Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 24, 2015
How we went from peak oil to too much oil
If you remember the 20th Century, you probably remember people worrying we’d run out of fossil fuel. It’s a worry with a long and often over-hyped history. As Matt Novak neatly demonstrates, people have been wrong about running out of oil for well over a hundred years. In 1909, it was thought the oil age had 25 or 30 years longer. In 1919, it was two to five years. In 1937, the director of US naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee it’d be gone in 15 years. And so on, and so on.
But this sort of rhetoric has looked dangerously out of date for a while. If anything, it’s flipped on its head. Today, the problem is not that fossil fuels will become scarce, but that we have too many. From this concern comes the campaigning mantra to “keep it in the ground”.
New or improved technologies, like fracking, mean we can access materials we’d previously thought either entirely unobtainable or at least too expensive to be worth extracting. The biggest change, however, is an awareness of climate change.
It’s increasingly rare to see fossil fuels imagined simply as a fuel. More and more, they’re seen as a poison too. We don’t just talk about what we can readily get out of the ground, but what we can safely put into the atmosphere. We’re increasingly hearing metaphors like “carbon pollution”. Or, as Al Gore put it at Davos: “Companies are insisting on their right to use our atmosphere as an open sewer.”
Bill McKibben can take some credit for popularising the rise of “keep it in the ground” as a campaign message. His 2012 Rolling Stone article, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, highlighted how many gigatons of carbon dioxide we can release into the atmosphere by 2050, and still have some hope of staying below two degrees warming and, more to the point, how many more gigatons on top of that already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves.
McKibben’s article quickly spun into a viral hit, followed by a wave of campus activism from which many networks of divestment campaigns emerged. It’s not just activist rhetoric though. McKibben draws on the idea of carbon budgets. International networks of scientists have been publishing these for nearly a decade to offer a detailed advice on how much carbon we are emitting into the atmosphere.
According to the 2014 budget — published last September — emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation are set to reach 40 billion tonnes, the largest amount in human history. We may be breaking records on renewable energy, but the same is true for emissions. As Professor Pierre Friedlingstein stressed at the time, our 1200-billion-tonne CO2 ‘quota’ will be used up in a generation:
If we carry on at the current rate we will reach our limit in as little as 30 years’ time – and that is without any continued growth in emission levels. The implication of no immediate action is worryingly clear – either we take a collective responsibility to make a difference, and soon, or it will be too late.
The refrain that carbon should remain in the ground gathered more public awareness earlier this month with the publication of a paper in Nature by UCL’s Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins. It states that a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80% of current coal reserves globally should not be used before 2050 if global warming is to stay below that agreed two degree target. Moreover, McGlade and Ekins identify the geographical location of the reserves which must be left untapped. According to the paper, the overwhelming majority of the coal reserves in China, Russia and the United States must remain unused — including, crucially drilling the Arctic — as well as over 260 thousand million barrels oil and 60% of its gas in Middle East.
16 Comments on "How we went from peak oil to too much oil"
Davy on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 6:39 am
What a crock of shit. These folks do not understand geologic PO, POD, and the ETP of oil. These talking heads are all about counting barrels and oil in the ground. Those who know PO know there is a huge amount of oil yet to be produced if we only had a source of energy with higher qualities of the best oil ever produced. That is what it would take to get at the remaining huge amounts of oil produced. There is no substitution for the highest eroi quality oil that has already been pissed away. It is gone and over in an entropic orgy we call BAU.
The AGW wags make me sick because they are the ones that at least have some sway over global public opinion but they are deceptively leading society astray. The single most dangerous predicament for humans now is a must and will happen societal collapse from the breakdown of a highly complex, energy intensive, and interconnect global system. This global is in codependence and symbiosis with all locals that have been delocalized and made dependent on an unstable support system with vast distribution and dispersed production. These AGW folks are leading people in to a false sense of hopium that we can continue BAU by other means. They claim we can embrace a shiny reduced carbon world with most of the comforts of BAU and no population loss. The highest level of the AGW leadership including many of the best minds are involved in a massive crime of deceptions and lies. We know BAU’s industrial and political TPTB are involved in a massive crime of deceptions and lies.
