What's gonna be worse for us? Global warming or Peak oil?

And which will cause more deaths? The wars over oil or the lack thereof, or global warming.

My guess is global warming will cause more deaths, but unless there is a sudden inrush of sensibility, we will have the wars over oil and global warming too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sailing_prius @ Mar 28 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]413498[/snapback]</div>

Are the deaths coming from Al gore's 20 foot sea level rise or from more GW-caused hurricanes?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 23 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]411286[/snapback]</div>

None will. AGW is the political "evil character" in the show of politics that defines our current two party system (every good politician needs a "cause", with President Bush it's Iraq, with Hillary it is successful corporations and businesses (got to fight for the "little guy")). Unable to get elected to political office, Al Gore has very cleverly used the myth of AGW to further himself and his family to a lifetime of financial bliss. His reverence by most on this board is truly amazing. I read about people on this board wondering about how to finance their Prius, yet give not a mere second thought to purchasing Al Gore's movie.

Ever since my years in elementary school (how far back?? think Vietnam, gas at 30 cents a gallon...) I have seen the theory of "peak oil" come and go many times (along with overpopulation, global famine, and, yes, even a modern ice age which would be the mother of all ice ages). Oil would suddenly run out and the world would quickly become an anarchist place where we would all live as cavemen did.

"Peak oil" with regards to the world grinding to a halt or other significant disruption of world order will never happen. You won't even notice the gradual fading of oil as an energy source. It will soon become a distant memory, similar to the one as I marveled at a calculator that could fit into your hand and do square roots with just the push of a button. Gosh, I thought, how could anyone possibly design a calculator in my lifetime that could do more...

As oil gradually becomes more scarce its price will gradually rise. Other forms of energy will become more prevalent (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc.) and more competitive with current petroleum sources.

Look around, its happening as we speak. Just push the power button on your Prius and give a thought to how much less oil you are using now as compared to just a few years ago.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Its not an either or problem. It's a cumulative problem.

It seems pretty evident that over the next 50 years, we'll see the desert regions expanding from the equator at the same rate the ice caps recede. This is not a problem for the earth at all. It just means the major bands of life north and south of the equator will have to migrate along with the climate. Canada will be more like the US in weather, and will probably flourish with its new climate (and the newly thawed resources in their northern territories). The US will become more like Mexico, and Mexico will dry up and become less livable. If ocean levels do rise, then we just get a new coastline.

Peak oil itself isn't a problem on its own either, as there are solutions to that, though costly to implement.
The problem is that the two combined could create a situation where mankind needs a lot of energy (& time and $) to react and adapt to climate change, which we frankly won't have.

Nearly all of us have our savings/retirement in the stock market (401 Ks, IRAs, etc). When peak oil hits home, the collective panic the world will feel and the steep climb of oil prices wil result in a worlwide economic recession. Think great depression on a global scale. Today, as the price climbs, markets and oil use recede, and the price comes back down. When peak oil is evident, the price WON'T come back down. This will happen at a time when the US is heavily in debt (Thanks George!) and at a time when scarce oil supplies and the market crash cause many to stop working/get layed off. Governments will have a much smaller tax base to work with and won't be able to afford the massive cost to rebuild our infrastructure around post oil realities. And China won't loan us the money anymore, as we won't be buying useless plastic crap from them anymore. War is likely, whether over the last drops of oil, Uranium resources, or over the limited worldwide supply of PV grade silicon, Lithium, and Nickel required for batteries.

Hopefully, the peak is drawn out a bit, allowing us to start getting ready. Then the only losers are those living in the desert. I suspect the entire middle east/north Africa is dooomed, since they lack the agriculture to feed their people and they won't get food imports when they stop exporting oil. I think the North and South America will be fine, as will Northern Asia, but not ovepopulated China, and India. I have no idea how Europe will react.
Well, that's my take. We'll be fine, though living simpler, but equatorial regions are probably screwed by both global warming and peak oil. Ironic, that the very regions that have produced most of the worlds oil, will be the most hurt by the effects of its usage and decline of its availability.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 28 2007, 10:53 AM) [snapback]413506[/snapback]</div>

u r good and correct.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sailing_prius @ Mar 28 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]413498[/snapback]</div>

how many deaths did you predict from nuclear power plants? And if you are sooo concerned about GW are you in favor of building nuclear powerplants to provide our current and/or future energy needs?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 28 2007, 05:36 AM) [snapback]413477[/snapback]</div>

I can't speak for your family, of course. And nobody can pin down the exact moment when demand will out-strip supply, but it is clear to everybody (including the oil companies!) that we're very close, and that it will HAVE to happen.

