Peak Oil News and Message Boards

http://www.japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=482

No Exit? Climate Change and Peak Oil By Shepherd Bliss

British geologist Jeremy Leggett’s first book “The Carbon War” was described by the influential Sunday Times as “the best book yet on the politics of global warming.” Time magazine calls Leggett “one of the key players in putting the climate issue on the world agenda.” His recent book—called “Empty Tank” by its US publisher and “Half Gone” in the UK--builds on his former work as the Chief Scientist at Greenpeace UK and a decade as an international climate campaigner in order to now assert the importance of what he describes as “the oil topping point.”

{edited by MQ}Note: Do not post entire articles. Post a short quote and a link.

I love it! I vote for solarization, after we institute drastic conservation and efficiency and live on 1/4 of what we're consuming now. Why not? It solves both problems, global warming and peak oil. Why not start now?

Revi, I presume that is a rethoric question? We won't because there is no political will. As long as the reaction to the energy problems is lofty and contradictionary words, profits will trounce common sense, every time.

There is simply too much money to be made from the last drop of oil, from coal, from housing bubble.

“It will be possible to replace oil, gas and coal completely with a plentiful supply of renewable energy, and faster than most people think,” Leggett argues. He adds “a very big however”—these alternatives will not “be able to plug the gap in time to head off the economic trauma resulting from the oil topping point,” since we’re already “too late.”

I tend to think not as fast as most people think.

The big "however" I agree with 100%.

KevO -

Thanks for your excellent post - really informative.

Leggett's position is interesting but not, to my mind, wholly coherent, though I think you're dead right to put him ahead of Sinmmons both in his overview and his proposals.

In the latter though there are problems - leaving aside his somewhat bizarre advocacy of hydrogen (on which he has doubtless heard every single contra argument) the knee-jerk encouragement of advancing energy conservation, efficiency and renewability faces one primary obstacle, which is roundly ignored by Leggett and most other writers.

In round numbers there are one billion of us having industrialized and gained intense cultural addiction to fossil energies, with around two billion who are in the process of doing so. To assume that all parties will suddenly start to curtail energy consumption voluntarily, at the stringent rates needed to have significant impacts on the problems, without the very carefully defined terms, conditions and verification of a Global Treaty, is delusion on a grand scale.

Given that Kyoto, with its maximum 5% cut outcome, and its US-agreed lack of developing countries' commitments, is definitely not the treaty we need, it seems a shame that neither Simmons nor Leggett have yet put a focus on the necessary framework of Kyoto's successor.

Plainly, until we have that framework developed into a binding and operational treaty, efforts at energy conservation, efficiency and renewability will be massively constrained by nations' lack of trust of other nations' voluntary commitment to the common good.

Regards,

Backstop

In my opinion, authors such as Leggett probably know their proposals are doomed for the reasons explained above: lack of political will, lack of time, the fact 1 billion people basically need to abandon their hopes and dreams in their current forms.

For us on this list, we are probably self-selected for being willing to mentally adapatable a low-consumption lifestyle. If your dream has been to live in a hut and grow your food, then adapting to these changes may not seem like such a horrible thing.

But to most of the people in the US? And in the other countries trying to be like the US? Give up their SUV? Their kid's tuition at a university diploma mill? The retirement fund they've been diligently contributing to? The Social Security checks they've been expecting? The home in the burbs they've been dreamig of?

Not a chance. These changes will be resisted every step of the way by any and every means necessary.

Obviously, authors like Legget can acknowledge as such in clear terms. If they did, people would be unlikely to review the book favorably which would mean less sales which would mean the publisher doesn't make as much money.

Even if Leggett attempted to tell the truth, his publisher would send the manuscript back and say something like, "Need to lighten up on your criticism of hydrogen . . ."

Sincerely,

Sarah C.

Sarah -

with respect I have to differ with your analysis on some points -

Leggett - like most of those as well informed as he is - knows very well the possibility of optimizing the global transition beyond fossil fuels but recognizes the cultural and financial inertia that has delayed action to date.

