issues
support pci
Turning Away from Technology
Blog post
The Climate/Peak Oil Divide
Posted Mar 17, 2009 by Asher Miller
Last Friday I was on a radio program called Terra Verde with Tom Stokes from the Climate Crisis Coalition to discuss whether or not there was a divide between the movements of people focused on climate change and those focused on peak oil or peak resources in general.
Both Tom and I quickly rejected the notion, though perhaps for different reasons. From my perspective, any sort of tension would require some kind of equal status. The sad truth is that--as far as movements go--one clearly swamps the other (though neither has yet crossed the threshold from early majority to late majority, which means that both camps still have a lot of work to do). Of 100 people who are concerned about climate change, maybe one of them understands peak oil. And I think that generally extends to the activists.
Now, some peak oilers do dismiss concerns about global warming because they believe we'll run out of oil before the worst case scenarios can come to fruition. I know people who feel this way. On the other side, I know even more climate change activists who either ignore peak oil because--to be blunt--they're in denial, or because they fear that acceptance of it will diminish our collective sense of urgency to mitigate climate impacts. And that is despite the position of James Hansen, to whom many climate activists otherwise regularly turn.
This entire subject is pretty much irrelevant and 'inside the beltway,' until you get to this substantive question: How does understanding of one crisis change our response to the other?
First, let me say that I think both positions are dangerously naïve.
On the climate side, the worst case scenarios seem to be leaping, not creeping, up at us. Virtually every new study points to more immediate and more severe climate impacts. It's unclear whether or not we have passed the tipping point whereby positive feedback loops rapidly increase greenhouse gas levels, but it's hard to deny that the global climate has already gone funky. Welcome to the new world.
What that means is that we're already faced with the question of adaptation. Therefore, any solutions to addressing our dependence on depleting fossil fuels better factor in a changed climate in the equation. Regionalized flooding, storms, drought, water scarcity, loss of forests and habitat, fires, heat waves, mass migrations of people, economic destruction--namely, all the impacts of climate uncertainty--are going to have a major say in what types of alternatives are available to us, not to mention how we adapt to a low-energy world.
On the peak energy side, any large-scale solutions to address global climate change must be grounded in realism about fossil fuel production. I never understood the concern that awareness of peak oil would somehow take the wind out of the sails of the climate crisis. To me the exact opposite fear is true: Because we are facing declines in oil and natural gas production, and ultimately coal, our window for solving the climate crisis is even narrower. It will take massive investments of fossil fueled energy to produce the kind of renewable energy production we'd need to replace any meaningful amount of our current energy portfolio.
I have real doubts that we'll ever come close to this goal. But we've got to shoot for as much as we can, as wisely as we can. It's no exaggeration to say that this is a life and death issue. So we've got just one shot to get it right.
The bottom line is that peak energy and climate change are two sides of the same coin. Frankly, I don't care which of these you care most about. But know that the solution to one is the solution to the other: Get off fossil fuels fast.
And here's one area where the two camps could really work together: coal. Coal is the climate's worst nightmare. Of all fossil fuels, it's the most carbon emitting. It makes up nearly 50% of US electricity production and nearly 70% of China's energy supply. Since 2003, it's the fastest growing energy sector and is estimated at having the largest reserves of all fossil fuels. Beyond its impact on the climate, coal production is also hugely devastating to the local environment. The combination of all these things makes it central to the problem, and the solution.
The climate movement is coalescing around the need to stop the production of new coal plants. In response, the coal industry has been waging its own campaign claiming that "clean coal is here." And the coal industry has friends in high places: the Obama Administration. The Administration is fast-tracking carbon sequestration projects and Obama himself has said that "Clean coal technology is something that can make America energy independent."
It may be that the administration's push is because Obama comes from a coal state. Or maybe they actually understand that we're facing the end of cheap, abundant oil and natural gas, and so assume that we had better find a way to keep coal as the major energy source in this country. But what if recoverable coal supplies aren't nearly what conventional wisdom claims? Everywhere you look--including in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--cheap coal is assumed to be available for hundreds of years.
What if they're wrong? Would the government still invest billions upon billions on "clean coal?"
Post Carbon Institute's Senior Fellow, Richard Heinberg, has completed a book called Blackout: Coal, Climate, and the Last Energy Crisis (to be published in June 2009 and serialized in his Museletter) that blows a hole in the conventional wisdom. The climate activist community should jump all over his findings as a major weapon in the arsenal against a coal-fueled future.
For those in the climate movement (of whom I count myself as one) who read this post, consider this an invitation to work together.
Like this post?
Keep the information flowing: Donate to Post Carbon Institute
Stay connected: Receive our monthly e-newsletter
Reposting: See our reposting policy
meet our fellows
what is pci?