You seem to be confusing the price of gas with the cost of gas. We as a society are paying WAY more for gas than what we see at the pump. The price of gas at the pump has little to do with when the peak happens - though it can't help to generally head higher.

And back to GW for a moment - I personally don't care what is causing it. In the fracas of disproving one cause or the other, we must not lose site of the fact that we need to STOP our wasteful burning of fossil fuels! Even if it has ZERO affect on GW - that doesn't mean it is good for us, or should continue.

 

For those that pay attention, peak oil and climate weirding will be highly beneficial, even considering 6.6 billion people and growing affluence and resource demand.

The Natural Advantage of Nations (Hargrove & Smith, 2006), a follow-up to Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (Lovins, Lovins & Hawking, 2000), coupled with Winning the Oil Endgame (Lovins, Datta, Odd-Even Bustnes, Koomey & Glasgow, 2004) make it very clear and easy to follow a successful path that provides sustainable benefits for humans, ecosystems and business.

Those that cling to "least cost, first use" (short-term) thinking and deny international competition for goods and services are doomed to expensive failure. Those that follow "least cost, end use" (long-term) thinking will find continuing success - locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. We should expect and work toward:

1. Complete redevelopment of our energy systems
2. Complete redevelopment of chemical, material and building technologies
3. Complete redevelopment of industrial agriculture
4. Perpetuation of remaining species and ecosystems
5. Stable and long lasting international peace.

The first industrial revolution made people 100 times more productive because people were relatively scarce while nature seemed boundless. The next industrial revolution faces the opposite challenge - abundant people and scarce nature. Therefor, we must use nature 100 times more efficiently and productively, using integrated design that makes very large resource savings cost less than small or no savings. It is a solution economy. With these concepts in mind solutions will be bottom up, not top down. Consumers, not corporations will more greatly direct things. How we lead are daily lives increasingly makes a huge, long-term difference.

Those who cannot adapt and are tied to narrow-minded resource extraction without considering the "big" and long-term picture are indeed doomed to failure.

 

"Even if it has ZERO affect on GW - that doesn't mean it is good for us, or should continue."

I've pointed out to Dr B. numerous times the OTHER reasons to stop FF use. Every time, he ignores it and goes back to ripping Gore and GW.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 28 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]413506[/snapback]</div>

Alright, I have to respond to this incendiary post. First, AGW is science, not politics. I am not particularly a fan of Al Gore, but I have been concerned about global warming well before Kyoto, and wondered why Gore didn't try to push the environmental agenda more while he was in office (answer of course is politics, wouldn't be able to get much thru congress). Politicians are scared of even touching AGW and are only lately, reluctantly coming to the table because it's something that can't continue to be ignored. So politics is a very late-comer to the AGW picture.

I've read quite a bit about AGW, hoping to find out it's not real, and everytime I come across a good denial theory, I dig in and find it isn't as robust as the proponents claim, and AGW is still the most likely scenario for our current climate. Believe me, I want it to not happen too.

I was in elementary school during the oil embargo (my earliest memories of gas is at about 50 cents), so I don't recall much about it, but what I do, it focused on one point - there was a lot of consternation that we imported more than half our petroleum and were at the mercy of these middle-eastern governments, particularly Iran, that didn't like us. I don't recall a lot of talk about peak oil (or any) back then, except maybe how the American supply had peaked.

And what was changed since then? Because of our insistence on the right of any American to choose any vehicle and the industry to be able to supply it, we are ever more dependent on petroleum from countries that are still just as unfriendly to the U.S. How did we allow that to happen? Not only does that threaten our security, petroleum imports are our biggest source of trade imbalance - it's not foreign cars or Chinese clothing, but oil. And it pollutes, if you care about that, but it's a big threat to our economic and military security. Iran can close off the Straight of Hormuz, blocking 20% of the world's access to oil overnight. That would be war, but they could still do it, and we'd be in a world of hurt immediately.

Global famine has been averted because of increased food production - but to do that we've drawn down our aquifers and gone thru a ton of petroleum - to drive tractors, for herbicides and fertilizers and to ship the food to other continents. When this petroleum becomes scarce, food production rates will stop increasing and the overpopulation issue will become more obvious, and not just to people monitoring endangered species, air pollution or regional conflicts, as it is now.