I think you're very probably right about "Lighten up on Hydrogen" in this context, but would point out that such self censorship is the most potent tool of the status quo.

Further, its most valuable resource is the idea it pushes into peoples' minds that "there's nothing you can do", since it disempowers people from even trying. Passivity is thus maintained.

The need for a global treaty is very plain given the fundamental global nature of the problems of fossil fuels supply and outcomes. It is also becoming very well recognized globally. Some of that global interest is shown on the website:
www.gci.org.uk

regards,

Backstop

“It will be possible to replace oil, gas and coal completely with a plentiful supply of renewable energy, and faster than most people think,” Leggett argues."

I think it's a very debatable question we can EVER replace the current
volume of energy consumption from oil,gas and coal with renewable energy.

aahala wrote:“It will be possible to replace oil, gas and coal completely with a plentiful supply of renewable energy, and faster than most people think,” Leggett argues."

I think it's a very debatable question we can EVER replace the current
volume of energy consumption from oil,gas and coal with renewable energy.

Agreed. If we could so quickly and easily replace oil, gas and coal with renewable energy we should be well along that path by now, but we don't even seem to have left the gate. It's getting late in the day.

We all didn't discover that we were dependent on fossil fuels last week. We've known about it for decades.

I know, I know, the market economists are going to tell me that once oil gets expensive enough magical solutions will start popping up like dandelions in the lawn. Tell that to the people that live in Zimbabwe.

It seems like we're still on course to fulfill the Road Warrior Prophecy: "Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche."

I think it's a very debatable question we can EVER replace the current volume of energy consumption from oil, gas and coal with renewable energy.

No, it's not debatable at all. WE CAN'T. Alternatives can NEVER fully replace what fossil fuels have provided for us energy-wise.

What we call "civilization" will be turned inside-out (with lovely accompanying disease, war, die-off, environmental disaster, et al). If there are enough humans (and know-how) after all that is over, renewables may provide SOME energy for the new, localized societies that emerge.

But that's on the other side of The Collapse. . .if we are fortunate.

That's why it frustrates me so to hear so many talk about a slow and/or "manageable" decline. It's not just about fossil fuels. It's about the environment. It's about global warming and climate change. It's about a world-wide socioeconomic house of cards on the verge of collapse. It's about power politics uber alles--including war and pestilence. It's about SO MANY things, all piling up to hit (and, indeed, has started to hit) at the same time. Slow? Manageable? HA!

This is The Big Bubble--and when it pops, it's over.

Decades to go. Time to build, to plan. It'll all work out. And hunger will be eradicated by mining all the green cheese on the moon!

The human race may wake up. But it ain't coffee they'll be smelling.

Happy New Year. Really. Treat every day as a precious possession--while you still can. Cuz dusk is here, and full dark is approaching. Better learn how to have night vision. It might also help to pray to God, whoever you perceive him/her/it to be.

Most of all, don't YOU people go to sleep, too! We've GOT to stay awake; it's our best chance.

I'm reading Leggett’s book Half Gone at the moment and I can highly recommend it, I'd say it's be best single peak oil book around and I've read most of them. Very clear and accessible, I would rather give this book than Heinberg's to introduce someone to peak oil. I've seen Leggett speak twice, he comes across in person every bit as well as he writes.

backstop wrote:In round numbers there are one billion of us having industrialized and gained intense cultural addiction to fossil energies, with around two billion who are in the process of doing so. To assume that all parties will suddenly start to curtail energy consumption voluntarily, at the stringent rates needed to have significant impacts on the problems, without the very carefully defined terms, conditions and verification of a Global Treaty, is delusion on a grand scale.

