I think we have to decarbonise global warming or not. Independent analysts conclude that crude oil production peaked in the period 2005-2008 and is now in permanent decline. That decline may accelerate in a few years preventing a full economic recovery. Of course if there were no global warming we could make liquid fuel from coal as is done in South Africa. That hasn't happened apparently because refiners believe something else will come up. So far not enough.

Extrapolating 2007 coal consumption rates analysts also think global coal production (not just Australia) could peak around 2030 to be followed by a slow decline. How that interacts with oil and gas is not clear. Perhaps lack of transport fuel will reduce demand for coal so there will be excess production capacity. At this point it is also unclear whether there are adequate and affordable alternative forms of propulsion for transport such as plug-in electric cars and compressed natural gas (CNG) as a diesel substitute. Whatever the direction low carbon energy takes the level of current investment is woefully inadequate.

The Green Chip review lands on my desk daily promising me 32% profit per month, so it is obvious that there is a heap of money to be made from harnessing CO2.
Problem is that so many human beings have considered that they can control climate and all, so far, have been proven wrong!
If I meet my old Science Teacher in the next world, I am going to ask him how come he didn't teach us that CO2 is a pollutant?
Al Gore et.al. are going to be billionaires through trading in the control of hot air.
How can mature, university educated prawns get sucked in to this scam?

The statement that no one is listening to "climate change skeptics" is plainly wrong.
Every poll in the developed world taken about the subject shows that the general population is becoming more wary and weary about the climate change alarmism the closer we get to the Copenhagen talks.
Hence the current increase it the volume and tenor in the retoric of the alarmists.
An economic argument can be made to increase CO2 in the atmosphere because crops grow best with atmospheric CO2 about the 750ppm mark.
With the projected world population at 2050 being 2.5 billion more than today (9 billion) we are going to need as much food as we can grow.
We are better off spending our money dealing with this burgeoning population rather than giving it to the carbon dioxide reduction rent seekers and derivative market players for something that will not produce a reduction in atmospheric CO2.
Sea level and climate has changed through out earths history.
No one complains about Australia moving to the North by 7cm a year on it's tectonic plate.
Get use to it!

Taswegian: "... we could make liquid fuel from coal as is done in South Africa. That hasn't happened apparently because refiners believe something else will come up."

I too have wondered about why it hasn't happened. But unlike you I didn't find an answer. Got some links I can read demonstrating it is because they think "something else will come up"?

Taswegian: "Extrapolating 2007 coal consumption rates analysts also think global coal production (not just Australia) could peak around 2030 to be followed by a slow decline"

Maybe. The situation for coal isn't the same as oil. One reason those Hubbert peak predictions for oil worked so well is oil production was limited by supply - there is simply no more liquid oil in the ground.

This is not so for coal. For instance the UK hit peak coal ages ago - but I was speaking to a UK mining engineer who pointed out it wasn't because the UK had no more coal. It was just because countries like ourselves produce it much, much more cheaply than the UK can. Their remaining coal is now a long way down. They can and would resume mining if the world prices changed.

Here in Australia we have similar coal reserves that are similarly a long way down. There is a coal seam under Northern NSW / Southern Queensland the size of a small country. It is expensive and dangerous to get to but if there were no other energy sources available I am sure we would do it.

All this makes me suspicious of anybody that just mindless applies Hubbert peak style calculations to coal.

The Report "The Economics of 350" is based on a falsehood, that at present ALL anthropogenic emissions of GHGs add to their atmospheric concentration, when in fact even these authors' own data source CDIAC shows that since 1958 nearly 60% of gross emissions has been absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial biospheres. Their favoured model MAGICC 5.3 equally falsely assumes that there will never ever be any such natural absorptions again. Why the necessity to lie? To repeat, the natural world already deals with close to 60% of gross emissions, so what is the point of reducing emissions to below the level of natural uptakes (60% FROM 2000 level as proposed for endorsement at Copenhagen implies TO 40% of 2000's emissions, or less than 3 GtC, while actual absorptions of emissions of c. 10 GtC in 2008 were c. 6 GtC (CDIAC). Is that arithmetic too difficult for those authors? They of course like Hansen could not care less when their 350 target is achieved, reducing the annual new absortion by trees and crops and phytoplankton to ZERO. O brave new world. Pity the whales, never mind us.

An informed and informative view. It rather suggests that Australia’s bi-partisan 2020 target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels is not going to achieve anything. Nor is there reason to believe that government will revise the 2020 target to a more realistic 30-40% below 1990 greenhouse gas emissions, which is what scientists call for. But our enlightened and supposedly slightly green government will have none of it.