I don't remember reading anything about a new ice age, and I've always been interested in science, so whatever that speculation was, it must have died out over 30 years ago. Unless you're confusing it with nuclear winter, which was a real possibility (still could be, in the unlikely event of a mid-sized nuclear war).

That part I mostly agree with. It won't cause an immediate halt to civilization. People will notice however, they'll complain about the rising price of oil (like summer of 2006, repeated many times). It won't be seamless, people will lose jobs, new jobs will be created, we will take fewer plane trips, fewer car trips, more rail trips. New technology won't solve everything, in part because petroleum is so prevalent - like agriculture, manufacturing (petroleum is needed to make those solar panels in the first place), plastics - beyond transportation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Mar 28 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]413673[/snapback]</div>

It always made sense to me that moving to an environmentally-friendly economy would be beneficial, for a couple reasons. 1) we'd be ready to provide products the world needs, like solar panels and wind turbines, hopefully cellulosic ethanol plants, etc. 2) countries that take care of their natural resources typically outperform countries that don't - when large areas become unusable because of erosion, pollution, desertification, crashes in fish population, etc. everybody loses. Third-world countries selling off their forests for lumber are learning the hard way that short-term cash doesn't get them where they want to be if their people can't continue to farm and feed themselves. Lower standard of living may be a mild concern to those in power, but reduced economic growth and political unrest is the likely outcome of that.

Okay, now you're losing me. Complete redevelopment of everything we do is supposed to be easy and clear? You're talking major shifts in economic structures, where and how people work and live. No doubt it will happen, one way or another, but it won't be "easy".

I'm not so sure we can use nature 100x as efficiently as now, how is that supposed to work? People can grow gardens instead of lawns and plant fruit trees instead of purely decorative trees, use less grain for animals and feed people directly, but I don't understand how nature can be changed to be anything more than maybe 4x or 5x as productive for us as it is now. Methanol from cow manure, solar ovens only gets us so far, at some point we need to either consume less per capita or reduce our capita.

Secondly, consumers always drive things, but not always to an optimal solution, our average fuel economy is proof of that. Economically and ecologically responsible taxes and incentives might still be needed. I'm not saying government is the answer, but I don't think allowing the uneducated mob make choices based on media and current fashion is necessarily the answer either. I guess I'm not seeing your utopian vision.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Mar 28 2007, 01:26 PM) [snapback]413772[/snapback]</div>

You're correct, it is not going to be "business as usual," and we cannot continue to substitute oil or water for knowledge. Instead we must apply the knowledge proactively. Things like walking not driving, using PHEV not ICE vehicles, going to light rail not highways; supporting the local economy, not importing fruits off season from Chile, having a small carbon footprint by retrofitting buildings or using photovoltaics to run the meter backwards, using climate-appropriate landscaping, living in more modest and more efficient homes, emphasizing precycling and recycling throughout the economy (i.e., Germany today). In effect, demanding efficiency in clothing, transportation, buildings, work and school, recreation.

The key term here is sustainabilty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Mar 28 2007, 01:26 PM) [snapback]413772[/snapback]</div>

If you double your efficiency, you cut your cost by one-half or double your profit. Often, this is as simple as scraping 10 coats of paint off the outside of an electric motor (so it runs cooler) or switching from an incadescent to a compact florescent light bulb (5.5X increase in efficiency). In the case of a light bulb you get less heat, the same amount of light and use 15W instead of 100W of electricity and the bulb lasts up to 10,000 hours (vs. 800 hours).

Placing insulating gaskets behind every switch and outlet plate in a home ($20, 2 hours of labor) is equivalent to plugging up a one square meter hole in your front door. You modify something once and the payback continues for a long time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 28 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]413675[/snapback]</div>

Indeed. And this surprises you?

If you can discredit the messenger, then obviously the message is wrong as well. The status quo is your friend.

 

I love tree huggers...

The environment is much better than when I was a child in the 60's/70's. Remember the American Indian who had the tear in his eye commercial? We have come a long way and we should be proud as Americans of our progress. Only counties that have strong economies can afford to take care of the environment. If you never been to places over sea's and seen some of the filth other countries have you would know what I'm talking about. We need oil now to have a strong economy.

