I've just read through the various posts and the finger pointing and would like to remind postees that we - all of us - contribute to bringing about our demise; it's our ignorance, not what we know that will be our undoing. Our need / preocupation to extract 'stuff' from this loop to create a new more equitable loop further down the track is the problem; it's because that is how we are hard-wired ....

Daniel Boon, thank you. Now we are talking.
But one of our capacities as "hard-wired" biological entities is our ability to recognise that we are indeed hard wired, and thus potential creators of soft ware that can help us adapt to the future.
Our hard wiring includes greed, fear, selfishness, preference for instant gratification and our capacities to blame the other fellow. Our new soft ware will have to enable rapid response, altruism, and far view.
Maybe the dire extremities that are predicted will intensify the reliance on our hard wiring, but perhaps the awful things about to befall the planet's biology will help us rethink, re-philosophise, and realise that the bell tolls for us as it tolls for many other species whose destruction will be incidental to our human folly.
Maybe, the half billion of us who may survive in 2150 will reach a new height of morality and sustainability. I have to admit I am not too optimistic of this, but I would love to be around to see it.

Kjell's article raises the very important question of how resource depletion ties in with climate change. Really and truly these are two aspects of one and the same problem, and I feel the next big consciousness shift in this area will be this realisation taking hold. Far too many of the suggested solutions at present help with one aspect and make the other worse (see for example the current contradictory "Energy Independence" and "Climate Change" bills being debated in the US).

However, there is one big oversight in Kjell's article, with regard to the coal situation. He has based his conclusions here at least in part on the Energy Watch Group report on coal resources and future production (see my summary of this report on The Oil Drum at http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2396 ) , but has apparently correlated peak energy from coal with peak coal production. The sad truth is that a key reason why 'peak coal energy' may be fast approaching is because high quality coal is being exhausted, and so coal with a lower energy content is being utilised instead. In other words, even after 'peak coal energy' is reached there will still be more than enough lower quality coal to throw our global climate into thermal runaway. Resource constraints mean that the emissions per unit of energy from coal will get worse and so while the energy peak may be reached relatively soon, this certainly does not imply that the emissions peak will be.

Coal thus becomes the key battleground in the battle to save the planet (at least on the supply side).

Dear Shaunnus,

Are you sure about this argument? I would have thought that the value of using energy as a measure in Aleklett's article is that energy content should directly correlate with the carbon content of the coal and its potential to produce CO2. You say that, as we move to lower and lower grades of coal then the CO2 produced per unit of energy (you mean net energy) increases. But if Aleklett is drawing Hubbert curves based on energy content (not net energy) then this argument will not hold. With oil and gas set to rapidly diminish, coal is the "final" fossil fuel. Coal-fired electricity can subsidise oil production from sources with an Energy Profit Ratio of less than one but there is no alternate energy source to subsidise coal production when its EPR falls to one. In conclusion - looking at the energy content of coal, and estimating times for peak coal in various regions, is a valid way to assess future CO2 production from this fossil fuel.

Regards,

Michael

This opinion article in a newspaper is fine, but I wonder if the opinion has been submitted for review in a scientific publication. Aleklett should debate this with climate scientist before informing the general public.
I look forward to the arguments then exchanged.

Michael wrote: "Are you sure about this argument? I would have thought that the value of using energy as a measure in Aleklett's article is that energy content should directly correlate with the carbon content of the coal and its potential to produce CO2. You say that, as we move to lower and lower grades of coal then the CO2 produced per unit of energy (you mean net energy) increases. But if Aleklett is drawing Hubbert curves based on energy content (not net energy) then this argument will not hold. "

Dear Michael, thanks for your comments but I did not mean net energy. While the energy content of oil directly correlates with its carbon content, this does not hold true for coal. Anthracite is far more energy-dense than lignite, and so for a given energy output (or indeed net energy output) the carbon output will be lower from anthracite. The carbon output per tonne of coal is also highly variable.

The significant argument that might be made here is that as the EROEI (or EPR) of the coal decreases there will be less of an incentive for humanity to extract and burn it, but this is a quite different argument from claiming incorrectly that there is not enough coal to cause disastrous climate change. Whether or not declining EROEI will be enough to prevent disastrous levels of emissions from coal is an open question, but personally I'm not betting on it.

If you are interested in this area you may like to read the forthcoming briefing I am preparing on Coal-To-Liquids (CTL) technology and sequestration, which will be published on our website at http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net