Others will no doubt point out the simple errors in science which this paper contains. I will merely point out its major error in logic. If 'global warming' (which you are now supposed to call 'climate disruption' -- didn't you get the memo?) is caused by burning fossil fuels, then when the fuels run out there will be no more global warming. Wanting us to panic about both AGW AND a fossil fuel crisis is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Sorry, only one hysterical apocalypse per customer.

The extent to which depletion of all fossil fuels will restrict warming seems to be contentious. Some say it will stop at 2.6C which seems horrific given the problems we've already had with 0.8C. The IPCC should rework their predictions to reflect the certainty there will be much less coal, oil and gas burned after 2050.

It seems paradoxical to impose carbon taxes now when scarcity may increase prices in the future. I'd liken it to compulsory superannuation whereby we forgo some consumption now in order to maintain it later. A huge and timely investment will be required to replace coal, oil and gas with low carbon alternatives. Unfortunately the money seems to be going to things that will never work on the required scale. Ask yourself if wind and solar will power aluminium smelters. Even if we invest massively now can it ever be enough? Not only is global population rising but the existing poor want to improve their conditions. New low carbon energy sources would also have to cope with other major issues like jobs, health demands, arable land, water supply and so on. It's hard to see these problems being solved with less energy.

Jon J,
Unfortunately your * Sorry, only one hysterical apocalypse per customer. * Is not an option?
The reason?
Peak oil (and gas, water, coal, soil, essential minerals) is inextricably entwined with “Climate disruption’.
As these man made consumer disruptions bite harder, the effects of Climate change will be also be affecting us.
The lag time between using fossil fuels and the rise in global temperatures is in the hundreds of years. Even if by some miracle we got our act together and stopped producing Greenhouse gas totaly today, the effects would continue on for a very long time, reinforced by positive feedback.
By the way there are no *simple errors in science* in the article.

If a carbon tax is ‘imperative’, why is the Australian Government intending to go into a secretive huddle and continue to refuse to explain to Australians why huge increases in costs will be necessary? Surely, Australians are mature enough to accept the consequences of imperatives – particularly if politicians stopped keeping the secrets to themselves.

As long as politicians continue their dictatorial attitudes, and refuse to reveal what they know (if they do know anything), they will be in for a tough time from the electorate. The Opposition has vowed to make thinks tough for an unelected and shaky Government, there only because of a couple of flaky, unreliable independents.

This writer is torn between whether or not global warming can be resisted or stopped, and the entirely different subject of an eventual loss of fossil fuels. There are so many different opinions and tales about both, that people are generally losing interest, and there are certainly no signs of viable, base loads of alternative energy anywhere in the near future – certainly not in the time that we are supposed to run out off fossil fuels

Syd/Sarian - look, before you burst into print with this stuff, at least take into account current events. Gas reserves have gone through the roof in recent years. Particularly shale oil fields in Europe and the US. I doubt the new reserves have even been estimated, let alone a time given for its supposed depletion. As for coal running out Bwwwhahahahahah! The reason there is any limit on coal reserves is that no one has bothered looking for more of the stuff. To suggest that there is a foreseeable limit is plainly nonsense.
You have somewhat more evidence for oil depletion but even that vanishes on closer inspection.
Rule of thumb - ther are big oil shale reserves around Gladstone in Queensland. If you ever hear of that stuff being seriously developed (there was a small-scale pilot plant which has been abandonded), then you will know that the easy lift oil has finally been depleted. The peak oil foecasts referred only to easy lift stuff, not to oil in total..
As for Kloppers his speech confirms my opinion - the man is a well-paid nut.

Syd. A simple question. You are clearly convinced that man's emissions of CO2 are causing dangerous global warming. I am very interested to see the proof and evidence for this. So far as I can see, there are only models that are based on wild assumptions about positive feedbacks that are at the least contentious, and likely wrong. The evidence seems to suggest that the feedbacks are actually neutral or negative which, if true, means that we don't have to worry about CO2.

Why don't you devote your considerable energies and passion to addressing the real issues of concern where man is having an impact on local and regional climate - land use, primarily.

I wonder how many non-scientists who believe everything scientists say are confusing carbon dioxide with carbon dioxide. Given the appalling level of education in Australia, and the Australian heads up bums attitude to everything, this question might not be a silly as it first appears to some.

OHH_DEAR..[here we-go/again]
this time..no pretty..graphs..with decieving/predictions

noting the..world/has-just/passed..
the coldest-year..in decades...its little-wonder
this time..its a fact-free/zone

no mention of/the..ozone/hole..neither
[seems/that...prediction..at-least..was briefly-true]

but lets look/at the..ba-sick/error..

first line's/quote..<<..Its..time/to stop..talking>>
and start/doing..as big-business/decrees

stop/talking..<<about.."slowing"..climate-change>>.lol.