Strong Economy = ability to pay for environmental protections.
Gas = wars; correlation perhaps... plenty of wars in areas without oil.
Radical Muslims = wars; correlation defiantly.
GW or oil running out; oil running out first.
You can help by parking your hybrid and start walking.. FYI hybrids uses gas can't get around that dirty little fact. We all feel better for driving them, you know, doing our part, but we are using gas never the less.
BTW oil is used for other things other than gas, ie plastics etc... to many to list here. When we run out, we are screwed besides just not having gas. GW may not even be happening and if it is, we may not even be able to stop it anyway. We defiantly can not do anything if we are all unemployed living in a depression. Remember rule #1 Strong Economy = ability to pay for environmental protections. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Mar 29 2007, 06:44 AM) [snapback]414093[/snapback]</div>

Actually you're pretty wrong. Certain aspects of the environment are better off since the 70s but many others are worse (ocean temps, coral reefs, fish populations, soil loss and degredation, freshwater systems, dead zones, old growth forests, rangelands, etc.) The sectors that are better are that way because of Acts that we have created yet were subsequently tore down durring the Bush administrations. So now they are getting worse. Your claim that a strong economy allows us to fix environmental problems is misleading. It simply allows us to shift the pollution elsewhere. We should not have to FIX anything, we should avoid the destruction in the first place. To keep our economy strong we HAVE to manipulate the American people and dupe them into thinking they are worthless unless they buy a bunch of crap. We tell them they are lazy unless they worth 60 hours a week then spend all their wages on a McMasion and a Hummer. That they should put their kids in Day Care so they can work more. All of these things lead to an unsatisfied feeling and stress so people buy more crap to cope with "life" and try to fill that gap. So lets see here, strong economy in reality = unhealthy population. It's pretty sad when you actually start to study psychology and biological systems or natural resource conservation.

Economy is important but not the end all be all when that economy is used to buy more useless crap that people do not require to live a healthy happy life. Think back to indigenous cultures.

 

As always F8L, well explained.

 

"Gas = wars; correlation perhaps... plenty of wars in areas without oil.
Radical Muslims = wars; correlation defiantly. . "

I have to take issue here.
You make it sound like Muslims cause the world's wars. Ummm, I think it was caucasions/Jews that instigated/fought WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and a whole lot more. Most Muslim fighting up to 9-11 was between other Muslims, so no one cared (as long as their oil kept coming over the pond).

The reality is that resources = wars.
Oil just happens to be the most common resource of the past 100 years that spur conflict.
Muslims fight for their reources just like any other race of people do.
All wars come down to fighting over limited resources. Even if on the face they seem to be about something else. Once the oil economy declines and the electric economy takes over, wars will be over PV grade silicon, uranium, copper, nickel, and lithium. Or possibly over limited food resources.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 29 2007, 11:12 AM) [snapback]414182[/snapback]</div>

Most wars through human history have had very little to do with resources and much more to do with ego and religion.

 

BS!!!!!

Look closer... there are always resources of interest. Land, food, oil, mining rights, water rights, fishing rights.
Religion is just the banner used to get people on board.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 29 2007, 11:19 AM) [snapback]414187[/snapback]</div>

I wrote a long paragraph, but it boiled down to the fact that to satisfy the ego, you had to go out and conquer land, which was the resource of the time for most of human history. If that resource failed (drought, floods, frosts...) then civil war/uprisings was a common outcome, as the people went hungry.

Occasionally I'm sure they started wars just because they didn't like the other people, or one ruler had a grudge against another ruler, but a side effect is always to gain control of their resources, even a burnt-earth war policy only lasts a few seasons. Only one place in the Old Testament did the command come to destroy another group of people and not loot their wealth, which was of course disobeyed.

Religion often played an integral part, but I believe it was corrupted by politics to support egos and gain/maintain resources of the powers that be. Also, it's easier to justify killing or subjugating other people if they're seen as less fully human as you because of their pagan beliefs. But underneath it all, it still boils down to resources in one way or another. The Catholic church was tremendously wealthy throughout the middle ages, they didn't want to lose the source of that wealth and power by people trying to say you didn't need an intermediary to talk to God (Martin Luther, Reformation wars, etc.) The schism of Old Believers in Russia was as much a political backlash against Peter the Great and his various changes as anything religious. In the current case of North Ireland, religion is more of an identifier of the two groups fighting, not the reason they are fighting.