming it's not a disaster.

I had an interesting experience this morning at a presentation by Robert Hirsch (oil industry vet, now a consultant, author of famed Hirsch Report) on peak oil. It was pretty familiar stuff to anyone who's followed the issue: oil production is going to head into inexorable decline in the next few years, oil prices will spike, electrification won't be fast enough to replace liquid fuels, and the only near-term options are coal-to-liquids, tar sands, and to a lesser extent, efficiency.

Afterwards I asked him about climate change, which he hadn't mentioned in his presentation. I noted that all his short-term mitigation options involve increasing CO2 emissions, despite the fact that scientists are recommending U.S. emissions fall to effectively zero by 2050.

He said, basically, that people and their suffering matter more to him than the climate.

I followed up by noting that droughts, severe storms, loss of freshwater supplies, declining agricultural output, and disease migration do, in fact, impact people and create suffering (what with the climate containing so many humans).

He said, and I quote: "Don't believe everything you read."

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I')t is a good question.

Perhaps because it's easy to buy your way to low carbon - a few twisty bulbs and a new hybrid car and you are instantly Green!

Harder maybe to buy your way to decoupling from the oil age, what with constant growth, hundreds of energy slaves at your call and all that.

Not trying to be snide but in my mind it really was just a while back that the next ice age was just around the corner. If you read the paper about particulates, as soon as we stop spouting all that crap into the air and global dimming diminishes, we're gonna cook!


I guess maybe the real point for me is that I don't believe we will stop burning ff's voluntarily and there is no easy, cheap, viable, scalable, alternative primary fuel - if there were we would already be using it and have left someone else to waste blood and money over oil.

So besides finding a better location in the next few decades there isn't much for me to do about GW but I can at least try to plan for some of the effects of PO.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '[')b]Why do peak oilers and climate changers not get along better?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m currently attending Ohio State University's Moving Ahead 2010 conference, focused on transitioning to sustainable transportation. I'll be moderating a panel tonight. I think it will be filmed -- I'll let you know, assuming it's not a disaster.

I had an interesting experience this morning at a presentation by Robert Hirsch (oil industry vet, now a consultant, author of famed Hirsch Report) on peak oil. It was pretty familiar stuff to anyone who's followed the issue: oil production is going to head into inexorable decline in the next few years, oil prices will spike, electrification won't be fast enough to replace liquid fuels, and the only near-term options are coal-to-liquids, tar sands, and to a lesser extent, efficiency.

Afterwards I asked him about climate change, which he hadn't mentioned in his presentation. I noted that all his short-term mitigation options involve increasing CO2 emissions, despite the fact that scientists are recommending U.S. emissions fall to effectively zero by 2050.

He said, basically, that people and their suffering matter more to him than the climate.

I followed up by noting that droughts, severe storms, loss of freshwater supplies, declining agricultural output, and disease migration do, in fact, impact people and create suffering (what with the climate containing so many humans).

He said, and I quote: "Don't believe everything you read."

[onlooker]

We have much more in common that differences. Of course even on this site some come here to deny certain realities. Adam is fixated with peak oil and its lost credibility. He thus fails to see a world whose economic momentum has stopped and instead is accruing enormous amounts of Debt just to keep BAU going. This is because the peak oil dynamic is alive and well. At its heart is an economic problem that is being masked by a temporary infusion of tight LTO oil and gas, but that will not last too long to maintain our energy guzzling civilization and by taking on this monumental amount of debt which itself is becoming like a time bomb. Yes, in the background climate change and CO2 accumulation continue unabated. We can they safely say the outcome of this is NOT going to be good. So, we are together trying to sort out our trajectory and ignoring the few here who try to trivialize one or the other doom scenario