Oil companies and stranded assets

[emordnilap]

If world extraction of fossil fuels is suddenly reduced to one third of present levels as proposed above, how many of the present seven billion people will die before adequate renewable substitutes are available to sustain the remaining population?

Depends on where you are.

If you're in the USA, which consumes about a quarter of all fossil fuels (with only 4% of global population!) then your chances could be slim, particularly considering the gun problem.

I reckon Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan would also be fecked along with some middle-eastern countries, who have populations 100% dependent upon FF.

There are loads of places that don't rely on FF, so their chances would be good. Places like Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Zambia etc. Seemingly 'poor' to us but in many cases rich in food and community.

Brazil, they have ethanol, until the US invades.

Sweden and Finland, they have hydro, less tempting to invade. Same with Paraguay, Iceland, Switzerland a few others.

Nigeria - plenty of oil, but they do the 'sensible' thing already and export it. Which means their population aren't hooked. Chances: good.

Nepal - fewer than half the population has electricity, never mind FF - so they'd survive.

Kenya: loads of food but lacking in organisation and too much dependency on export, so nothing much would change for them without FF.

Burma: the junta keeps the 1% in a permanent state of poverty so, providing the US didn't steal their minerals and oil, they'd manage without FF as they've done for 1000s of years.

And so on. Just random examples. The proportion of people who would die as a result of a two-thirding of the supply of FFs would not be as large as you hope and would definitely not be where you hope.

PS
Dublin would not be happy but it's not really Ireland: it's like saying London and Yorkshire are in the same country. Less travel would mean more time to grow food.

[vtsnowedin]

If world extraction of fossil fuels is suddenly reduced to one third of present levels as proposed above, how many of the present seven billion people will die before adequate renewable substitutes are available to sustain the remaining population?

Depends on where you are.

If you're in the USA, which consumes about a quarter of all fossil fuels (with only 4% of global population!) then your chances could be slim, particularly considering the gun problem.

I consider my guns an answer to a problem not the problem.

I reckon Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan would also be fecked along with some middle-eastern countries, who have populations 100% dependent upon FF.

There are loads of places that don't rely on FF, so their chances would be good. Places like Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Zambia etc. Seemingly 'poor' to us but in many cases rich in food and community.

Brazil, they have ethanol, until the US invades.

Sweden and Finland, they have hydro, less tempting to invade. Same with Paraguay, Iceland, Switzerland a few others.

Nigeria - plenty of oil, but they do the 'sensible' thing already and export it. Which means their population aren't hooked. Chances: good.

Nepal - fewer than half the population has electricity, never mind FF - so they'd survive.

Kenya: loads of food but lacking in organisation and too much dependency on export, so nothing much would change for them without FF.

Burma: the junta keeps the 1% in a permanent state of poverty so, providing the US didn't steal their minerals and oil, they'd manage without FF as they've done for 1000s of years.

And so on. Just random examples. The proportion of people who would die as a result of a two-thirding of the supply of FFs would not be as large as you hope and would definitely not be where you hope.

PS
Dublin would not be happy but it's not really Ireland: it's like saying London and Yorkshire are in the same country. Less travel would mean more time to grow food.

I asked what the total would be not the distribution. I notice you didn't mention China , India or Mexico. And what about all the middle eastern countries that depend on oil revenues now. Cut them by two thirds and it will get even more ugly very quickly.

[PS_RalphW]

The US is so profligate with energy that a 2/3 cut would still be about as much as I use today. Sadly, the countries hardest hit will be the ones most dependent on fossil fuels to import or grow, distribute and fertilise their food, and useit for little else. They cannot afford to use less, and will be outbid or outgunned by the US, China, etc.

Precisely the countries in Africa that have grown far above their carrying capacity in the last 30 or 40 years.

[vtsnowedin]

The US is so profligate with energy that a 2/3 cut would still be about as much as I use today. Sadly, the countries hardest hit will be the ones most dependent on fossil fuels to import or grow, distribute and fertilise their food, and useit for little else. They cannot afford to use less, and will be outbid or outgunned by the US, China, etc.

Precisely the countries in Africa that have grown far above their carrying capacity in the last 30 or 40 years.

Nothing says the reduction would be uniform from country to country or be pegged to current consumption. The poorest countries would be happy to see US consumption cut 90 percent while they keep on just as they have been.
There are probably those out there that have just that outcome in mind.

[emordnilap]

I consider my guns an answer to a problem not the problem.

And therein lies a large part of the problem.

I asked what the total would be not the distribution.

One can only try to imagine examples, rather than the whole. As I said, I imagine more people would survive than you wish but they won't be where you wish.

I notice you didn't mention China , India or Mexico.

