Should societies focus more on PO, less on GW?

Precipice · Tar Sands Joined: Mar 04, 2008 Posts: 39

Hi, me again.

Now that I'm starting to post here a bit more frequently, I thought now might be an opportune time to give you a bit of background info about myself (not too much though, just enough to titillate...)

I am working in federal government, in a department which is focused on addressing the issue of climate change. A large part of what we are doing right now involves getting an ETS (emissions trading scheme) up and running- a task which is far more complex and difficult than one might first imagine.

While we (finally!) have a department devoted specifically to climate change, as far as I know there isn't even so much as a branch of any department that is specifically focused on addressing Peak Oil. I have to say this seems like a case of warped priorities to me, for the following reasons:

1) Climate change is still an abstract notion to many people (even those who think its real), its something long term and 'diffuse' if you like- both in terms of potential consequences and in terms of payoffs from GW-mitigation actions

2) Responding to climate change is the ultimate prisoner's dilemma; unless the whole world acts decisively, it is essentially useless for all but a few large countries to act unilaterally to reduce greenhouse emissions (I am NOT in one of those large countries!)

3) Because of the long term, diffuse, expensive and generally difficult nature of the problem as set out in points 1) and 2), attempts to tackle climate change directly are greatly hindered by the fact that they usually run counter to the short term self interests and inertia inherent in human nature and a capitalistic "free"-market economic system

4) Peak oil is something that we can surely agree is happening NOW (or which is, at the very least, about to happen *very* soon) and so it is affecting each of us now, especially in the hip-pocket. Therefore the short term and financial incentives for action to address PO are much more concrete and apparent than they are for GW.

There is surely a great number of synergies in what we can do to tackle both GW and PO e.g. expanded use of renewable energy, building energy efficient homes, the list goes on and on. With that in mind, shouldn't we be focusing primarily (as societies) on tackling PO a la the Oil Depletion Protocol, with GW being a "supplementary priority" if you like which informs the particular details of how we go about solving the PO problem?

What do you think??

mos6507

Coal is our worst enemy. It's too abundant. There is some debate whether there really is enough recoverable oil left to cook the planet, but if you add coal to the mix, we're totally screwed. Coal should only be a bridging energy source to renewables. I'd even go so far to say that if it came down to using coal to conveniently push the die off back 20-30 years in exchange for wiping out humanity completely through climate change, I'd prefer to face the die off now. I just don't need that sort of guilt hanging over me.
_________________
As long as I am around, there are no worries we have reached "Peak Words"

--ReverseEngineer

Precipice · Tar Sands Joined: Mar 04, 2008 Posts: 39

That is why you need GW as a supplementary priority to temper PO-response actions and decision-making processes. There are some danger zones to look out for like the rush to coal that you mentioned. Even without GW people should be catching onto the fact that coal ultimately faces the same sort of finitude and depletion related problems as oil.

I'll wager though that for every action that can be taken which combats PO but exacerbates GW, there are at least two or three actions which can effectively help to combat both simultaneously. The idea is not to diminish the importance of GW, just to get people and socities off there arses and motivated to act- PO should be just enough (combined with GW as a overhead motivation) to achieve this....

skeptik

alokin · Intermediate Crude Joined: Aug 24, 2007 Posts: 872

There are measurements to tackle both, saving energy for example.
But there PO sheds another light on things- an example:
building bike paths may be good against climate change, but building it produces CO2 and you might not need them in a few years because you will be able to ride on the highways.

I would not say that fighting the one or the other, rather than fighting climate change looking through PO eyes. Asking what will be able in a low energy future? What will we be able to do while society falls apart? What will be possible without much assets?

The most interesting model I know for fighting both are the "transistion towns".

socrates1fan · Heavy Crude Joined: Jun 04, 2008 Posts: 284

I think GW is more of an issue but PO is up there.
PO means that fuel will be harder to get but it doesn't mean the environment we depend on totally collapses(I'm talking about trees, water, animals, etc) and we all die.
GW doesn't give a shoot if we are having PO problems or not.
It is long term but what we do now affects the future.

Precipice · Tar Sands Joined: Mar 04, 2008 Posts: 39

skeptik

mos6507

mos6507

Another PO coping mechanism that we have to worry about, which has been stated often enough, is wood heating in the colder climates. We really need every tree we can get to sequester that CO2.
_________________
As long as I am around, there are no worries we have reached "Peak Words"

--ReverseEngineer

Kingcoal

GW makes a pleasant diversion to the stark realities of Peak Oil. Most carbon emissions come from automobiles and there will be less and less of them running in the future. So while you are powering down in the future, you have something to feel good about.
_________________
"That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money

Cashmere · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Mar 27, 2008 Posts: 1971

Ludi · Last edited by Ludi on Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:27 am; edited 1 time in total

Global warming will make peak oil infinitely worse. Severe weather events are expected to increase. Imagine the midwest floods without a lot of cheap energy to run around fixing the levees.

Peak oil will make global warming infinitely worse. Temperature fluctuations are expected to be much more severe, but there will be no cheap energy for heating and cooling.

I see these two catastrophes working together to make life really miserable for a lot of people. Sad

_________________
"...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy

mattduke · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Oct 28, 2005 Posts: 1501

Look who is here to help.

dissident · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 454

Typical human debate. Instead of solving both problems at the same time as they are clearly part of one problem, we spend our time chirping about which is more important. It is amusing how GW denialists can believe in PO. There is no final proof of the amount of oil in the crust and perhaps the abiogenic miracle is really true. One set of proof standards for GW and another for PO and whatever else.