Peak Oil & Climate Change (merged)

[lowem]

NO cities are not the same, the difference is density (in terms of square meters builded per square meters on the ground), the US suburbia is totally ridiculous (starting with the road/street width).

An alternative design scheme which you don't see very often in the USA :



This is a panoramic photo taken near where I live, in Sengkang, Singapore. It is located at the north-eastern part of the country, way out there in suburban territory. Each apartment block is about 15 storeys high, with an average of 6 units per floor. Not counting the ground floor which is mostly unoccupied, we have 84 families per block.

We have a shopping mall with an underground subway that reaches the city/downturn area in 25 minutes, above-ground light rail system which reaches the rest of the town/estate, and an integrated bus interchange (located within the far side of the mall from the photo). In the shopping mall, we have shops, restaurants, cafes, a supermarket, ATM machines, two bank branches, a library, 7-11, and a Starbucks.

The photo was taken from the rooftop of a building with the following facilities : a government polyclinic, post office, police station, community centre, education rooms for cooking, children's lessons, dance, etc, a basketball court, and auditorium.

So we've got a few hundred families within 5 to 10 minutes *walking distance* of these facilities.

It's hardly a perfect solution, but I'm pretty happy with the walking distance. I stay across the road. 2 minutes.

There's only one thing missing that the local residents sometimes grumble about, and that's a cinema.
For that, I could take the MRT/subway down to the city area. Or I'll just drive down for the occasional show.

[Cid_Yama]

The problem with what Aleklett says is that we know we can achieve 350ppm on existing fossil fuel reserves because we've already done it - we're at 387 or so. We also know that we can achieve a close approximation of the absolute worst outcomes if the methane trapped in the permafrost begins to melt - something that the 2007 IPCC report spoke of as a distant possibility - but that we learned in 2008 was already happening. As Joseph Romm and David Lawrence among others have both shown, melting permafrost is more than sufficient to get us to 1000 ppm.

Given this, Aleklett's claim that the *scenarios* are fantasy is ridiculous. It is true we can't get there by directly emitting fossil fuels, but that doesn't matter, because we can get there by emitting enough fossil fuels to lead to massive methane emissions. His work in documenting fossil fuel reserves is important and valuable, but he doesn't seem to grasp that the terms of the discussion have changed. His demand that we keep talking about the old terms makes no sense at all - particularly when there is so much important work to be done on the intersection of climate change and peak energy.

The reason this frustrates me so much is that this doesn't help Peak Oil's cause, or help it enter into the discussion. Instead, it marginalizes peak oil advocates, giving people the impression that they have to choose between crises. It undermines the really good work done by people like Aleklett and makes people, myself included, take him less seriously - and that's a real problem, because his knowledge of energy reserves is among the best in the world.

link

[evilgenius]

Ok, either there is a real problem in the materializing reality that the production drop-off that is to come on the supply side for fossil fuels will not come in time to prevent severe methane release or this is being touted up to cover up something else. Also, it could be both. There is too much noise going on with this for it to be a story that is anachronistic in nature. There is either real substance behind it or it is serving some other purpose for it to be a topic of discussion. Plain unsubstantiated fear is not driving this story.

In the first instance our first question ought I suppose to be, what will happen if the worst case actually takes place? What about an unmitigated, but less than worst fear implied occurrence? What if we do something to change things? What if we do a lot?

In the second instance I suppose our questions need to run towards, who would have a development for which it would be so necessary for this severe push to change consumption habits? There could be any number of answers. I personally vote for Ghawar having a much higher water cut than is comfortable in combination with a sad exploration and future production curve being recognized by most (if not all) of the majors. That's just my opinion (a rather speculative one at that). We could talk about the reasons that other people think could be causing such hype, assuming the potential for methane release is not as much of a threat as is feared.

I guess, in the interest of fairness, I need to state my current position on the methane question. I think there is a danger of catastrophic methane release. I think there is a possibility that within a decade or two the North Pole will be ice free in summer. If this happens for enough years a lot of methane will be released. I understand, however, that unlike carbon based greenhouse gases methane, though much more effective as a greenhouse gas, has a far shorter lifespan. The peak trail down of overall world consumption may get some time yet to work to bring change to the situation. If we don't catch it now we may be able to catch it later. I don't see all hope being lost, in other words, if we can't rein in carbon emissions over the next ten years. The second chance will, however, be a much tougher row to hoe.

[heroineworshipper]

Enough of the methane theories. Where's the climate refinancing?