<<The real/issues..the government should/be..addressing are the inevitable..end/of..oil>>.and were..not even at..peak-oil..yet..lol

<<and..unstoppable/global..warming>>..ok..two/points

if..its REALLY..un-stop/able...then why..the big-new tax?

also..you began..with..the buzz[clim-ate-change]..then ended with the definitive[disproven]..global-warming..[buzz-words]

but lets get into...cli-MATE/change
seems the lefties...all of a sudden...are in line..with big-business

this wouldnt happen..to/be because-of..the funding injections..as much as big-business[bankers-debt]..needs the cash-flow..

from either..a big-new/tax..or from govt/largess..[gift]

ya/see..we need industry..to slow-down

[and it is doing that..due to the excess/of..the elites]
even unlimeted private-credit/cards..credit..isnt boosting the/con-sumer=index

yet industry..needs money..
so it sells..its lies
[via the media...and govt..who are/there..to serve..,business as/usual]

<<The CEO/of BHP..recently called/for..a carbon tax,>>so he/will be..represented..'in the room'..making/sure..thats..not a new-tax..for big-business...

[besides the minning tax..put a scare..into big..business..[as usual]..and without..the big/new-mining-tax...govt wont/be..able-to give..big-business..the business..it needs..to pay/back..bankers-greed

[or rather..the/funding..from those lovely...new green-credits..
big-business..NEEDS..to do further..'business'..
by re-BUILDING..what they/just built...wrong..[it seems]

[destroying.the planet..in the process..
to build it..ALL AGAIN...
this time..in/shades..of/green]

we seen..allready..how it/all works..in/spain..
now..one-of the..'p.i.g.s'..gone bust..
chasing...all them..green-jobs..
now...left/with..big..[public]..debt

look/at their unemployment-rate...
now ..the green-job's..is done

govt needs/realise..the tax-payers are at wits-end

johnny/how-hard..did his debt-transpher..to the allready indebited..TOO-well..

REALISE..WE PUT/IT-ALL..ON CREDIT-cards..!

then we bailed-out..the bankers..
[who also need this new..green-greed..[creed]..cash-flow..
because the assets..they lent/big-on...are over-valued

yes business..NEEEDS this new.tax..on us
not them..so my cure..is put the tax on..them...[their assets]

if carbon..isnt taxed..on imports..tax the new/imports

tax..the NEW-cars..tax..the new-vidios..big-screens

tax the/dead...[bring back..death/duties]
the only..duty..some give/have

see how ire-lands bailouts...bailed..out..the bankers
who lent..big-debt..
to less/than..100 developers..!

its time..those who gain..from development..
paid..their way
how many/of..these investements...trickle-down...not many..

only the/cost...trickles-up..
while/service..trickles-down

enough is enough
tax..the rich
tax transactions
tax inports..tax big-users..

but leave the/rest..of us..alone
govt..for/the PEOPLE...what/a joke

more like..tax/benifits..to the master
running the..2 party..[ok..3..party-scam]

lets look/at..the subsidies/tax-breaks/egsemptions..to big-business

they get govt-service
and increasing costs..for their..ser-vices..
and/gives..the shaft-to..the mug..tax-payers/con-summers

paying for..all/of-it

*As for Kloppers his speech confirms my opinion - the man is a well-paid nut.*

You underestimate Mr Kloppers at your peril, Curmudgeon. The man
can be an extremely clever strategist. He almost single handedly
changed the way that global iron ore is priced, even if it took
him 5 years or so.

Kloppers realises that some sort of carbon tax is inevitable.
This way he will be part of the debate for how much it will be
and how it is structured.

As with the mining tax saga, things were far worse and unrealistic,
when he and other large miners were totally left out. Once they
were included, they could come to an agreement that they could
live with. That is hardly stupid thinking.

Carbon tax, at x dollars per tonne. Electricity company pays y dollars in carbon tax relative to amount of coal they burn. My electricity bill arrives and I see carbon tax is added and costs me z dollars. Now, x and y dollars will both have some kind of administrative fee factored in, so my z dollars will be a bit more than the original x and y dollars. If I waste heaps of electricity and leave floodlights on all night, there is a motivation to change my ways. If I dont waste electricity, as most people dont, it is simply a price hike from my perspective. In Queensland, we already pay an ambulance levy on our power bill.

This has nothing to do with the environment, as a regulatory approach is used for environmental issues. It will raise a lot of money though.

