In defense of James he is making the quite reasonable claim that the current energy suppliers who burn fossil fuel will do everything in their power to keep the price of energy high and to restrict the development of alternatives. Any sensible rational organisation will do the same. This is what free markets are meant to do. They have no higher calling except to make as much profit as quickly as they can.

If you believe - as James does and increasingly many others that burning fossil fuel is neither environmentally sound or economically efficient then you want to try to stop the burners of fuel burning fuel. There are various ways you can try to do this. The first is to try to artificially price them out of the market but that is doomed to failure. The second is to invest in other alternatives through genuine investment energy infrastructure markets which exclude burning alternatives and that is guaranteed to succeed.

"Dear oh dear" indeed. It would seem that "Senior Victorian" doesn't know too much about the global oil business generally, or petroleum geoscience specifically.

He/she appears to be suggesting that we can significantly increase proven global reserves simply by increasing investment in "exploration and oil field development", and by exploring in new areas. If only it were that simple.

The simple fact is that hydrocarbons will only ever be found where the right geological conditions exist, in certain parts of the world. Oil is not some ubiquitous commodity that can be found anywhere if only we look hard enough for it.

And even when we are exploring in those areas where the geological conditions are suitable, there are the questions of how much we will find and how hard (read costly) it will be to extract. As we drill in ever-deeper water (in the case of offshore exploration), the size of new discoveries has steadily decreased. There are certaily no more super-giant fields left to find, let alone any with cheaply extractable oil.

To those who glibly say "climate change is happening whether we are here or not", well let's just suppose for a moment that we are not the cause - for argument's sake. Let's just pretend that climate change is just a 'natural occurrence' - nothing to do with all the coal and oil we have extracted and spewed into the atmosphere for over 100 years.

Even then, if the rapid climate change that is actually happening before our eyes is not attended to, then we can forget about any social justice issues, or whether or not Australia becomes a Republic, or reacting against terrorism, or any bright ideas from a 2020 forum... or any of the multitude of issues raised on OLO postings. Because all of these multifarious issues will be subsumed by the dramatic changes foisted on society by climate change.

Let's pretend that we are not the cause, if we can't bear to face that notion, but it still leaves society in much the same quandary, does it not? Do nothing or do something.

I tend to believe the overwhelming scientific consensus that 1) it is happening and 2) we are the cause.

Even if only 1) is correct then our response needs to be much the same as if both are correct.

Therefore the denialists have no choice but to refute both. And that, my friends, takes some talking up because most ordinary lay people have witnessed significant climate changes in their own lifetimes. They don't need the graphic news about receding ice and unprecedented weather statistics and IPCC reports.

On my estimate the clock has already run out, especially taking into account the ponderous global decision-making processes that are in place. But I am all ears if anybody can persuade me we still have time to put on the brakes.

In fact the only mature and sensible thing for society to do is put on the brakes anyway and try to avert the worst.

Gecko,
climate change denialists characteristically say it's either not happening at all or that whatever changes take place will be minimal. One poster here awhile ago said the Nordic countries would probably enjoy a 5C increase - it would let them go swimming. Not everyone has got their head around what climate change really is.

But you're spot on about one thing. What dominates front pages today -Iraq, the middle east in general, dwindling resources - will become page 5 material. That's be about the time denialists start turning off the lights when they leave the room

For the sake of argument (sorry Jim) let’s pretend global warming is not happening.

What threat to our comfort zone will it take for us to live in a more sustainable way?

Food for thought can be found here:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3871

Any comments?

1. It is manifestly untrue for anyone to claim, as one poster here did, that climate change has NEVER happened with the cyclical speed that it is alleged to be undergoing now. Anyone who has any serious awareness of the geological and climatological record should know such a claim cannot be given any respect. OVERALL temperature changes within the past 100 years have been minuscule compared to other periods in human history before the Industrial Revolution. The Discovery science channel, for example, reported that, in the known geological record of human history, world-wide average temperatures have varied by as much as 27 degrees.
2. We should at least have the humility to admit that there are still a myriad number of things about the world's ecosystems and climate that we, collectively, simply do not understand. There is a great deal we still do not know about variations in solar activity. There is also much that science is trying to understand about how activity at the Earth's core may affect changes on the surface. Contrary to a lot of pompous certitude expressed by celebrities, the science is not "in" on the primary causes of climate change.
3. Here in the U.S.A. where I live, it is known that there is a HUGE . . . and as yet untapped . . . new oil field under the Gulf of Mexico, and another in Colorado . . . enough to make the U.S. self-sufficient in oil for 150 years. Environmental litigation has slowed development.
4. As long as human societies are either unwilling or unable to control the growth of their own populations, there will, inevitably, be more people needing more land, more housing, more water, more food, more medical services and more demands for government assistance. Under such conditions, it will be virtually impossible to stop the continued destruction of wildlife habitat and natural resources . . . regardless of what political ideology is in charge. It is palpably clear that Marxist regimes have been every bit as rapacious of the natural environment as any private corporation.