[coyote]

I don't get the contradiction. Climate change and peak oil are simply two converging crises - the first two of many. Neither contradicts the other as far as I can tell. I wish they did. Peak oil will make it that much more difficult to deal with the effects of climate change, and vice versa.

Or, to put it in language the neighbors might understand: The air conditioning's going to cut out just when things start getting really toasty.

[Dukkha]

^ I agree: the two problems don't cancel each other out but the way climate change and peak oil are framed (the former as burning too much fossil fuel, the latter as not burning enough) appears to do so. Of course, when a child goes to the zoo and gets his head stuck in the railings around the lions' den, the fact that he can't pull it out doesn't imply that he can therefore push his whole body through but for some reason - the tendency to adopt a deeply reductionist analysis which view problems in complete isolation, perhaps - this is exactly how these two problems tend to be viewed; I remember reading a review of The Long Emergency in one of the British broadsheets which made exactly this point. Either climate change is a problem or PO is but they can't both be.

[Homesteader]

I guess, in the interest of fairness, I need to state my current position on the methane question. I think there is a danger of catastrophic methane release. I think there is a possibility that within a decade or two the North Pole will be ice free in summer. If this happens for enough years a lot of methane will be released. I understand, however, that unlike carbon based greenhouse gases methane, though much more effective as a greenhouse gas, has a far shorter lifespan. .

A little mentioned factoid is that when methane degrades in the atmosphere it degrades into C02 and water vapor.

[Jotapay]

I'm done discussing this shit. I'd recommend anyone who still has questions about it go get a science degree and study the CRU scientists' data and emails and see if you think it's scientific.

Last I checked, Cid, historians aren't scientists. And I don't get paid by a foundation with governmental ties to form my opinion on the climate data that I viewed. It's so incomplete, doctored and unsubstantiated it makes me laugh that you think that you could take position in support of the theorem.

For the record, I am not saying man-made global warming doesn't exist. I'm saying that the science, as conducted, does not support this assertion. Do some real science and let's see what the data presents once we have a good idea what it looks like.

[Homesteader]

For the record, I am not saying man-made global warming doesn't exist. I'm saying that the science, as conducted, does not support this assertion. Do some real science and let's see what the data presents once we have a good idea what it looks like.

Got some links to peer-reviewed scientific articles that support your opinioin? Not all climate science is connected to climategate, far from it.

I get that you are done talking about it. Most days I feel the same way, simply from another perspective. All the bickering and back and forth one-up-manship doesn't mean jack, and is a waste of our time. You are one of the few people on this site who have taken specific, concrete and significant steps as you see them to improve your families situation in light of peak oil etc. . .Kudos to you for that.

FWIW, I do have a science degree, and more hands-on life experience to go with it than most people with a science degree.

[evilgenius]

What's this about mutual exclusivity? Take a look at what peak oil will do. It will cause man to conserve. It will most likely cause a new habit of conservation to materialize. That is just the thing needed to combat climate change. Without that all other efforts to do something about it will fail. If you can't see that it has to happen at that level (something far deeper than Kyoto or Rio or Copenhagen) then skip this post.

My point is that this new habit will, it seems, come too late to have an effect on the window we are being told that we have. There is another more difficult window into which we then head. If the new habit does not merge with new technologies and other things we will miss that one too.

The other thing I am referring to is the danger we face from the current political and economic nature of the world. They will not let go of the system they have been using to take and keep power as easily as high gas prices can cause people to cease being able to afford driving. They can go to war, impose taxes and create laws (in addition to engineer financial collapse that serves the purpose of chemo to the overpopulation problem) in order to forestall their demise. This will have an impact on the timing of the new habit as much as not being able to afford a tankful. Combined with the apparent slow drop-off in production over the next decade these two forces almost guarantee we won't make the 10 year window that most climate change activists are screaming about.

I vote for Saudi production problems to be the number one worry of the ruling class, those that think along those lines at least. Preparation for what the ruling class will have to do and what kind of model they will have to impose upon the world post severe high water cut Ghawar has been and will dominate the news for some time regardless of the eventual shortsightedness of it. Climate change will only be used by those whose political and power interests are at stake, not sincerely approached except by those who can see the need. The fact that the ruling class might use climate change as part of their propaganda, however, has no impact on the truth of the argument. Because of this it will probably only be later, when the undeniable and more immediate Darwinian struggle begins to crest that the world will have any chance to do anything really constructive. Yes, by then it may be too late.

