The goal of this post is to explore how peak oil and, yes, peak coal might affect the world’s effort to stabilize CO2 concentrations.

The Tar Sands Issue (#48) (PDF)

Jun 19th 2008
From The Economist print edition
A fundamental change is coming sooner than you might think

SINCE the industrial revolution 200 years ago, mankind has depended on fossil fuel. The notion that this might change is hard to contemplate. Greens may hector. Consciences may nag. The central heating’s thermostat may turn down a notch or two. A less thirsty car may sit in the drive. But actually stop using the stuff? Impossible to imagine: surely there isn’t a serious alternative?

Such a failure of imagination has been at the heart of the debate about climate change. The green message—use less energy—is not going to solve the problem unless economic growth stops at the same time. If it does not (and it won’t), any efficiency saving will soon be eaten up by higher consumption per head. Even the hair-shirt option, then, will bring only short-term relief. And when a dire prophecy from environmentalism’s jeremiad looks as if it is coming true, as the price of petroleum rises through the roof and the idea that oil might run out is no longer whispered in corners but openly discussed, there is a temptation to believe that the end of the world is, indeed, nigh.

Many European fleets are shaped by business choices made when diesel was cheap. The biggest supertrawlers can be crewed by only 20 men: essentially they have substituted fuel for labour.

This has also been posted on my blog, at: http://www.sindark.com/2006/04/on-price-of-oil.html

Jun 11th 2008
From Economist.com
The problem seems to be getting to enough of the oil that is known to exist

“WE’RE not running out of hydrocarbons,” insists Tony Hayward, the boss of BP, one of the world’s biggest listed oil firms. To back up this view, he cites various comforting figures from the latest edition of the firm’s “Statistical Review of World Energy”, released on Wednesday June 11th. Enough oil has already been discovered around the world, Mr Hayward says, to maintain consumption at current levels for another 42 years. As he recently put it, humanity has guzzled through 1 trillion barrels, but has its next trillion already lined up, and could probably unearth a third trillion if it really applied itself. Why then, are oil prices hovering over $130 a barrel?

Mr Hayward blames poor policy-making or, in his florid phrase, “the madness of men”. Some 80% of the world’s oil reserves, he says, are in the hands of state-owned oil firms, which tend to allow firms like his only limited access. He believes that if these riches were fully exploited, the world could easily produce 100m barrels a day (b/d) or more. That’s a big increase on last year’s figure of 82m b/d, and a level that other oilmen, such as the boss of Total, another big Western firm, think impossible.

It is pointless, of course, for Canada to take such a measure, since it is 10 times more a price taker than the US. If the EU took similar measures (yes, I know, at the expense of the autobahn), the price could fall still farther.

The current Canadian government program, giving people cash for old cars, seems very short sighted. For one, it makes the false conflagration of smog producing pollution and Co2 - it may be the case that N0x levels were reduced in 1995, but C02 production is a direct function of gas consumption - and the fleet economy has not improved since the early 90s. Furthermore, it will make it impossible for people to pick up old efficient cars (a car from 1993 isn’t exactly old) for less than 1500 or 2000$ - in other words, it will significantly distort the used car market. That would be fine if it targeted polluting vehicles, but as I’ve pointed out, from the perspective of Co2 production, it does not.

Why We Disagree on Peak Oil and Climate Change: Part III - Our Belief Systems
May 1, 2007