[AWPrime]

I want to vote 'both' as well.

[Ludi]

Both are probably equally serious, both can be mitigated ("solved") by the same actions.

[skyemoor]

Yes, you missed both. You have time to change it now.

[MD]

No significant gap in response.

[Aaron]

11 new coal-fired power plants proposed by TXU Energy here in Texas.

500 new coal plants in China.

This trend is world-wide.

Why?

Because Nat Gas prices are so high. It pushes producers to cheaper feed-stocks... like coal.

PO is about burning the bottom half of the hydrocarbon family.

Which means even greater releases of greenhouse gases & other pollutants as we exploit the nastier hydrocarbons available to us.

From Tar Sands to Coal to Sour Crude... we will burn it all.

We will slash & burn millions of hectares of land for bio-fuel crops, drill to the depths of the Earth, extract hydrates from the ocean floor, & every other source we can devise to support our mad dash for power.

Right down to the bedrock of the poor, scorched Earth.

Peak Oil or Global Warming?

Peak Oil is Global Warming.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Exactly, both are caused by industrial activity and 'corrected' by eliminating it. It must happen one way or the other, you cannot seperate them.

(I realize definitions of 'corrected' vary wildly on this site alone)

[Dreamtwister]

It depends on your target audience. Since both are occuring, you can tailor your response to the individual. I would say that peak oil would get a better response from a pessimist because there really is no good news, and global warming for the optimist. Not that there's any more good news than with peak oil mind you, it's just easier to digest for some reason.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'P')O is about burning the bottom half of the hydrocarbon family... Peak Oil is Global Warming.

[NEOPO]

Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics

It would seem that the big money is realizing that it cannot stop the momentum.
Now they will get involved and focus on shaping policy.

Give this some time (I know we really do not have any) and perhaps there will not be any gap.
Yes I agree with Aaron as well.

[emailking]

I say global warming is more important. There is no direct mechanism whereby peak oil causes human extinction. (There is nuclear war, but that's not directly caused by peak oil and can be directly caused by a lot of other things.) However, global warming may very well be capable of causing our extinction. I'd rather be destitute than dead. Global warming is more important.

[Prince]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')liminate fossil fuel dependance because it is finite, depleting and will impact us soon.

Eliminate fossil fuel dependance because it is changing our climate and will affect us soon.

[katkinkate]

Both are true, but the global warming argument is the one most likely to produce a public response. Especially in areas experiencing 'abnormal' weather.

[pea-jay]

Well I intentionally left the question as an either or. I know the ultimate course of action will reference both issues: our own work group will take both energy and emissions into account. Judging by the PR and "buzz" the climate change crowd has made, speaking on this aspect will seem to be easier as virtually everyone with half a brain has heard what global warming is about. Not saying they necessarily agree, but heard the word.

Peak oil and energy depletion on the other hand IS new and nowhere near as prevelantly discussed or understood. Nor is it even as easy to explain as GW. Aarons point that peakoil represents the burning of the bottom half of the hydrocarbon family is appropriate as the natural response to a shortage in the "top half" is a good one.

Still emissions and climate change is just one component of energy use. Economic concerns, physical limits and geo-political implications are also important to consider. As important as preventing climate change is, in most places it is far too easy to talk the talk and turn around and walk the walk. Look at California's LONG history of controlling OTHER emissions. We have done pretty significant modifications to our vehicles, building design and chemical use to reduce gross emissions. YET we still struggle to meet AQ standards for three reasons. Overall population growth, emission points that are as of yet exempt from regulations and the biggie: failure to alter our way of life to reduce the use of our primary polluters.

To put it simply: we drive our cleaner vehicles on average MORE each year, negating the benefits of those vehicles. This I believe is a manifestation of Jeavons Parodox.

Back to climate change. How are we going to ever demonstrate the value of tackling GW on a local basis when on a national and global basis no changes are made to make our local contributions of any worth. Unlike soot or ozone that are local pollutants, CO2 is global. Unless there is a global structure, local efforts are more or less worthless because some less principled region or area is more than happy to continue to pollute. I know this is no justification for NOT taking local action but we would be intellectually dishonest to believe there was a quantifiable benefit to the global climate.