Curmudgeon you along with those who deny that there is a problem with running out of resources like Oil and Gas would do well to take a refresher course in exponential growth.
I have no idea when we will run out of these various scarce resources - but I believe I am right to be concerned that we appear to have locked ourselves into an industrial/economic paradigm based on finite resources - far better to switch to renewable energy resources well before they run out.
As far as climate change is concerned it may seem paradoxical that we can both run out of the materials that produce the CO2 and be worried about climate change. Several issues need to be taken into account. Firstly we rely heavily on energy to mitigate the impact of climate change. Secondly recent reports show that the Siberian Tundra is defrosting - that process will release methane which could be entering the atmosphere just when we have run out of stuff to burn hence we would be in a situation where we do not have the energy sources to protect ourselves against climate change just when it is beginning to accelerate.
Finally with regard to a carbon tax - our parliament is only tackling half of the proposed solution. the full proposal is for a carbon tax and dividend.

Just after posting my last comment I was sent this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&p=6A1FD147A45EF50D&index=1
Those of you who see the concern about peak oil and peak coal are silly have a look at this lecture - you will find that the idea of exponential growth is well explained.

Yabbie - maybe you have a point and Kloppers is just playing a deep game, but he still sounds uncannily like a nut.

Baygon - no you guys have to take a refresher course on the interaction between prices, production and reserves. Reserve totals at any point have nothing to do with production and everything to do with the price of the commodity. After ten years of production the agreed reserves of a particular mineral may fall by eight years or increase by 20 years - depending on whether the price has increased or decreased.
This has been known by the resources industry for a long time, which is why they have long given up paying any attention to this doomsayer stuff. The partial exception is oil and that's for oil from wells (easy lift oil), not the likes of shale oil. No one with any authority has said otherwise.
The projections you so proudly point to could have been made at any time in the past century and more, and been proven wrong each time. Why should we believe them now?

Well done Syd. You're mostly right though gas and coal peaks will come a lot earlier than you say. Oil peak is probably past. New gas finds are certainly going to delay the inevitable crisis and thank heavens for that. But the immediate crisis is climate change and we have to get emissions down from whatever source by 80% by mid-century. That DOES mean a post-carbon economy. We can be grateful we have a few years to make the changeover, though with comments like these on this forum, we may well hit crisis before the changeover has been made.

curmudgeon your rebuttal only reinforces my point - you state:

Reserve totals at any point have nothing to do with production and everything to do with the price of the commodity.

Presumably you agree that oil is a finite resource. Therefore as reserves decline the price will act as a means of rationing that resource.

There is no doubt that this will considerably lengthen the time line that we have some oil available.

BUT - the key issue is that our economy is structured around everyone having access to energy either in the form of coal or oil - thus as the price goes up it will impact on all industries - the assumption that most economists make is that the price signal is sufficient to enable us to shift to alternative sources of energy. The problem with that scenario is that it takes time to make that transition - just as the resource will not disappear overnight so the transition cannot happen over night.

My argument is that we can either follow your advice and allow stocks to run down to the point where alternative energy sources are price competitive or we can recognize a threat to our well being and act to minimize the impact of that threat by gearing up for a low carbon economy now.

Those who talk about Peak Oil and Peak Coal are not talking about a situation where there is plenty one day and nothing the next but rather point to a bell shaped graph - once you are over the peak then the decline will mirror the original growth - that is consistent with your scenario.

What you ignore in that scenario is that we have created a world which is highly dependent on increasingly scarce commodities (rare earths need to be added to that mix as well) we either find alternatives or we can simply watch the system collapse, albeit in slow motion.

Unlike many of the commenters here I think the science is sound, something they could find out for themselves if they didn't prefer to get their information pre-filtered by sources that aim to convince climate change due to human causes ain't happening. But experience tells me that whilst the real world effects of warming continue to increase in strength the chances I - or NCAR, NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, BoM, CRU, all the scientists and institutions of the world that actually study climate - individually or as summarised in IPCC reports - won't convince them. Entitled to their opinions I suppose, even if those opinions promote policy that's dangerously irresponsible, howevever I expect elected representatives to take the scientific advice at their disposal seriously and be deeply sceptical of those urging them to dismiss or ignore that advice. That advice includes that there's more than enough fossil fuels to strongly change our climate and cause enormous costs to fundamental activities like growing enough food. We'll face the costs of adaptation but those costs are still able to be mitigated by investing in mitigation. If the human race can organise itself to effectively do so and that looks doubtful. But just because it's hard isn't a good enough excuse to fail to try.

The fact that fossil fuel reserve are finite will start to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and sooner than most people think. We still need a carbon tax in order to drive investment in alternative fuels. If we just rely on scarcity prices to do the rationing it will be too late to avoid the worst consequences of both global warming and fuel depletion. In rational world, we would have a global resource rent tax, which would distribute costs and benefits between the resource rich and the resource poor. Without it, there will be conflict and chaos within decades.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51097