Rudd and Turnbull are adamant that at all costs, including the dangers of global warming, jobs must be preserved, the coal industry must be protected and we must do nothing which would jeopardize our oil refineries or continued production of fossil fuelled vehicles. That increased employment opportunities would result from transferring to a carbon free economy are to be neither examined or accepted. A more realistic greenhouse reduction targets will be achieved through carbon capture and sequestration when it becomes affordable, possibly by 2035.

Of course for the skeptics who either do not believe in climate change or its scientifically proved causes – and there are plenty of them! – our fearless leaders are doing the right thing but would be better doing nothing. Meanwhile land based ice continues to melt at an increasing rate. It will result in dangerous sea level rise but, no worries, its not going to happen for many years and by that time we will have found ways of dealing with it, wont we?

So, drink and be merry. Above all, lets not do anything to jeopardize our life-style or the pleasures it brings us. As for wild ideas of there being a risk of global warming from CO2 emissions, we have it on the authority of that world expert, Professor Plimer, that CO2 is good for the environment, has nothing to with global warming and anyway wouldn’t it be nice to have milder winters? Ask Senator Joyce. Ask Rudd and Turnbull. But whatever you do, do not ask an informed scientist who specializes in matters of climate change.

I was in Safway checking out the Veggies , notable was the reduction in stock and the prices , the reduction in stock is the result of the sky rocketing prices ; this means many people have dumped veggies from their shopping list .
How long will it take for Health issues to show up in Health costs ?
Farm Carbon tax will offset these Health costs ?

I find it particularly interesting that Economists are AGW alarmists ?

Where were these Guys pre Financial Crisis ?

Surely Economists would be eminently qualified to raise the alarm long before the collapse of the entire worlds Financial System ?

Why should we allow them any credibility with AGW ?

rstuart the reasons for the complacency of the oil majors (Shell, BP, Exxon etc) is an amalgam of opinions in articles that have appeared on The Oil Drum website. I'd paraphrase leading theories as follows;
1) they don't believe oil has peaked
2) they can make big profits on less oil
3) they will buy out any new winning technology when it arrives
4) like Detroit they can't think that far ahead.

Should Rudd still be PM when the the liquid fuel crisis hits I'm sure he'll make an exemption for coal-to-liquids under the ETS, even though overall CO2 emissions (process + tailpipe) will be more than double that of petrol.

Taswegian,

Thanks.

Out of your list, (d) is the winner for me. Oil companies make money out of finding and selling oil. If they can't do that, they will die rather than change. Just like the newspapers companies that are about to suffer that same fate. The newspapers aren't going to turn into Internet companies. They are just going to die. With a few notable exceptions (Nokia, GE spring to mind), it seems companies - or rather the people that run them, can't change technologies.

That doesn't explain why it hasn't happened, however. The companies may not move between technologies - but capital does. Yet I haven't read about a single Entrepreneur working on getting a FT plant up and running. As I recall, the FT process becomes economic at about USD$50/barrel. Today Oil is trading at USG$80/barrel. Australia with its coal reserves and engineering expertise is one of the obvious places to do it.

Yet, I don't see any activity on that front. Not a peep. I don't understand.

Tom Tidler,
More reading is required.

The carbon soak (sea) has taken in so much Carbon that it has changed the PH to levels in some part where corals etc are on the bring of mass die out.

Any more CO2 uptake by the sea will exacerbate this. The consequences will mean a series of failures already observed the failing of the sea ice algea which feeds the krill which is the basis of most fish life in the sea. The consequences go from there.

Think of the sea as a bucket in the middle of your lounge CO2 as water. Water on the carpet (our environment) can ruin it.

We turn on the tap it drips into the bucket. Evaporation take water out. Providing the natural evaporation = input, no problem.
Over time the bucket has filled and is now about to spill onto the carpet.

Do we look at the bucket ans say well its 20 litres therefore we can continue to pour water into the bucket and not expect trouble with the carpet because the drops are less than 20 litres, like you are suggesting?

The truth is the change in PH is evidence that it's already spilling over and wrecking our environment.

Of course it's not that simple because we are buggering the sea in other ways too.

The ph in the oceans varies because of different temperatures depths widths and a million other conditions. It simply show up more in the shallow tropics (where the coral is).

I hope this answers your question.

Amazing, but all too familiar - a seriously good news story and everyone misses the point.

If you agree we're causing global warming, this says the price is not high. Let's get on with it. Let's really clobber the pollies with the message.