Again, they were just random examples I gave. Those three countries were not large fossil fuel users until recently, so I imagine they'd revert. Bicycles, moving back from the cities to the land etc. It's all speculation on a highly theoretical (though thoroughly desirable) situation.

And what about all the middle eastern countries that depend on oil revenues now. Cut them by two thirds and it will get even more ugly very quickly.

Ah, now you're talking about revenues, a different conversation. Here's another, far more important conversation than oil.

[vtsnowedin]

I asked what the total would be not the distribution.

One can only try to imagine examples, rather than the whole. As I said, I imagine more people would survive than you wish but they won't be where you wish.

I'm not "Wishing" for any die off anywhere. We are just discussing the very real possibilities not promoting them.

I notice you didn't mention China , India or Mexico.

Again, they were just random examples I gave. Those three countries were not large fossil fuel users until recently, so I imagine they'd revert. Bicycles, moving back from the cities to the land etc. It's all speculation on a highly theoretical (though thoroughly desirable) situation.

.

I don't think they can revert. The use of oil and the green revolution has allowed the most recent doubling of their populations. When oil use drops either by government mandate to save the climate or by peak oil reducing supply these crowed countries will bear the worst of it having so many more people to lose. [/quote]

[emordnilap]

I don't think they can revert. The use of oil and the green revolution has allowed the most recent doubling of their populations.

You could be right; I hope you're not.

Humans can be remarkably resilient.

[emordnilap]

Divest London nearing victory.

So – what are you on, Boris? You are in a position to do some real good for the city and to set an example for the UK and for, really, the world. You can be a leader in this fight for our planetary future or you can fall in line behind fracking CEOs and oil money.

Londoners and the London Assembly have sent a clear message. Are you listening?

[biffvernon]

Yo for the shareholders of BP (who'd have thought it?)

Almost all of BP’s shareholders have voted to force the company to disclose the risks it faces from climate change.
The shareholder resolution voted on today at BP's annual general meeting was supported by 98% of investors, exceeding the 75% vote required to make it binding.
The group of shareholders that brought forward the resolution said today's vote sends a "strong signal" to BP about the importance shareholders place on its long-term response to the challenge of moving to a low carbon economy.

http://www.professionalpensions.com/pro ... 98-backing

[biffvernon]

Telegraph begins to get it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1156 ... ystem.html

[vtsnowedin]

Telegraph begins to get it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1156 ... ystem.html

The problem with these carbon emission treaties is they call for reducing carbon emissions much faster then renewables can be put into place to replace them. As soon as any countries economy begins to suffer due to a shortage of energy an emergency will be declared and they will go back to burning oil and coal. None of these energy supplies will remain stranded for very long.

[biffvernon]

One of the (several) advantages of TEQs is that is provides a first user advantage, in that it provides a motivation to move away from fossil carbon faster and the economy that achieves this becomes more efficient.

[biffvernon]

This neatly illustrates the depths of depravity to which the oil companies and global capitalism have sunk:

Bosses at the world’s big five oil companies have been showered with bonus payouts linked to a $1tn (£650bn) crescendo of spending on fossil fuel exploration and extraction over nine years, according to Guardian analysis of company reports.

The unprecedented push to bring untapped reserves into production, and to exploit new and undiscovered fields, involves some of the most complex feats of engineering ever attempted. It also reflects how confident ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, Total and BP are that demand will remain high for decades to come.

The big oil groups are pressing ahead with investments despite the International Energy Agency estimating that two-thirds of proven fossil fuel reserves will need to remain in the ground to prevent the earth from warming 2C above pre-industrial levels – a proposed temperature limit beyond which scientists warn of spiralling and irreversible climate change.

Multi-billion-dollar capital projects amount to huge, long-term bets by the big five that exorbitant costs associated with unlocking hydrocarbon reserves in some of the most inaccessible locations on the planet can eventually be recouped and converted into profits.

Bonuses for chief executives at all five majors are tied to the achievement of delivery milestones in the construction and deployment of such projects.

Shell’s Ben van Beurden, for example, last year received a pay deal worth $32.2m, including bonuses linked to delivering “a high proportion of flagship projects on time and on budget”.

There's lots more
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ssil-fuels

[emordnilap]

Note how the two companies that answered the question about "the appropriateness of linking bonuses to capital spending given the looming threat posed by climate change" didn't answer the question.

[biffvernon]

This TEDxUniversityofEdinburgh talk by Assaad Razzouk (particularly the last 5 minutes) has useful things to say about how we might manage the issues. His case is that a small number of people influence the decisions of an even smaller number of key institutions that matter. It's something we've talked of before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkIV8PcAyr0

This, I'm told, is also good if you can get past the FT paywall: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48ce29a6-02e9-1 ... false.html