The fact is oil production will soon and very soon fall to a level that will not support BAU growth. This will crash the system to a much lower level of economic activity that will not support even half the current population. The time frame is debatable but the facts of limits of growth in relation to what is needed by BAU to continue in its required energy intensity and complexity is beyond doubt to a rational honest person. The other inconvenient truth is we are probably too late to halt runaway climate change. The feedbacks are going to kick in before long after the climate and its relationship to the rest of earth systems goes through a phase change. This phase change will likely be the end of a stable climate as we know it. Modern agriculture requires stable climate. AGW phase change will probably eventually result in a small band of habitable terrain for a small amount of humans.
The talk of PO at the highest levels of industrial, political, and academic TPTB is a deception and reality lie. The AGW plan B is the same type of deception and reality lie. When one puts our global society in context of a dissipative dynamic system nearing the end of growth, in diminishing returns, population in overshoot, carrying capacity breached, total earth ecosystem degradation, localized ecosystem failures, and a runaway climate near then we see that all the current talk is a lie. The time frame is debatable but that time frame is surely under 20 year at the most optimistic.
What we should be talking about now is the coming collapse to what levels and at what intervals. We should be discussing mitigation and adaptation options. A voluntary and involuntary reduction in fossil fuel use needs to be undertaken to both reduce overconsumption and force population reductions. Reducing oil is the best way to force required change that involves some kind of order and management.
ghung on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 7:45 am
AlGore: “Companies are insisting on their right to use our atmosphere as an open sewer.”
And how did Al get to Davos? It would be interesting to know how much GHG his share of this one plane trip produced compared to my annual ‘contribution’. I know this argument is getting old, but AGW doesn’t care what the cause is, or how we rationalise it. Just stay home. It’s a good start.
Rodster on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 8:07 am
I posted this yesterday in another post. It’s more appropriate here.
“North Dakota pipeline leaks crude oil, 3mn gallons of fracking byproduct”
http://rt.com/usa/225671-north-dakota-fracking-spill/
Kenz300 on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 9:29 am
We can deal with the cause of Climate Change (fossil fuels) or we will deal with the impact from Climate Change. It will be costly……..
Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches | World news | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing
ghung on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 10:44 am
Kenz: “We can deal with the cause of Climate Change…”
“We’ won’t because there is no ‘we’ when it comes to being proactive. ‘We’ will only apply to the consequences we suffer; some less than others if, ‘we’ are lucky.
J-Gav on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 2:37 pm
I’m afraid you’re right Ghung. Doesn’t please me at all but that seems to be the way things are going. We’ll be getting a further glimpse into those ‘at last really something’ or ‘BAU’ later this year at the Paris climate meeting, n’est-ce pas?
ghung on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 2:56 pm
J-Gav; I’m thinking world leaders are getting scared since climate change is becoming impossible to deny. I’m not sure what scares them more; the consequences of inaction, or the enormity (impossibility?) of the challenge.
I expect the best they can do without stampeding their herds is to attempt a pretence to action. Whatever stories come out of Paris, I’m sure they’ll be “comforting”, insisting that “we” are doing something. I wish a least one world leader would come out and say it; “Our way of life is fucked. Better get used to that”.
GregT on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 3:24 pm
Free market capitalism and modern industrial society have almost run their course. We are no longer borrowing from our own future anymore, we are now borrowing from the future of our children, and they aren’t going to be able to pay themselves back.
J-Gav on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 4:56 pm
Ghung and GregT – “Keep kickin’ that can till your shoes wear out” looks like the presently dominant force, doesn’t it?
Things well eventually veer in other directions of course, but it would be helpful if some higher-ups decided to accompany those changes with mitigating strategies as opposed to the pathetic “all or nothing” crap we see over and over again.
Makati1 on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 7:25 pm
If you look at the ages of the people who really run the world, the billionaires, you will see why nothing will EVER be done to slow the train to extinction. They are mostly over 80 and the rest are past middle age. They will not live to see the ‘world after’ so they don’t give a damn about the other 7 billion of us who inhabit this planet.
It is a game of power and wealth. When you have everything you want and there is nothing you really need, then you get bored and play with the fate of countries. Nothing new here. Just more obvious than in other ages.