Reader Comments
8 comments
It's about how we live on this planet
From: Ann Rosenthal, Apr 18, 2009 04:59 AM
I am not a scientist; I am an artist. I am deeply concerned about these issues and how we can live sustainably on this planet. I am driven not only by the potential catastrophies facing humankind, whether it is climate change or peak oil, but also who we are as human beings sharing this planet with other life forms and systems. Fundamentally, I think we are facing a crisis of values. For far too long, we have lived on this planet as if there is no tomorrow and no consequences. We have been led to believe that more is always better, that there is no end to our resources, and we rule this planet. There is little awareness among most of our population that we have some responsibility to the rest of non-human nature. The concept of "the Commons" has been obliterated. I agree that only gloom and doom will not inspire people to change how they live. In truth, living selfishly with little regard for the diversity of life on this planet, is a hollow way to live; it is ultimately unsatisfying and empty. People try to fill that emptiness by buying more stuff that they don't even need or want, which in turn is using up our limited resources. So I think part of what is needed to inspire people to behave differently is to find ways to reveal to them that there is another way to live that is more fulfilling and in balance with the planet. That is what I try to do through my art work and projects, along with raising questions and promoting dialogue about these issues. (Of course, climate change and peak oil are two sides of the same coin--both are about living unsustainably on this planet.)
The Larger Point
From: Robert Firth, Apr 6, 2009 07:17 PM
For what it's worth, I agree with John van Doren. The problem is neither energy nor climate; the problem is people: namely, far too many of us.
The solution, therefore - the only solution - is far fewer people. It is also a solution that requires no action on our part, because Nature is going to impose it. The only uncertainty is which of the four horsemen will rack up the biggest body count.
Are we missing the larger point?
From: John Van Doren, Apr 1, 2009 12:17 PM
It seems the question here is which issue presents the greatest peril is therefore the most important. However, since both global warming and peak oil will eventually trigger a catastrophic collapse in human carrying capacity it is probably foolish to argue for the supremacy of either. One could make equivalent arguments that peak water, peak food, or even peak debt will be the first triggers of collapse.
Human carrying capacity is currently made up of a combination of specious and unsustainable carrying capacity based on highly leveraged non-renewables and a rapidly degrading natural carrying capacity. It is a house of cards full of fragile trigger points any one of which could send us over the brink.
Rutledge, Mearns, de Sousa and Bardi
From: Killian O, Mar 19, 2009 08:01 PM
The recent story, Fire or Ice?, and the following comments on The Oil Drum were quite revealing.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5084
The underlying idea that AGW just isn't that big a deal comes from Rutledge's assessments of how much coal there is available. He uses the MACGCC climate modeling program set with his own estimations of coal reserves, but preserving the use of the default climate sensitivity at 3C per doubling of CO2. Rutledge comes to the conclusion that there simply are not enough FFs to get us into dangerous territory. That is, 450 - 600 ppm is acceptable. The Rutledge paper has not been through peer review.
Mearns is an AGW denialist, by his own admission. I *believe* de Sousa is, also. Both are quite happy to accept Rutledge's findings. Their analysis is summed up here: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4807
Throughout these chapters, the IEA refers to potential climate impacts that imply a CO2 sensitivity parameter that is higher than that assessed by the IPCC and used by default in the temperature modelling software used. Such high sensitivity is incompatible with the empirical relationship between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations in recent decades.
These inconsistencies undermine much, if not all, the recommendations implicit in the 450 and 550 ppm policy scenarios. Our 2008 Olduvai Assessment suggests that CO2 emissions will fall this century with the exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves. This alone will provide the desired outcomes of the 450 and 550 ppm scenarios, without burdening the OECD and non-OECD countries with artificial constraints on their energy use.
Note that these conclusions come nearly a year-and-a-half after Hansen, et al's work on climate sensitivity. They also come after the big melts in the Arctic of '05, '07 and '08 - which include loss of almost all the old, thick ice. They also come after many climate scientists have noted that the effects of AGW are accelerating. And, finally, after the reports on increased methane emissions from Arctic regions and a sudden and large increase in atmospheric methane. Note the tired and inappropriate use of the "AGW mitigation will destroy the economy" theme in that last sentence.
Bardi compounds the problem with a presentation in which he cites the papers so far on energy reserves and climate and examines them cursorily. From this overview comes the following conclusion:
Nevertheless, a consensus seems to be emerging. Even with different models and different assumptions, it appears that geological constraints pose an important limit on CO2 emissions. All the studies discussed here arrive at the conclusion that, even without policy interventions, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will stabilize in a range that goes, approximately, from 450 to 600 ppm...
Based on these studies, peak oil (and, in general, peak fossils) is going to have a strong effect on the climate issue. For one thing, it may well make the Kyoto treaty obsolete. There would be no need for policy measures to enforce the Kyoto targets. The emission limits that today are often seen as an insufferable set of constraints on the economy, could become, in the near future, just a consequence of the reduced supply of fossil fuels coupled with a contracting economy. On the other hand, the targets of the Kyoto treaty might well turn out to be insufficient to counter global warming.