Let me restate differently: this is not my belief that we have a licence to pollute because other people are doing it, but rather a resignation that no effort to tackle GW would be successful UNLESS it was a globally mandated effort.

Planning for depletion on the other hand HAS locally quantifiable benefits. Reduce dependance on fossil fuels and you reduce your fuel bill. That's quick and easy math. That answers the "whats in it for me selfish types."

Trying to sell a plan that takes into account depletion and plans accordingly IS simpler on a local level (and i am a COUNTY planner, not a PLANETARY planner). By making recommendations to diversify grid power use from a handful of natural gas fired units to an array of solar, wind, geothermal and wave power facilities under the justification that it will (1) have lower long term costs to the county and (2) be more likely to keep the lights on, I appeal to the selfish side. But in the process I've also helped reduce the CO2 emissions by idling two fossil fuel plants.

Of course the real challenge with the depletion arguement is getting people to accept it in the first place!

To paraphrase the old expression, I guess I am encouraging people to THink globally, but motivate locally.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Prince', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')liminate fossil fuel dependance because it is finite, depleting and will impact us soon.

Eliminate fossil fuel dependance because it is changing our climate and will affect us soon.

[Ludi]

pea-jay, it might help to concentrate on the personal and community benefits of a low-energy way of life. Certainly some writers have made it seem appealing. You might look into the work of Anna Edey http://www.solviva.com/ ,Bill Mollison http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC28/Mollison.htm , John Jevons http://www.growbiointensive.org/ , Masanobu Fukuoka http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm , Toby Hemenway http://www.patternliteracy.com/ - some of their books include plans for community development along low-energy lines, and how to transition communities into a low-energy way of life. Anna Edey's essay "Greyburg or Greendale" http://www.solviva.com/Greyburg_Greendale.htm ,might be a place to start.


Sorry, I realise you might have already read all these...I guess I'm not sure where you're going with this thread? How to change the world? I don't think it's of any use to think about how to change the world, as any world change must start with individual and local change no matter what. So we need to start there. If we never start because nobody else is starting, then nobody will EVER start. I don't see any value in dwelling on the hopelessness of the world situation. In any case, our personal lives and communities will benefit, and there is no harm in that.

[Gazzatrone]

You really should have added a third choice that combines the two.

Here's my two pence worth

Concerning Fossil fuels. People will burn what we have to maintain (out of sheer denial in many cases) the lifestyle they have come to love, cherish and see as a birthright. So fat chance of eliminating that. It's why its called an addiction. the idea of losing the drug is just to incomprehensible, hence the reason many live in denial that it will ever go away.

Concerning the Climate. Well I noticed you called this thread POers v. Climate Changers. For what its worth, For differing reasons, everyone on this planet is a Climate Changer, else we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. I also noticed the second Climate is mentioned, then the issue is labelled Global Warming, which I think at this late stage is incorrect

As far as I can see, Global Warming became a mainstream concern 20 years ago which noone but attention seeking celebs with a plastic conscience, tried to warn us about. And did it while flogging their purile crap made from plastics that ..... yadda yadda!

We are now living in the initial stages of that climate that has now been changed by years of Global Warming. Whether or not we stopped using Fossil fuels period, tomorrow is of no consequence. It isn't going to change the inevitable.

In the final analysis you could argue that eliminating Fossil Fuels for either goal is fruitless as the affects incurred are affecting us now. Not soon. In reality it is to late.

[EnergySpin]

Actually there is really nothing to argue ...
Peak Oil will kill economies, GW might kill everything. GW wins, PO loses.

Bring on the nukes+wind+CSP, and we are talking business.

Aaron about our statement: "Peak Oil is GW".
People (especially Colin Campbel) have argued that PO makes GW irrelevant. To me this is just a proof that most of the Peak Oiler Benevolent Geologists are still on the payroll ... create an artificial sense of scarcity before you are forced to curtail the use for GW reasons and you make lots of cash.