If you don't believe "AGW", there's still a good message. We can save money by cutting the most wasteful uses of energy. Why not do that?

There's a stronger reason that the article didn't mention. Our assault on the Earth is not confined to CO2 emissions. There's degradation and loss of soil, fresh water, biodiversity, forests etc., there's global chemical pollution. Even without GW, these will soon stop our mad destruction of Earth's resources. The effort to reduce emissions (for a small cost) will have multiple positive spin-offs - it will reduce our other assaults as well. We can do even better, and reduce our wastefulness of all resources, not just energy.

See my post at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/the-urgency-and-the-opportunity-2/

Optimism anyone?

Examinator - thanks for your comments. They miss my main point, the dangers of reducing GHG emissions below the current uptakes by the biota in the form of food for all forms of life.

Where is your evidence for your claim that "change in PH is evidence that it's already spilling over and wrecking our environment", when there is none that I'm aware of. That mob at AIMS-Townsville has yet to show any consistent decrease in pH anywhere.

I agree when you say "The pH in the oceans varies because of different temperatures depths widths and a million other conditions" but not when you claim "It simply shows up more in the shallow tropics (where the coral is)". When and where are daily records kept of pH? Certainly not at Townsville AFAIK.

Tom Tiddler, there are many natural sources of CO2, including breathing by the world's animals. These were balanced by the natural absorption by plants, the oceans, etc. The problem is with the extra emissions from our fossil fuels, and from disturbing crop lands and forests. These are only partially balanced.

No matter how it is packaged, there is no economic case for slashing carbon emissions, and neither is there any need whatever to pursue this foolish notion. Like it or not, all life on Earth depends on carbon dioxide, and if economists took a carbon dioxide meter to any of their meetings, they would find levels twice or three times the dreaded 350 ppm in the room (from their collective breathing as they all vent their spleen). If the people in power do not listen to the derisively named 'climate sceptics' the world economy will be in deep doo doo. All the recent evidence I have read indicates the world is cooling, and cooling will be mankind's greatest challenge. In the meantime, may I suggest all of those promoting carbon taxes and the quaintly named 'emissions trading' spend a year on Heard Island without the benefit of a coal-fired power station to contemplate the latest total and sound rebuttals of any effect on the climate of the globe by the puny carbon dioxide emissions of human activity.
John McRobert

Certainly Adam Smith's Greed and Need philosophy comes into trying to not bugger up the Planet.

The trouble is most of us don't know the difference.

Economists certainly don't help by using terms like de-regulation, which any bushman knows can only mean one thing, but to encourage Rip Sh-t or Bust not only in play, but also in business

John McRobert

You need to check your sources. I've posted the reputable data on warming over the past decade at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/
Cooling since 1998 is a myth generated by a disinformation campaign.

And of course you give no reason why you so airily dismiss the economic case put by this article. It's a simple fact that many people are demonstrating how to reduce emissions, cheaply or for 'negative cost'. We just have to start doing it more widely. The economy would be more efficient and there would be multiple spin-off benefits, as I noted in my comment above.

Geoff. Just check out http://chiefio.wordpress.com
on how to cook global temperatures.

Why are there now only 4 compliant met stations in California in GCHN, all on the coast, none on the mountains? and only 2 in Uk, Bournemouth and Waddington, for a country which has continuous records since 1660 for 4 towns in central England, all ruthlessly expunged when they do not show warming. same in Australia, where BoM does no adjustment for the century average when it weeds out cool Tasmania & Vic. in favour of hot top end.

Take care, you could find yourself arraigned for spreading false and misleading information (you would be if you put your stuff in a stockbroker's report).

I read the article, and links, and found them to be a wonderfully naive look at how the entire world can change.

The same logic would propose to engender world peace by everyone getting to understand each other. A laudable but wildly unrealistic.

The problem with GTL and CTL is the poor thermal efficiency of the the processes. GTL is used at Qatar where as a "stranded" gas source, it is easier to transport normal petroleum liquids than liquefy and transport LNG. CTL was introduced in wartime Germany to keep the tanks rolling and in South Africa where it avoided sanctions. Sasol is now licensing the process to China.

As far as the planned carbon emission reductions of 80% by 2050 - no problem - the passing of peak oil, gas, coal will do it automatically with no need for carbon taxes.

There will be just a modicum of nuclear power as uranium supplies also run down. It is noted that the Olympic Dam expansion decision is put off until 2013 and even if it goes ahead, after five years of digging to 2018, some will uranium will go to China in copper concentrate, before any gets to the West.

Time for a reality check!