Bardi is self-stated as being AGW aware. The interesting thing is how he downplays the threats and emphasizes the benefits of these prognostications. The preceding two paragraphs appear to be acceptable to utter as long as you 1) ignore Hansen, et al., 2) ignore the signals all around us from the environment and 3) give a one-sentence caveat.
The most egregious omission by Bardi is the central reason for Hansen, et al's gloomy outlook: up to 6C climate sensitivity. What Bardi chooses to allow the reader to believe is that the issue is the amount of fossil fuels. He doesn't mention that the paper presents a new look at climate sensitivity and suggests it might be as high as 6C per doubling of CO2. All of these prognostications rely on using the 3C default.
Another problem with Bardi's paper is his characterization of the IEA higher sensitivity as having no viability when he has noted the Hansen, et al., paper himself! This is pejorative. It is an incorrect and unfair characterization of the IEA's paper. But, we must note he studiously avoids mentioning why Hansen, et al., come to their conclusions. I.e., 6C.
In his defense, Bardi does give end with a discussion that is states we don't know if depletion is enough to stop important levels of climate change and a call to move away from fossil fuels ASAP. The problem, to my mind is false equivalencies. Based on the fact that there is a consensus that there is already 2C in the climate pipeline, there is no support for the idea that we can possibly ignore Kyoto or that 450+ ppm is going to be OK. This is a glaringly obvious problem that Bardi and the others blithely ignore.
The question is, why? If IPCC IV projections are already way off the mark wit changes happening half a century or more ahead of schedule, what possible support can there be for 1.7 - 3C climate sensitivity? It's illogical.
So, you wonder why there is a split? 1. Not all PO-aware folk are AGW-aware folk, 2. even some PO-aware folk want to preserve economic BAU. Look at Bardi's pejorative language with regard to economic impacts. Note how there is zero mention of possible positive economic effects.
Part of the problem is also that the Oil Drum is one of the more influential Peak Oil websites. It's read by a lot of people. There have been three papers presented on TOD that deal with reserves and climate. Thus far, two are saying there is no problem with climate and the burning of ALL remaining fossil fuels and the third gives this view over-equal weight with the many, many scientists now saying we must stop emissions completely by 2050 to avoid global catastrophe.
Where, pray tell, is the paper to balance these three? All four authors have been asked why they accept 3C without question. Rutledge answered because it's what the IPCC used. This is not OK. IPCC IV was out of date the day it was published. The other three have studiously refused to answer this question despite taking significant time to respond to critiques of their work. On this point, they are silent.
Cheers
Energy and
From: Brian M, Mar 19, 2009 12:18 PM
Energy and environment/climate are inseparable. You simply cannot address problems in one without considering the impact of the other. Together, these represent the single greatest challenge ever faced (and likely ever to be faced) by humanity. Time spent arguing about prioritization is time wasted, and there is simply no more time to waste.
We must work on both. We must work as fast as possible. We must use every resource available. We must work together. It is the only way that we will have a chance. And this is the only chance we will have.
Brian
A positive vision
From: Adam Greenfield, Mar 18, 2009 04:43 PM
As the host of the above-mentioned radio show, I'd like to thank you Asher for joining me and empowering the listening public with your knowledge.
The question of whether or not the environmental and peak resource movements are separate is really a distraction. The point is that environmental ideas and visions have hit the mainstream, whereas resource depletion has not. This is a shame since much of the most inspiring discourse and positive image-building, such as Transition Towns, have emerged from the peak resource folks (although, as we need to keep reminding ourselves, such people are often environmentalists too).
As Asher points out above, purely environmental solutions that ignore resource depletion are likely to fail - and the reverse is also true. So, while there are people who think purely environment and some who think purely peak oil, a growing number of people are integrating both into one larger solution.
Tom Stokes disagreed with me that there is too much doom and gloom in the environmental movement. Nonetheless, I hold my ground. Seeing headline after headline saying that things are even worse than we predicted is becoming almost unbearable for me. If shocking people into moving really worked, we would be seeing much more action by now. In my opinion, a small degree of grave-picture-building followed by a tide of upbeat, hopeful solutions is much more effective. And yet, where are such messages in the media?
A critical role of the media and of popular culture is to spur citizens to action. Not only must we inform but we must inspire. That inspiration must exist regardless of the stakes we are up against. We must fill ourselves with the energy of the greatest, bravest fighters, charge bravely into battle, and fight with all we've got. The time has arrived.
Earth Equity News
From: Asher Miller, Mar 17, 2009 04:01 PM
I forgot to mention that the Climate Crisis Coalition offers a fantastic daily newsfeed of articles and op/eds on the climate crisis. I've read it everyday for the last three years.