[edpeak]

Gazzatrone, you are absolutely correct that it's inevitable
that the climate will change. However that it is "of
no consequences" if we stop fossil fuel burning (or sharply cut)
and likely that it's "fruitless" is a non-sequitor and fortunately
for us all, is false.

It IS inevitable that the climate will change...but it is not
fruitless to do something, because we can now
choose between the climate changing for the worse
by this much or by THAT much, ...it is of very
important consequence whether things get worse
by a smaller amount, by a larger amount or by a much larger
amount..that is what is at stake, so it does matter to
cut things down, despite the fact that, you're right
SOME level of (human induced and
mostly unfavorable) climate change it is too late to prevent.

so let's do what as can to minimize the damage..

[seldom_seen]

One of the major defects of industrial civilization is the inability to grasp the big picture. To see the system, the whole, and not just the parts.

This fractured and incoherent worldview is embedded in our educational system. From science to engineering, medicine and economics. The machine view, a universe of independent parts, goes all the way back to descartes, galileo and the 'enlightenment.' I also think much of it can be explained by quoting the Mogambo guru who recently quotes Upton Sinclair "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it."

This systemic blindspot can be expressed in the story of the little girl who goes to the doctor because she cannot stop crying. The doctor responds by removing her tear glands. Consequently, our civilization is severely hobbled in its ability to respond to widespread systemic disruptions. Specifically oil depletion and climate disruption.

Global warming and PO get much coverage as separate topics. However, they are part of a singular process. Humans removing carbon stores from the ground and pumping it in to the atmosphere.

These are not independent problems. Peak oil is holding our arms behind our back while global warming punches us in the stomach. Which brings me to fast collapse scenarios.

Lately, erratic weather events have caused widespread power outages throughout the United States. The most notable being Katrina (making New Orleans the first post-collapse city in the US IMO), as well as ice storms in the midwest and a severe windstorm in the northwest, which caused week long power outages for some people.

Using the windstorm in the northwest as an example, because I experienced it. I realized how close we are to a fast collapse scenario in our large metropolitan regions. The reason Seattle did not collapse because of this power outage is because we fortunately had enough oil supply to repair downed power lines in a timely manner before general looting and anarchy occurred. What is notable is that power crews were brought in from California, Oregon, other western states and as far away as Chicago. The critical point being the power grid is completely dependent on adequate supplies of gasoline to maintain it.

Now fast-forward a year or two (or next month?). Oil transport through the strait of Hormuz is reduced due to regional conflict. Cantarell is further down it's precipitous slope of decline. MEND one way or another severely disrupts oil production in Nigeria. The US daily consumption of oil is quartered, halved or more. Regional shortages occur.

Then, along comes our increasingly unstable and volatile climatic system. Another severe windstorm batters the northwest region. Once again, widespread power outages occur. People can no longer sit in their cars to get warm or avoid boredom by driving around. They don't have the gas, or can't afford it. The mobilization of power crews from across the US is not possible. They simply don't have the fuel to drive across the country to help out the NW.

An outage that may have lasted 4-5 days, now extends in to weeks. Eventually a month or more has passed and most people still do not have electricity. People start wondering whether the grid will ever be restored? As to what happens beyond that, I will allow the reader to extrapolate. Suffice it to say Seattle and/or Portland has effectively collapsed.

I believe this to be a realistic fast collapse scenario. That not only seems likely but almost inevitable.

I'd be interested in hearing other fast collapse scenarios that others have pondered?

[AirlinePilot]

And it could Happen Tommorow!

I doubt fast collapse will happen but do not deny the plausibility. There are numerous things within the full realm of possibility which could push us off a cliff rather quickly I think.

A Cat 4-5 in the Houston/Galveston area. (Houston ship channel)

Blocking of the Straight of Hormuz.

Successful terrorist attack against oil infrastructure.

A major shooting war in the Mid East region.

Succesfull detonation of a nuke by terrorists.

All of the above have the potential to push oil prices very high, very quickly.

The likelyhood though isn't one I plan for at the moment.