Sorry BS, 1 billion of us are addicted to the services the fossil fuels provide , NOT the fossil fuels per se. Leggett's position (if I understand it correctly) is that it is possible to have roughly the same amount of services but use 1/4th the amount of energy. This is not boggus, even Wilson's article (the source of the various footprint formulas) have said something similar in their discussion. Powering down while keeping the same amount of services around is not bound to create any problems. The problem is that we are starting late and this will create a lot of problems: the amount of services will decline during this transition.

backstop wrote:Given that Kyoto, with its maximum 5% cut outcome, and its US-agreed lack of developing countries' commitments, is definitely not the treaty we need, it seems a shame that neither Simmons nor Leggett have yet put a focus on the necessary framework of Kyoto's successor.

Plainly, until we have that framework developed into a binding and operational treaty, efforts at energy conservation, efficiency and renewability will be massively constrained by nations' lack of trust of other nations' voluntary commitment to the common good.

It is a shame that such an agreement is not in place; but as time passes by the measures you mention AND the nuclear option will be called into active duty.

aahala wrote:“It will be possible to replace oil, gas and coal completely with a plentiful supply of renewable energy, and faster than most people think,” Leggett argues."

I think it's a very debatable question we can EVER replace the current
volume of energy consumption from oil,gas and coal with renewable energy.

Eventually we will; the question is whether it will be at a fast enough rate to avoid a nuclear "bridge", which will be required IMHO.
Quantum Dots for solar panels were a theoretical curiosity in 2000; in 2001 NASA and a couple of other research institutes prototyped manufacturing technologies in solution. In 2005 (May), the same NREL group did measure their efficiency in solar electricity generation and validated the calculation done 5 years ago. 5 months later, a company was selling a product based on the same QDs.
All the technologies that Leggett mentions AND nuclear have a much higher EROEI from fuel/resource to electricity which is what powers our machines.

KevO wrote:Note: Do not post entire articles. Post a short quote and a link.

Sorry. Will do.
Thanks backstop

Happy 2006 all.

I like Leggett's ideas. Nobody wants to listen if you tell them we're all going to die. They just turn off. It's not a message that gets through. We must start to make the transition to renewables. We have done it in our household, and with a combo of efficiency, conservation and alternatives we are at half the level of fossil fuels we used before, with no cut in lifestyle. If fact there is a boost in lifestyle, because we now spend less on energy. Even with the price of energy going up we have whipped it for a while. Anyone can do this, and the reason to do it is simple. Have more money. Keep your family in style. Send Junior to tech school to learn solar installation with the money you saved from shrinking the SUV to a smaller car. This doesn't represent the end of the American dream. It's the beginning of a new one. Live in a house that is around 1000 sq. ft GLAAG. Drive small cars, heat with alternative sources, insulate. Live close to work in a real neighborhood. You may find yourself with 2 extra hours every day to sit on the porch swing and talk with your neighbors. This isn't any kind of a sell out. It's reality. People will accept it. They already have.

Revi wrote:I like Leggett's ideas. Nobody wants to listen if you tell them we're all going to die. They just turn off. It's not a message that gets through. We must start to make the transition to renewables. We have done it in our household, and with a combo of efficiency, conservation and alternatives we are at half the level of fossil fuels we used before, with no cut in lifestyle. If fact there is a boost in lifestyle, because we now spend less on energy. Even with the price of energy going up we have whipped it for a while. Anyone can do this, and the reason to do it is simple. Have more money. Keep your family in style. Send Junior to tech school to learn solar installation with the money you saved from shrinking the SUV to a smaller car. This doesn't represent the end of the American dream. It's the beginning of a new one. Live in a house that is around 1000 sq. ft GLAAG. Drive small cars, heat with alternative sources, insulate. Live close to work in a real neighborhood. You may find yourself with 2 extra hours every day to sit on the porch swing and talk with your neighbors. This isn't any kind of a sell out. It's reality. People will accept it. They already have.

I just stumbled on this book for Kindle but am not sure it is worth the $11.00 if it just repeats all the same arguments we have beat to death on here. Does it hold up well in 2013? Would it make a good read for a friend who is still on the fence about Peak Oil and Climate Change?