Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby vox_mundi » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 14:15:06

Obama’s climate change envoy: fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ange-obama
The world’s fossil fuels will “obviously” have to stay in the ground in order to solve global warming, Barack Obama’s climate change envoy said on Monday.

In the clearest sign to date the administration sees no long-range future for fossil fuel, the state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, said the world would have no choice but to forgo developing reserves of oil, coal and gas.

A global deal to fight climate change would necessarily require countries to abandon known reserves of oil, coal and gas, Stern told a forum at the Center for American Progress in Washington.
It is going to have to be a solution that leaves a lot of fossil fuel assets in the ground,” he said. “We are not going to get rid of fossil fuel overnight but we are not going to solve climate change on the basis of all the fossil fuels that are in the ground are going to have to come out. That’s pretty obvious.

Companies and investors all over are going to be starting at some point to be factoring in what the future is longer range for fossil fuel,” Stern said.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 14:47:10

“In the clearest sign to date the administration sees no long-range future for fossil fuel, the state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, said the world would have no choice but to forgo developing reserves of oil, coal and gas.”

They do love their clever word play in DC, don’t they? Not that this statement isn’t true but they toss this out to avoid saying what the administration’s actions convey: “In the clearest sign to date the administration sees a great short term future for fossil fuel, the state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, said the world would have no choice but to not forgo developing reserves of oil, coal and gas.”

As indicated by President Obama’s efforts to expedite the completion of the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline allowing the chock point at Cushing to be eliminated easing the import from the Canadian oil sands. A project he declared was “Vital to the American economy” in a speech made while standing in the Keystone XL construction yard. By his efforts to have more coal export terminals built on the west coast as well as expediting the permit process to expand increasing the capacity at Texas coal export terminals. By allowing the surge in the export of US coal…including a 300% increase to the EU in just the last 5 years. By allowing the US to export refined products made from 1 BILLION bbls/year of oil…much of that from Canadian oil sands production. By offering over 120 million acres of offshore federal oil/NG leases for sale. By approving hundreds of offshore drill permits since the BP blowout at Macondo. By repeatedly approving the budget of the US Dept of Defense…the largest single consumer of fossil fuels on the planet.

And let’s not glance over the obvious: Todd said “the world would have no choice”. He didn’t say the US or China wouldn’t have a choice. As I’ve often told our cohort Graeme: I don’t give a crap about what anyone says they’ll do in the future: I judge them on what I see them doing today. And it’s very clear that currently the POTUS is following the path he has clearly described: “Utilizing all of the above”. Which means the effort is focused directly on the short term and not the long term. But that makes sense since he’ll be long out of office before the long term shows up. IOW the only impact the POTUS will have on the long term is what he accomplishes in the next two years. And at the moment that plan is clearly dedicated to supplying the American and foreign consumers with as much fossil fuel as possible.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11033
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 17:24:03

R, You are quite right in asserting that the Obama administration has followed the "all-of-the-above" energy policy. This policy is incompatible with his climate policy and IMO it simply cannot continue for much longer. Michael Hoexter tries to explain the reasons for these conflicting policies. The world will be watching with intense interest to see what the US will do during the last two years of Obama's presidency. Will his energy policy change as is climate envoy states? His decision on Keystone will test his real character and allegiance to one policy or the other.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Timo » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 17:41:15

Employing an All of the Above strategy implies, "What's the point? We're fucked, regardless of what we do in the short term. Have fun everybody! Time is running short."
Timo
 

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby dorlomin » Tue 25 Nov 2014, 17:58:49

We have a limit on the amount of CO2 we can use. Different energy sources provide different amounts of energy per kg (or whatever) of CO2 released. It would be criminal if we have to leave good conventional natural gas in the ground in the future so we can burn coal today.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Paulo1 » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 11:44:38

re: "Which means the effort is focused directly on the short term and not the long term."

It is all about the election cycle, pandering to those who contribute money to their campaigns, and placating an increasingly stupid population entranced with their consumption lifestyles and electronic toys.

Things won't change until a major US city floods....oh wait a minute :?
Paulo1
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun 07 Apr 2013, 14:50:35
Location: East Coast Vancouver Island

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Timo » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 12:11:22

dorlomin wrote:We have a limit on the amount of CO2 we can use. Different energy sources provide different amounts of energy per kg (or whatever) of CO2 released. It would be criminal if we have to leave good conventional natural gas in the ground in the future so we can burn coal today.

It should be criminal to further deplete and poison America's aquifers in order to frack natural gas for use today, thus depriving future generations of any water for their own survival.
Timo
 

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 12:43:12

Timo - How about: It should be criminal to further deplete and poison America's aquifers in order to grow crops for use today, thus depriving future generations of any water for their own survival. After all far more water is being used for ag then frac'ng. In fact, for more water is being used in some areas to keep golf course green then is being used for frac'ng. And the contamination from all the ag chemicals has been known for decades.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11033
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Timo » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 15:14:20

ROCKMAN wrote:Timo - How about: It should be criminal to further deplete and poison America's aquifers in order to grow crops for use today, thus depriving future generations of any water for their own survival. After all far more water is being used for ag then frac'ng. In fact, for more water is being used in some areas to keep golf course green then is being used for frac'ng. And the contamination from all the ag chemicals has been known for decades.

