writes that Deffeyes seems to have used the Hubbert Linearization method seems to have correctly
predict peak oil in 2005.
It may be a coincidence, but relative to monthly peaks in 2005, world crude oil production is down more than one percent and Saudi crude oil production is down about 11% (EIA data, crude + condensate).
Note that the initial Lower 48 decline was quite gradual, less than 1% per year for the first two years.Also note that the world has the benefit of the non conventional tar sands production that was not a factor in the Lower 48.
Note that if the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia is in long term decline, which I believe that it is, it is my understanding that every single field that has produced one million barrels per day (mbpd) or more of crude oil (crude+condensate) is now in decline.
In effect, in my opinion the very lifeblood of the world industrial economy is draining away in front of our very eyes. The only question is how fast the patient is bleeding to death.
So just how reliant is the global economy on global oil production ? is economic growth possible (for how long?) in the face of oil production declines? I guess we?ll find out.
David Miliband, our Environment Secretary, has a public position of reducing fossil fuel use (expressed for climate change rather than Peak Oil reasons, of course) whilst searching for continued economic growth. Whether he actually believes it is another matter but it's interesting to keep up with his blog. I think this sort of writing would have been inconceivable from a senior government minister just a few years ago.
Bali Roadmap
I spent two days last week in the far north of Sweden with representatives of 20 or so countries to talk about how we build trust and make progress towards a global emissions deal. The richest and poorest are here and the discussion has rotated around the substance of the economic challenge to all countries (the overall science now not being disputed) and the relative responsibility of rich and poor for tackling the problem of global warming. The EU's March commitments to unilateral emissions reductions of 20% by 2020 are a start, but even the most ambitious Bills in the US Congress envisage emissions only getting back to 1990 levels by 2020, and negotiators from some of the poorer countries argue that action on climate would compromise their economic ambitions.
The point of negotiations is to break out of this logjam. The US proposal to host talks among 15 biggest emitters can help. The UN Secretary General's invitation to a special session of the UN on 24 September can contribute. But the conclusion of this meeting is that we need a roadmap from the Bali conference in December through the two years of negotiations that leaders of the G8 last week said must conclude a deal by the UN meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. This "Bali Roadmap" needs honestly to address all the issues: adaptation now for developing countries, a carbon price on the back of developed country emissions reductions commitments, technology transfer, action on deforestation etc. The chair's conclusions will be made available in due course and I will post them here.
The Swedish meeting has shown both flexibility from countries and the fears that still dominate a lot of thinking. We need to win the big argument that low carbon development is the only way to preserve economic growth, rather than it being seen as a threat. This is where the ideas of business will be critical to shifting the political debate.
Whose problem?
The following figures encapsulate the global warming problem (2000 data):
- the US is the largest emitter (20% of emissions excluding forestry/land use) but the developing countries account for nearly 60% of emissions if land use is included
- on a historic 1950-2000 basis industrialised countries account for 70% of emissions excluding landuse, but just over 50% if included
- on a per capita basis excluding land use/forestry industrialised country citizens were responsible for 14 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2000 compared to 3.3 in the developing world
- and when it comes to the energy intensity of GDP excluding land use the Russian Federation and China score high, the EU and Japan the most energy efficient
posted on 18 June 2007 15:40 by David Miliband
and then
Global warming or climate change?
I was on New York Radio last week and someone called up to say that the phrase 'climate change' had been invented by President Bush to avoid mentioning global warming. I pointed out that since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a global body this was a bitg of a stretch. But the situation described by scientists but also by Sami reindeer herders here also shows why it is change, not just warming that is dangerous. The change in weather is leading for example to unexpected very warm days in January, melting snow, but then when the cold returns it turns to ice, which means the reindeer can no longer burrow through the snow for food. So it is global warming overall, but it is climate changing too, and changing climate means changed conditions for people and animals/biodiversity.
I'm SO pleased that Miliband didn't stand for PM. He would have been SO wasted in that position. I think he can and will have a far impact from where he is. He really does seem to be taking the role seriously and I think he must realise that his post will become the most important in the Government in not too many years from now.
Tony Juniper of FoE tells a nice story about how he has seen (and negotiated with) successive Environment Ministers since the 80's get given the job knowing nothing about it, and then gradually as they learn they become more and more committed until the point where they are challenging the BAU drive of government and get dumped (more or less unceremoniously).
Each successive one, whether Blue or Red, gets a little bit further than his predecessors before being dropped - Milliband is now at the point where he is the Greenest one to date, so it'll be really interesting to see how he fares under Brown. If he gets moved (even if 'promoted') then we'll have a clear sign that Brown doesn't 'get' the environment. OTOH if he remains in post then he may be one of the best hopes we've got.
Short of the Green Party getting elected to form a coalition government there is no other politician on the horizon who can match Milliband yet.
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
I have wondered whether Miliband's use of the word 'transition' in his 'transition economy' is carefully chosen to mirror Rob Hopkins' 'Transition Towns' and 'Transition Initiative' . . . ?
writes that Deffeyes seems to have used the Hubbert Linearization method seems to have correctly
predict peak oil in 2005.
Or not.
Someone needs to check how well Jeff's calls for Texas went, if someone can't even do a single state, what would ever convince anyone they could do the planet?
Golden oldies!!
dudley wrote:
Also note that the world has the benefit of the non conventional tar sands production that was not a factor in the Lower 48.
Maybe not, but the tight and shale formations certainly changed the game in the lower 48, didn't they? And what will that look like when it rolls out across the planet?
dudley wrote:
In effect, in my opinion the very lifeblood of the world industrial economy is draining away in front of our very eyes. The only question is how fast the patient is bleeding to death.
Scary stuff. Fasten your seatbelts.
Scary if it were true. Guess what? Turns out? It wasn't.
It has obviously been programmed to go through all these olde threads and point out that civilisation hasn't collapsed yet. It has obviously never heard of such disaster areas as:
Afghanistan
Nigeria
Iraq
Syria
Various places in its own country where desperate scrabbling for hydrocarbons has rendered parts of the landscape unliveable.
In these places it can reasonably be argued that the ability to support a decent level of civilisation (as once known, for example, in its own country) has been severely compromised.
To that list you can now add south Sudan, which is descending in to nasty civil war which I strongly suspect is over the control of the oil fields. Being landlocked and dependant on north Sudan for its export pipelines was a recipe for despotism if ever I heard one.
The post peak oil collapse was never going to be evenly distributed. It is concentrated in pockets and blamed on whatever handy scapegoat is walking by.
Gradually the pockets will merge and there will be a shortfall in the available scapegoat population.
biffvernon wrote:The post peak oil collapse was never going to be evenly distributed. It is concentrated in pockets and blamed on whatever handy scapegoat is walking by.
Gradually the pockets will merge and there will be a shortfall in the available scapegoat population.
Be nice if the claimed gasoline/diesel/jet fuel shortages would at least show up to BLAME the mess on though, don't you think?
Gaza Egypt Nepal all have structural shortages of fuel. There are persistent ng shortages in China and India. That from a five minute Google. The reason more shortages are not reported is that they are blamed on the market . quite simply , more and more economies are being priced out of the market for oil and gas, but these are seen as falling demand, not inadequate supply. Mostly these counties are ignored in us news reports. Oil consumption has fallen dramatically in Spain Greece Italy and Portugal. These are precisely the European countries that imported the most oil products relative to their GDP in Europe. oil is now the primary constraint on global GDP. Not that it was ever anything else, but now it is a zero sum game. Soon it will be a negative sum game. 100 dollaroil is constraining gdp, sustained 150 dollar oil will see it decline permanently.