[Tanada]

What's this about mutual exclusivity? Take a look at what peak oil will do. It will cause man to conserve. It will most likely cause a new habit of conservation to materialize. That is just the thing needed to combat climate change. Without that all other efforts to do something about it will fail. If you can't see that it has to happen at that level (something far deeper than Kyoto or Rio or Copenhagen) then skip this post.

My point is that this new habit will, it seems, come too late to have an effect on the window we are being told that we have. There is another more difficult window into which we then head. If the new habit does not merge with new technologies and other things we will miss that one too.

The other thing I am referring to is the danger we face from the current political and economic nature of the world. They will not let go of the system they have been using to take and keep power as easily as high gas prices can cause people to cease being able to afford driving. They can go to war, impose taxes and create laws (in addition to engineer financial collapse that serves the purpose of chemo to the overpopulation problem) in order to forestall their demise. This will have an impact on the timing of the new habit as much as not being able to afford a tankful. Combined with the apparent slow drop-off in production over the next decade these two forces almost guarantee we won't make the 10 year window that most climate change activists are screaming about.

I vote for Saudi production problems to be the number one worry of the ruling class, those that think along those lines at least. Preparation for what the ruling class will have to do and what kind of model they will have to impose upon the world post severe high water cut Ghawar has been and will dominate the news for some time regardless of the eventual shortsightedness of it. Climate change will only be used by those whose political and power interests are at stake, not sincerely approached except by those who can see the need. The fact that the ruling class might use climate change as part of their propaganda, however, has no impact on the truth of the argument. Because of this it will probably only be later, when the undeniable and more immediate Darwinian struggle begins to crest that the world will have any chance to do anything really constructive. Yes, by then it may be too late.

I believe you are 100% mistaken. When the Petroleum runs lower than demand there will be a massive push for Natural Gas and Coal as substitutes, and IMO they will find ways both old and new to transition.

That will seal the deal on climate change, we might just barely be able to pull back from climate flip if we did it even now and forced a switchover to carbon neutral energy sources. The longer we wait the less likely we are to avoid flipping the climate switch into hothouse mode, and by the time we have burned up half the coal it will be far too late to act meaningfully.

[evilgenius]

What's this about mutual exclusivity? Take a look at what peak oil will do. It will cause man to conserve. It will most likely cause a new habit of conservation to materialize. That is just the thing needed to combat climate change. Without that all other efforts to do something about it will fail. If you can't see that it has to happen at that level (something far deeper than Kyoto or Rio or Copenhagen) then skip this post.

My point is that this new habit will, it seems, come too late to have an effect on the window we are being told that we have. There is another more difficult window into which we then head. If the new habit does not merge with new technologies and other things we will miss that one too.

The other thing I am referring to is the danger we face from the current political and economic nature of the world. They will not let go of the system they have been using to take and keep power as easily as high gas prices can cause people to cease being able to afford driving. They can go to war, impose taxes and create laws (in addition to engineer financial collapse that serves the purpose of chemo to the overpopulation problem) in order to forestall their demise. This will have an impact on the timing of the new habit as much as not being able to afford a tankful. Combined with the apparent slow drop-off in production over the next decade these two forces almost guarantee we won't make the 10 year window that most climate change activists are screaming about.

I vote for Saudi production problems to be the number one worry of the ruling class, those that think along those lines at least. Preparation for what the ruling class will have to do and what kind of model they will have to impose upon the world post severe high water cut Ghawar has been and will dominate the news for some time regardless of the eventual shortsightedness of it. Climate change will only be used by those whose political and power interests are at stake, not sincerely approached except by those who can see the need. The fact that the ruling class might use climate change as part of their propaganda, however, has no impact on the truth of the argument. Because of this it will probably only be later, when the undeniable and more immediate Darwinian struggle begins to crest that the world will have any chance to do anything really constructive. Yes, by then it may be too late.

I believe you are 100% mistaken. When the Petroleum runs lower than demand there will be a massive push for Natural Gas and Coal as substitutes, and IMO they will find ways both old and new to transition.

That will seal the deal on climate change, we might just barely be able to pull back from climate flip if we did it even now and forced a switchover to carbon neutral energy sources. The longer we wait the less likely we are to avoid flipping the climate switch into hothouse mode, and by the time we have burned up half the coal it will be far too late to act meaningfully.

Everything I have said I have said knowing you might be right. It is my hope that there will be a transition develop in the attitude of man, perhaps as a result of peak oil that will enable change. I am not 100% confident that it will happen. All that I can really say is that given the right set of circumstances we may not be entirely sunk seeing as how the short term, the only acceptable window as currently presented, is not likely to produce the necessary results.