Why are climate scientists ignoring peak oil and coal?

[PersianPaladin]

The following is an article I had published on the United Nations University Webzine:-

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/why-are-clim ... -and-coal/

For more on the issue of Peak Oil, I point people to my blog:-

http://hozturner.blogspot.com/2010/12/m ... -peak.html


People who bring up abiotic oil may be correct in claiming that it exists. However, its location and rate of production is certainly nowhere near enough to sustain the current edifice that exists from oil. Our vast global industrial society will need to scale down. We really should've pursued an alternative-energy infrastructure decades ago. Now, it seems that such an infrastructure will be de-centralized and only funded by reducing the size of the existing global economic super-structure maintained by oil. To do that, we will need to abandon the infinite-growth paradigm (fuelled by debt-based money) on a finite planet.

[tayga]

To do that, we will need to abandon the infinite-growth paradigm (fuelled by debt-based money) on a finite planet.

That made me smile - you sound like me! But I suppose this isn't the place for revolutionary politics although I do think that wealth and potential to damage the planet are closely linked.

I think the answer to the question in the post title is that peak oil and coal aren't really in the domain of climate scientists. That said, they most definitely should be of concern to politicians and economists and I'm convinced that the climate change argument is distracting us from a far more imminent issue.

Unfortunately, both peak resources and AGW arguments preach the same thing in terms of energy policy and I fear that the widespread antagonism to the latter will harm our ability to deal with the coming energy crisis.

[PersianPaladin]

To do that, we will need to abandon the infinite-growth paradigm (fuelled by debt-based money) on a finite planet.

That made me smile - you sound like me! But I suppose this isn't the place for revolutionary politics although I do think that wealth and potential to damage the planet are closely linked.

I think the answer to the question in the post title is that peak oil and coal aren't really in the domain of climate scientists. That said, they most definitely should be of concern to politicians and economists and I'm convinced that the climate change argument is distracting us from a far more imminent issue.

Unfortunately, both peak resources and AGW arguments preach the same thing in terms of energy policy and I fear that the widespread antagonism to the latter will harm our ability to deal with the coming energy crisis.

I think scientists do tend to stick to their own domain; that is partly understandable. Unfortunately, rather than "knocking on the door" to the other department; it seems people are more willing to either ignore other disciplines or just attack them. I see this not only with mainstream astronomers attacking EU; but also with uninformed people attacking climate science or peak oil economics/geology without understanding the empirical evidence that exists.

[jjohnson]

If you are interested in a couple of reads, regarding the near-future musings, and the challenges of our being a highly energy dependent world with demand growing with population increase, of a couple of authors who have written for some time now on "the awl bidness", their thoughts are neatly marshaled in A Thousand Barrels a Second, by Peter Tertzakian, and Power Hungry — The Myths of "Green Energy" and the Real Fuels of the Future, by Robert Bryce. The latter author also wrote A Gusher of Lies, so you may guess that he is not necessarily an apologist for the consensus views of the business. Both are detailed and well annotated, although they are not "scientific peer-reviewed papers".

Other viewpoints are nearly always interesting. If nothing else, they expose you to what is going on in minds with different background than yours. By the way, The Chilling Stars by Svensmark should be read in this context, as the global warming debate and the drivers of climate are inextricably tied together with what drives our lust for higher and higher power densities. The entire string on abiotic oil on this Forum is absorbing in this overall context, too.

Jim

[mharratsc]

[soapbox]
Since someone before me wandered into the political realm by opining on 'growth-based economies'... I am reminded of some science-fiction work I had read about or perhaps seen in a movie or episode, wherein two opposing cultures had initiated a war fought by proxies (giant mechanisms), and only two people were left on the whole planet, one young male and one young female, and both were intent on the other's extermination...

I liken our current economy to this, wherein we have mega-corporations whose only measure of success is 'be the wealthiest'. People don't need to stay alive for this measure of success- it could literally be obtained by computers calculating the stock market still running in bunkers after the human race wipes itself out in a global N.B.C. attack gone haywire.

I agree that the U.N. and local governments need to man up and push back against global conglomerates. National and international laws need to be enacted which bring corporations into some semblance of sustainability, and only get tax breaks by the level of humanitarian benefit they offer, versus the amount of financial kickbacks they can offer individual lawmakers.
[/soapbox]

[jjohnson]

Mike, I love your <soapbox> HTML tags! Those need to be added as official tags !

Jim

[mharratsc]

Ahh, I can't take credit for it, Jim.

I got the idea from our buddy from Down Under who said:

<sarcasm>

Heretic! Who ever said you could trust your own eyes or even judgment for that matter, especially when mathemagics explains it all without the need for Birkeland currents. Shame on you.

</sarcasm>

Cheers, Dave.

Aussie humor is even better than their beer!

[davesmith_au]

"No no nooooooooo, occiffer, I'm not under the affluence of incahol, though some theople might pink so..."

[KeepitRealMark]

"No no nooooooooo, occiffer, I'm not under the affluence of incahol, though some theople might pink so..."

Hi Dave
Too funny!!
I nearly hurt myself laughing at that post.
The world needs plenty more people just like you.
Myself, I try to remain civil in my exchanges with others. (unless attacked needlessly)
I believe this forum really needs a fellow like me around to maintain a lid on some of the more abstract ideas proposed by some.
Someone to say…”Prove It To Me”. Someone who refuses to buy any ideas that are not grounded in simple realistic terms with credible evidence.
I am not a scientist by any standard other than Observation and Analytical Critical Thinking. I long ago stopped giving credence to ideas I don’t believe are possible.

I believe everything proposed by the EU model is in the realm of realism enough for me to accept it as factual.
Thanks for all your contributions to our understanding of it all.


Cheers back at you.

[Aristarchus]

I long ago stopped giving credence to ideas I don’t believe are possible.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke's First Law

[KeepitRealMark]

I long ago stopped giving credence to ideas I don’t believe are possible.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke's First Law

If the distinguished but elderly scientist claiming what is possible was Einstein, it turns out he was most certainly wrong.
If the one claiming the impossibility is me, I am very probably right, unless proven wrong.

Real Provable Evidence is the factor necessary to tip the scales from unreal to real.

[StevenJay]

Myself, I try to remain civil in my exchanges with others. (unless attacked needlessly)
I believe this forum really needs a fellow like me around to maintain a lid on some of the more abstract ideas proposed by some.
Someone to say…”Prove It To Me”. Someone who refuses to buy any ideas that are not grounded in simple realistic terms with credible evidence.
I am not a scientist by any standard other than Observation and Analytical Critical Thinking. I long ago stopped giving credence to ideas I don’t believe are possible.

What the hell does any of this condecending, self-adulation have to do with the topic of this thread?

[kiwi]

People who bring up abiotic oil may be correct in claiming that it exists. However, its location and rate of production is certainly nowhere near enough to sustain the current edifice that exists from oil.

so if they are correct then you are wrong ... because the rate is being sustained

[tayga]

People who bring up abiotic oil may be correct in claiming that it exists. However, its location and rate of production is certainly nowhere near enough to sustain the current edifice that exists from oil.

so if they are correct then you are wrong ... because the rate is being sustained

The Peak Oil argument is that as the available oil becomes less accessible then the cost of extraction will increase and drive the price up. In that case oil will continue to be extracted at the rate it is required for as long as it can be sold at a profit or until it runs out completely.

In other words people like me will be back on horses long before wealthy industries stop using oil.