Warming or not, we must end global oil economy

[Aurora]

Asia News Network - 09/12/09

This month, leaders from all across the globe are in the Danish capital of Copenhagen for a conference on climate change that may end in a new treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto accord. Of course, the effectiveness of this latest attempt at getting the world to set aside its differences in order to present a common front against climate change will be debated, especially considering that the Kyoto Treaty was never ratified by one of the planet's most active first-world carbon emitters: the United States.

As these heads of state begin their journeys to Copenhagen, one of the primary reasons for the meet is under increasing scrutiny. Skeptics of global warming — the idea that the planet is warming due to human industrial activity — are gaining some traction. These dissenters are a diverse bunch. A very few of them are respected international scientists who simply dispute the data. Most climate change disbelievers however are either pseudo-scientists or dispute the findings based on religious, nationalistic or other political reasons.

Article continues ...

[fifthcolumn]

Good, now we're getting somewhere.

"Warming or not, we must end the global oil economy".

Agreed.

We need to phase out oil and coal and move to renewables.

In the meantime, however, we need to get the renewables ramped up fast enough and get our transport systems onto electricity and our agricultural systems onto a closed loop.

That's not going to be an overnight job.

[Kentucky Fried Panda]

I want to learn to play the violin, only so I can do a Nero as the world burns...

[fifthcolumn]

Its totally missing the point that something needs to be done for our environment.

Well speaking for myself I think we only partly agree, because I don't want it to happen for the environment.

As far as I am concerned, the economy is going to tank unless we get off of oil and there's no way that populations will be stabilised if we don't educate women. Women being educated requires a functioning economy, not just a role as a sprog-producer for more bodies to work the land. We tried that, it doesn't work. In order to achieve that goal we need to make the Chinese and the Indians etc richer and figure out a way to recycle everything possible while getting energy from renewables.

It's a tall order given our starting position and with all the cross currents coming from those opposed (e.g. Shell Oil Corporation, Aramco et al) but it's doable and is our only chance.

[2 As and a B]

For our environment, not the environment.

The environment, like the planet, will just go on doing its thing.

[fifthcolumn]

For our environment, not the environment.

The environment, like the planet, will just go on doing its thing.

Exactly. That's why I corrected him in the first place.

[8inNature]

For our environment, not the environment.

The environment, like the planet, will just go on doing its thing.

Exactly. That's why I corrected him in the first place.

Uhm, hello - OUR environment is exactly what I wrote, not THE as you had quoted me. So I think the one that needs correcting here is you.

[JohnB]

Just considering OUR environment is rather selfish and short sighted. We should be considering the needs of other living things too. There was another topic started today about how species are going extinct faster than new ones can evolve to replace them, thanks to the actions of us humans. As we're part of a complex eco-system, sooner or later that loss of diversity will come back and bite us.

We should consider THE environment, because it's the right thing to do, and in our own self interest. That's not the same as "saving the planet" though, because the planet can look after itself, probably by becoming inhospitable to the species that caused the problem!

[biffvernon]

That's not the same as "saving the planet" though, because the planet can look after itself, probably by becoming inhospitable to the species that caused the problem!

I used to think that until I realised that what we are doing is so significant that we risk eliminating all life from the planet.

Ok, so the planet, as a lifeless lump of rock will 'survive'.

[clv101]

The chance of a lifeless rock is remote in my opinion. 95% extinction level event is possible but former diversity could be expect to re-evolve within a few tens to a hundred million years.

The only worry is that as the Sun continues to warm over these time scales the planet could naturally become home to no more than bacteria for its last few billion years.

[biffvernon]

remote in my opinion...

Yes but that opinion has to be reconciled with Hansen's opinion:

After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I've come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and oil shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead cedrtainty.

James Hansen, 'Storms of my Grandchildren', p236.

Is it that you think the probability of us burning most of the fossil carbon is remote or is Hansen wrong?

[clv101]

I certainly think Hansen is wrong to say Venus syndrome is a "dead certainty" under any scenario.

We (inc. Hansen) simply have no evidence as to how a planet transitions from one regime to another. There are sill plenty of far smaller transitions in the paleoclimate record we don't understand with dead certainty.

We don't understand the performance of carbon sources and sinks well enough even over the small change of a doubling and quadrupling of atmospheric concentrations, let alone orders of magnitude changes.

[biffvernon]

Surely it must be a 'dead certainty' under some scenario. The question is whether burning all the fossil carbon is just that scenario.

And would one not expect the outcome of small changes be harder to understand than the outcome really big changes? We may not know quite what a doubling of CO2 will do but we may be more confident about a change an order of magnitude greater.

[fifthcolumn]

Surely it must be a 'dead certainty' under some scenario. The question is whether burning all the fossil carbon is just that scenario.

Under a certain scenario we could cause a new instant extinction over the course of 24 hours.

Nobody has yet pushed that particular button.

There are thousands of ways for the world to end, that doesn't mean that your favourite nightmare is any more real.

[biffvernon]

Indeed. But can Hansen's nightmare be shown to be unreal?