James Tipper on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 7:53 pm
Well it’s foolish to look at the predictions made in the early 1900’s for the basis of why peak oil doesn’t exist. Let’s be honest, those “journalists” for the most part has about as much credibility as the “journalists” you see online today. They, like many are just trying to sell their crappy product(or newspaper in their time), and a headline that reads, “Don’t worry about oil situation” is not as catchy as “World runs out of oil in a generation”.
Furthermore we know from the data that the top year for oil discoveries peaked at about 55 billion barrels in 1965! Therefore we’ve been finding less and less every single year while simultaneously using more. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it will peak eventually. In fact conventional oil already peaked and unconventional oil is starting to show signs of weakening as well.
“If we carry on at the current rate we will reach our limit in as little as 30 years’ time – and that is without any continued growth in emission levels. The implication of no immediate action is worryingly clear – either we take a collective responsibility to make a difference, and soon, or it will be too late.”
What a bunch of crap, we’d be lucky as hell to have civilization operate the way it has been to work for another 30 years. I believe in global warming, that’s obvious, but I think peak oil is coming a lot faster and a lot harder than most people think. You can’t have a situation where you use 35-40 billion gallons a year indefinitely of a finite resource.
“But this sort of rhetoric has looked dangerously out of date for a while. If anything, it’s flipped on its head. Today, the problem is not that fossil fuels will become scarce, but that we have too many. From this concern comes the campaigning mantra to “keep it in the ground”.”
I’ve been thinking a lot about the implications of peak oil on global warming, a peak oil situation would reduce emissions over time considerably. Not saying it will stop global warming but it might be a physical halt to some of the worst polluters.
The keep the fossil fuels in the ground campaign is a catchy note with an easy to understand message. Of course it’s a fundamentally misguided, technological cornucopian view of reality. We need those fossil fuels, they’re used as the infrastructure of all of the renewables but also for global growth. Trying to convince me that “keeping the oil in the ground” is foolish. Of course it’s nice and pleasant but in reality we need that oil. Of course it’s easy to say, “we’ll keep that oil in the ground”. Until you actually need it of course. Then it’s drill baby drill.
If you think these environmentalists are going to take a 30-50% reduction in their lifestyle sitting down, guess again. These people are just as greedy as anyone else and this is coming from a voice of great sympathy for their causes. It’s going to be rough.
rollin on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 8:11 pm
Isn’t peak oil the time when the world is producing more oil than it has ever produced and never will again. So right now we are doing that.
GregT on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 11:23 pm
James,
“Trying to convince me that “keeping the oil in the ground” is foolish. Of course it’s nice and pleasant but in reality we need that oil.”
In reality, we need that oil as much as a heroin addict needs that next fix. Oil is destroying what we really need, a healthy natural environment. We ‘want’ that oil. There is a huge difference.
Makati1 on Sun, 25th Jan 2015 12:12 am
GregT, you are correct, not that you need me to tell you. We do NOT need the oil that is left, but we want it for our next fix. “WE” being the greedy BAU unicorn believers of the world.
True, I still enjoy the ‘luxuries’ that oil brings, like A/C and the ability to get to Philly in 24 hours from Manila, but, when they end, I will survive and enjoy life just as much. Maybe more. I will only be returning to the world I grew up in where such things were only for the wealthy or didn’t exist.
peakyeast on Sun, 25th Jan 2015 12:31 am
Well – we need a significant of the oil that is left if we are to transition to sustainable energy, making up for the loss of the fisheries, forests, and wildlife – as well as polution and the food production in the meantime.
Which makes climate change absolutely certain – since its the easier choice between immediate starvation death and death by climate change.
“We are damned if we do and we are damned if we dont.”
And since the world is run by psychotic mobsters – like the documentary on pbs showed in Russia – this will never happen. – They are too busy winning the greed game.
Revi on Mon, 26th Jan 2015 1:09 pm
It seems a little early to state that we went from Peak Oil to too much oil. Wait a month or two and that “surplus” oil will enter the market. Another couple of months and the oil out there in the tankers waiting for the price to go up will start to look pretty good again.
A couple more months and there won’t be as much around. A couple months more and the price will come up a little. A couple more months and the world might have a problem of too little oil again.