Dear Shaunus4,

I am still a little confused about this. Somewhere, someone’s figures are not adding up. The value of using energy as a correlate for carbon dioxide production is that it is the number of C-C and C-H bonds in a hydrocarbon that determine its possible energy output and this is directly related to the mass of CO2 that can be produced. Aleklett states that, judging by the volume of energy reserves stated in the BP Statistical Review, there is insufficient carbon to produce dangerous levels of CO2. So, if there is sufficient carbon for climate change then were will it come from? As I see it, the three possibilities are:

1) The BP Statistical Review massively understates potential energy reserves
2) Aleklett has made a mistake in his calculations using the BP Stats
3) Your argument of exploitation of low grade coal reserves does not hold on EROEI grounds.

I guess the crux of the matter comes down to this comment:

“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.”

How can the energy content (not the net energy content) of coal not correlate with its carbon content? What other element for oxidization exists in the coal? The net energy output can vary per tonne of coal depending on grade but the total energy content must depend on the carbon content. This means that the energy content (and CO2 production potential) per tonne of coal must be lower for lower grades of coal.

Can you provide some guidance here?

Regards,

Michael

The key point to be taken from this article is that the high end "scarenarios" presented by the IPCC represent improbable extremes, not realistic projections. They were always severely compromised on other grounds, like the assumption that India and China and all of Africa would achieve OECD level economic standard, and do so on the US "urban sprawl" model rather than the much more energy efficient Japanese/Taiwanese/Singaporean model.

When these factors are combined with the real decline in hydrocarbon stocks, especially in the latter half of the century when the exponential factors were really claimed to kick in, then the scarenarios have even less credibility.

And when technology improvements, particularly in fuel efficiency and emission cleaning, are also factored in then it becomes quite clear that every one of the IPCC scarenarios are pure fantasy.

At this early stage of the journey the carbon ship may appear slow to turn, especially to those on it, but once it has turned there will be no mistaking its true course.

But lets face it, this issue is not about carbon at all. It is nothing more than the continuation of that ancient battle between optimist and pessimist, between the generous and the tightarses. And luckily, the optimists have ignored the pessimists and developed new solutions. Looking back on history, there is not much that has been bequeathed to us from the pessimists.

I'm a professional speaker who studies how people think and make decisions. I help organizations uncover unrecognized obstacles to their future success. Peak Oil is one of those unrecognized obstacles.

I've studied Peak Oil and I know it will happen some time. I expect it will happen within the next decade (and peak natural gas as well.) Yet because the primary way humans make decisions is based on past experiences, most people don't accept that Peak Oil will occur. Note that I said _will_ occur, not _could_ occur; many people I have spoken with acknowledge that oil is finite, they see data that producing regions are in decline, that prices are going up - but are incapable of taking that information to the next conclusion - that Western society will not be able to keep expanding as it has for the past 50 years.

I help my clients plan for the future, and I'm here to tell you that no one can predict the future, as Reynard pointed out. If you think about it for 10 secs you recognize it is impossible - there are just too many variables.

But that doesn't mean throwing up our hands and drifting with the wind. I do advocate investing your time examining alternative scenarios as to how the future might unfold and preparing yourselves no matter what happens. It's about examining scenarios that you might initially think are unlikely or that you may have never considered but that could have huge impacts if they come to pass. The problem with predictions is that they try to determine the single most likely future and thus can be blindsided by something that is _perceived_ to have a lower probability but has a high impact and sometimes does occur.

I expect that most of you do this already - you have insurance of one form or another. I don't imagine you bought it with the hope that you will collect on it. But you are willing to make the financial investment for an event that both you and the insurance company hope will never happen. (continued)

It seems to me that the average person now views climate change as an "I should do something about it" issue to the extent that most people view recycling - if there is a bin nearby, I'll put my can in it, but if not - it goes in the garbage. I.e. if it is convenient and easy to do and doesn't cost me anything, okay. I think I have seen some public opinion polls which have probed deeper about climate change and found that people who say "yes it's a problem" will act as long as they don't have to do too much. As Al Gore says climate change is a "moral issue."

Peak Oil is not. Peak Oil is firstly (as Reynard points out) an economic issue, but then (as michael_in_adelaide points out) ulimately a geological/energy issue.

The principle difference in getting people to recognize the issue is the time frame of effects. We humans could continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere until way too late because it takes a while for the planet to react and the effects are gradual. That is most people don't see the connection between their actions, CO2, and climate change.

On the other hand, when you pull up to a petrol station and the price has doubled, or it is empty, there is an immediate connection between oil production decline and your life. Though even then, it may take people too long to realize what is happening for the really useful steps to be taken in time. My hope and my goal in presentations is to get people to start reducing energy use so that the peak can be delayed until reasonable solutions can be developed.

Randy
www.EnergyPredicament.com

The global warming is not something that "could" happen in the future it's something that is happening now: the ice in Polar areas is melting and temperatures are higher than normal like in 2006 in Europe were lots of people died. We should do something now before is too late. I don't believe what some scientists paid by Shell or Exxon say, it's happening now we just have to look around.

http://saveourbushland.blogspot.com/

Elena R;
I gather you are unaware who Kjell Aleklett is.
I suggest that before you accuse him of being in the oil compnies pocket
that you look him up anywhere.

He would be the very last person that oil companies would employ.