Maintaining a sustainable balance is the key. Irrigation for crops is necessary, but there should be legal restrictions on the volumes of irrigation used to grow crops for today. One of the easiest (i won't argue ethically valid) methods of reducing our global population is reducing our food supply. Right now, we're destroying the planet in order to satisfy the needs of a never-ending growth in population. Balance is the key. Use it, yes, but do not deplete it at a rate faster than its natural rate of recovery. Over-use for ag or fracking condemns future generations to a life of living hell. We are responsible for the condition of this planet inherited by future generations. We're intent on destroying it for our own, immediate selfish gains. To those of us living today, the future does not, nor will it ever exist. If it does not exist, why worry about it? Screw it! Let's do whatever the fuck we want because we'll be dead and won't have to deal with the consequences of what we do today. The future lives of my children and your children mean nothing to me. My only worry is the cost of a gallon of gas for my 10 mpg SUV. I'm even willing to kill those in other lands who stand in the way of making my American Dreams of cheap living possible.

How's that?
Timo
 

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Timo » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 15:16:59

ROCKMAN wrote:Timo - How about: It should be criminal to further deplete and poison America's aquifers in order to grow crops for use today, thus depriving future generations of any water for their own survival. After all far more water is being used for ag then frac'ng. In fact, for more water is being used in some areas to keep golf course green then is being used for frac'ng. And the contamination from all the ag chemicals has been known for decades.

I forgot to mention that your suggestion has quite a bit of merit.
Timo
 

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 26 Nov 2014, 15:23:34

Dor makes a good point. What do we do with NG? Coal is already in decline, and oil (esp LTO in USA) will peak within a few short years. The problem with NG is methane! How do we contain this. We have a thread on controlling methane here. I thought that with regulation, excessive discharge could be contained (see my latest post on "Mystery of Oil Field Fugitives Closer to Being Solved"). But then Tanada followed this up with a post on Australian coal seam gas. As we contain one source, another pops up somewhere else. Looks like the proverbial Dutch boy putting fingers in a dyke. There are just too many leaks. So while NG could help American manufacturers and help jump start the hydrogen economy, it will worsen AGW! Maybe the economics of RE will solve this problem. Aren't solar and wind becoming cheaper than gas?
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 01:41:54

So we just need to agree on which countries' FF stay in the ground.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7282
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 13:48:02

Timo - "Screw it! Let's do whatever the fuck we want because we'll be dead and won't have to deal with the consequences of what we do today." Excellent!!! Now you're talking like a true red blooded American!

We have met the enemy...and he is us. Change human nature and we can change the path we're on. OK...you go first. And let me know how human nature responds to your words. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11033
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 14:28:48

Graeme,

"The problem with NG is methane!"

OK now, how do I say this...
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby basil_hayden » Sun 30 Nov 2014, 10:22:14

Synapsid wrote:Graeme,

"The problem with NG is methane!"

OK now, how do I say this...



Let's........burn it!
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Keeping Fossil Fuels Underground Makes No Sense

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 20:04:48

What would happen if climateers succeed in their campaign to keep fossil fuels in the ground? The experience of Walt Disney World in Orlando more than 40 years ago provides some answers. In 1973, two years after it opened, plans to expand Disney World beyond the original theme park were jeopardized when war broke out in the Middle East. An oil embargo was placed on Western countries, and President Nixon introduced gasoline rationing and price controls that lasted for nearly a decade under three U.S. presidents: Nixon, Ford and Carter. For a resort that received the majority of its visitors by car, the price controls and rationing were nothing short of a disaster. Attendance at the Magic Kingdom crashed, and Disney's share price fell by more than half. It wasn't just Disney World and Florida tourism that suffered from the spike in


Keeping Fossil Fuels Underground Makes No Sense
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 15 Jan 2018, 17:21:11

Related to the OP, politicians are like magicians or should I say hypocrites
As of October 2017, Oil Change International estimates United States fossil fuel exploration and production subsidies at $20.5 billion annually.


http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9294
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 15 Jan 2018, 18:43:32

Looker - At least they start out defining a subsidy: "A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by energy consumers." So one of the biggest subs is the low motor fuel taxes the feds put on fuel compared to what the EU tacks on. So despite the title most of the subs are not provided to the petroleum industry.

Of course probably the biggest sub by govt is one provided to home builders: imagine how much the total of the personal income tax reduction thanks to the mortgage interest deduction. Qualifies as a sub by their definition.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11033
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 15 Jan 2018, 18:54:51

And of I humbly accept, that I haven't gone to live in a cave in Guyana , so I am just one hypocrite calling out another lol. Oh hope your medical condition is getting better Rock
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9294
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: U.S. Plan: Fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Unread postby jawagord » Wed 17 Jan 2018, 16:29:46

“The end of the fossil-fuel era is on the horizon.”
Such woolly thinking, a perennial problem in human societies, is evident in the notion that Canadians can just cut off one of the country’s comparative economic advantages, oil and gas. And then replace it, and the many products for end-use consumers, with solar, wind and other costly alternatives.
Reality check: Most alternative green energy, like wind and solar, is inconsistent in terms of power production, requiring conventional backups fuelled by fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Nor are other alternatives such as biofuels and batteries yet capable of replacing, for example, the jet fuel necessary to fly airplanes or the diesel that trucks use to transport food, medicine and consumer goods. Anyone who believes the end of fossil fuels is near is not operating in the realm of reason.
http://business.financialpost.com/opini ... class-most
jawagord
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests