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

sigh

peak oil then global warming.

if we prevent peak oil from happening, we may be able to stop global warming. think renewable energy.

If peak oil does happen, the businesses relying on that source may fail. It all depends on when they adopt synthetics. I'm sure in the end synthetics will simply be cheaper and it will solve itself.

 

i HOPE global warming comes first. that means that in the near future massive oil conservation measures will have been instituted to preserve what oil we have. i believe that neither can be avoided only delayed.

the rate of consumption is spiraling upwards at an unsustainable rate and with several other countries hitting the consumption mainstream, the supply will be real tight real soon

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(V8Cobrakid @ Mar 23 2007, 11:54 PM) [snapback]411294[/snapback]</div>

Hi V8Cobrakid,

Nope, we cannot prevent peak oil from happening. We can only delay it, and spread out the peak. We might be able to delay it beyond our lifetimes, but it will still happen.

 

Peak oil is going to cause more problems in the short term (not many years from now either), but our CO2 release will do more permanent environmental damage.

 

Global warming will be worse, of course, even considering only human concerns. It will shift agricultural zones and drown major coastal cities, creating half-a-billion refugees.

The second question is moot: global warming has been here for decades and it's going to get worse for centuries.

 

Peak Oil will be far worse, as it has the most sweeping and far reaching consequences in a relatively short time. PO believers say that we are about 25 -50 years away (I am being generous with their predictions) Since our entire society is build on oil products : every delivery system is based on oil (no food, drug, medical deliveries possible other then by foot and manufacturing processes rely and create more oilbased (read plastics) goods or goods that require oil in their creation and or part delivery.

So if you can believe the PO predictions, about 90% max die off from the oil collapse will leave a waste land and the much dreaded return of the stone age. It will also reduce human GW emissions to almost non existent.

There are plenty of books out there, they are fun scary read and taken with a grain of salt (or two) it might change your attitude about waste, recycling, and survival training

Interesting read:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar 26 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]412299[/snapback]</div>

That is generous. Most PO believers are saying 0-10 years, several industry execs are trying to downplay concern by saying 25+ years until peak oil. Not that that really alleviates concern, it's still going to be a problem, just not necessarily our generation's problem, so it's okay to continue business as usual.

Yeah, I've read that. It does play out the most scary scenario, which is indeed frightening, the idea that we are just a couple years away from a Mad Max scenario. But I think the reality will be much less extreme than this.

We will have enough oil to run our society for many years, but it will come from increasingly expensive sources, such as Venezuela's heavy crude, Canada's tar sands, the deep-deep-water rigs in the Gulf, etc. This will naturally push us towards conservation efforts, as will the increasingly common realization that global warming is real. But only peak oil will save us from the most extreme global warming. Otherwise we will be like cattle, gorging ourselves on rich alfalfa until our stomachs bloat, because we don't know how to slow down, even if we know we should.

Bottom line: The rich will have enough oil for quite awhile, even after oil really peaks, but we may easily face a long-lasting recession. By then global warming will also be causing economic reverberations, and the combination won't be pretty, but it won't be the end of civilization as some would say. Unless we get some serious positive feedback loops on the global warming, which is possible, 40+ years from now. Then we could be put into survival mode for several centuries, as we replant the tropics and temperate zones and whatever technology we have developed by then takes CO2 out of the atmosphere for sequestering.

 

The paradigm shift comming (peak oil) is a blessing in that once (or maybe already) oil starts creeping up ever so constantly, it will force us off this crack addiction and into technology that's already to go. Then our excess CO2 will go down. How's that for an optomistic outlook B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 23 2007, 09:41 PM) [snapback]411286[/snapback]</div>

Hasn't "peak oil" been coming for awhile now? When is it going to arrive?

Peak oil, global warming, which one will end civilization first?

I was reading the other day and came across an article about how the coal miners strike in the 1940's was going to hurt the US economy. the benefit of hindsight makes all of that look pretty silly doesn't it.

My point is there is no greater motivator for invention than necessity. Does anyone really think a technological break-through will NOT happen long before the US does not have relatively cheap gasoline? Maybe all you doomsayers will be right but studying history will point to much different outcomes for mankind.

 

I am not so worried about peak oil, but maybe it is because I don't have a direct investment in an auto-required suburb or exurb like many of you. I have read and seen films on peak oil, and they are a lot of fun, but I don't see any of the disasterous consequences happenning, and I believe that 20 years to peak oil is more likely than 0-10 simply because at these prices oil companies are getting better at oil research and exploration, delaying the peak.

As for human consequences, peak oil will result in increasing prices of oil (which is already happening). As oil gets more and more expensive, people will use less and less of it (more telecommute, more hybrids, fewer family vacations, etc.). Even though some instability in the market is inevitable, there is probably going to be a wide enough peak (enough time) that oil use will drop enough to keep prices from skyrocketing, and at the same time, oil companies will get better at finding and using the last easy reserves of oil and they will get better at delivering the oil that is harder to get (which will be more lucrative to them with higher oil prices). In other words, there will probably be enough negative feedback in the world system to lessen the impacts. Oil and gas will get more expensive of course, and that McMansion 20 miles from the job center will probably slowly lose its value as the neighborhoods in the core cities will become more attractive and most growth will be in urban areas and those suburban areas close to train stations. As long as there isn't a panic, the switch from oil to postoil economies will be mostly smooth (and we are beginning this change). Even after oil peaks, there is a lot of the more expensive oil reserves that will be able to supply quite a bit of oil for a long time, just at higher prices. I would recommend that people take a few actions to lower their vulnerability, i.e. buy a home near job centers, buy a fuel efficient car, vote for politicians who believe in mass transportation investment; however, I wouldn't stock up on water and canned food and run for the hills.

As for global warming, we are going to be really screwed if we don't take actions fast. The earth has a lot of natural positive feedbacks to CO2 and temperature (degassing of oceans/tundra, droughts and wildfires, etc), and with CO2 levels where they are ALREADY, we are going to see a lot of warming, more CO2 from feedbacks, and then more warming. The IPCC report is in nature a very conservative report (scientists prefer conservative estimates, trust me, as a scientists, I have been trained to be conservative in my research conclusions). I would take the upper limits of ocean increase as the most likely, and even then you must realize that most new research papers point to more bleak estimates as more is learned on how ice packs melt and the postive feedback loops. Droughts and floods will also become more severe and happen sooner, and they can pack a pretty big economical punch. I think in 20 years, we will be feeling much more the impacts of climate change than peak oil, especially since hopefully the responses we make to climate change will lower the use of oil.

So I say, climate change is already happening, peak oil will happen later, and climate change is more serious. I think that public policy needs to be climate change driven. Go hug your kids and tell them your sorry in advance.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 27 2007, 12:49 PM) [snapback]413015[/snapback]</div>

All yes, the technology will save us hypothesis. The problem is that technology has a lot to overcome. Right now, there is this source of energy that just needs pumping from the ground and it gives us energy. Most current technology directions such as hydrogen and biofuels have a lot of limitations that will probably never be overcome. Hydrogen is thermodynamically energy intensive to make, and ethanol requires far too much production of crop. Renewable electricity will probably be the closest thing to a cheap clean energy source, but even renewable electricity has limitations to it because we still have to produce a lot more of it to replace what oil has given us - someone should calculate how many wind turbines or solar panels we would need, though new technologies in those sectors will probably happen to increase their productivity. Technology will certainly help us use other energy sources, but energy will never be so cheap and easy...

 

Oh I agree that the PO scenarios are really playing on the fear and gloom hype. I just think that PO related consequences will arrive before GW/GCC consequence are affecting everyday living.

I am more in the Jared Diamond camp (finished Collapse !) and that while "mad max" apocalyptic scenarios are the stuff of scary movies, it is more likely that a slow reduction in the quality of living will occur. People will become frugal, walk, bike or us public transportation more (and demand that more will be put in place) while using the car is not going be exactly a luxury i think it will become a bit of a splurge, especially when driving alone to get one item, such as a movie from the local vid store.

What is unknown is how it will affect consumer goods and medical care. Basket weaving 101 will become another popular class in College

 

Doomsayers? It's very simple... a concept I've explained seemingly many times on PC. All the oil, coal, etc - these resources are made from the long-term compression of a lot of biomatter... hence the name "fossil fuels." By long-term, I mean many millions of years. We're sucking it up at a nano-fraction at the time... I'm not willing to do the math - but I would venture to say the time scale outdoes the unit "nano." How about "pico" instead?

And as far as doomsayers are going - I think some of you are just using hyperbole to describe Peak Oil "theorists." I myself haven't seen a "peak oilist" yelling out doomsday scenarios. If they were - I wouldn't consider them a source of information and lop them all with the reality of peak oil . But given how whimsical the stock market is - I wouldn't doubt a large impact when peak oil is noticed.

It's a simple fact of reality. Sooner or later the demand for oil WILL be greater then demand (assuming we don't magically move to fusion power and electric cars overnight). It's a fact of reality. The only REAL debate is when.

And without any facts to assert the statement "necessity is the mother of invention," I can't accept that notion. I mean come one... how much of what we use is actually a bone hard necessity? We don't NEED computers. We don't NEED good healthcare. All we really truly NEED are the basics - food & water. Do we really need good healthcare? Don't get me wrong - those questions are more philosophical and rhetorical in nature.

My point is there is a lot of stuff that has been invented that really has no basis - whatsoever - in this concept of "need" or "necessity." The Nintendo Wii is a marvel - a true video gaming innovation - but I think the argument that invention comes out of necessity flies... as is the case for many things. There certainly are cases, where if you go beyond the consideration of personal "needs." - that drove innovation (maybe a war, for example) - but in most such cases I think a better phrase "out of laziness." There are many other motivators than "need:" scientific inquiry, money, a concern for the common wellbeing of man, etc etc etc.

No matter when peak oil comes - I know I'll be laughing my arse off when it does... while everyone can moan about gas prices and whining (hypocritically) about the Middle East and how much they hate Arabs for their (IE our) own darned habits and errors.

 

Peak oil really shouldn't matter a lot. BEVs and PHEVs will allow us to dramatically reduce our oil consumption. Not only that but while oil/gasoline is loaded with energy, the devices that consume that energy waste the majority of it. Thus, we really only need to replace about 25% of the actual energy that we consume now. Solar energy will continue to get cheaper and cheaper. Economies of scale for PV, solar thermal, and batteries will drop the cost of these commodities some without any further innovation. Advances in efficiency and an array of energy harnessing technologies will ease the pain of transitioning from fossil fuels to more sustainable sources of energy. The key thing is to reduce our CO2 footprint. We've already got the technology to survive oil.

Mizra, it's about 6 millionths or less. I assumed 100 years of consumption and 600 mya for the age of the fuel. Of course, the actual age varies wildly but I doubt any of it is older than the Cambrian. Hell, most of it is probably WAY younger than that. So, while the rate is ridiculously high, it's not that ridiculous. The earth's old, but not that old. If it were twice it's current age there probably wouldn't be much land left for us to live on and there wouldn't be an atmosphere left anyways. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 27 2007, 11:15 PM) [snapback]413318[/snapback]</div>

First & formost: Geologists universally agree there are only so many theoretical places oil shale & coal can be. Sorry, the earth is not some giant creamy nuget ~ energy filled thing. We reach a peak, and all too soon, the fossil fuel becomes more & more scarce. Depletion began exponentially at the beginning of the industrial age. Now, China & India are becoming giant consumers. So Pa-leeez ... do the math.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 27 2007, 09:49 AM) [snapback]413015[/snapback]</div>

Yup. We've seen it coming for a while. Just like some (Hubert) saw the US peak coming... and was proved correct. When? Well, look out the window. It is knocking on the door as I type. You seem to imply that it won't happen. It has to. Oil is finite, and demand increases by the minute. If we aren't there right now, we will be faster than you can say "Chicken Little."

Neither one if we take them seriously.

Excellent! You can learn some things that way.

Uh... you can also read where a Hummer causes less environmental damage than a Prius. Sometimes you have to actually consider the source, etc.

We don't need a technological breakthrough. We need public acceptance, and a government behind the GOOD energy.

Nothing like this has every happened in history. Our society - our way of life - is built on cheap energy from oil. When that cheap oil goes away things are going to be different. If we smart, we can make that difference better. If we sit around with our thumbs up our butts, it ain't gonna be such a pretty picture.

The idea that we'll be better off with a reactive response vs a proactive response is absurd. But then I didn't expect much else.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Mar 27 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]413328[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure what you're point is here. I simply stated that we have several outs now. We don't need any new technology. Like I said, BEVs (which don't consume any oil) and PHEVs (which consume a lot less) can and will make peak oil irrelevant. If we were to switch to pure BEVs then we could use biomass for plastics and fertilizer (along with an overhaul of our current agricultural practices).

Actually, the earth IS filled with an insane amount of energy and is bathed in a massive amount thanks to our nearby fusion reactor.

Would it cost more in the short term? Yes, but what alternative will we have? Economies of scale would go a long way to reducing cost and you can bet your arse that "the people" would be behind these technologies.

Finally, if we have peaked then demand will fall and China and India WON'T become giant consumers because they won't be able to afford it. Everyone will take it in the junk for the short term but via a combination of conservation and efficiency (and realizing that many of the things we do aren't sustainable) we'll be better off in the long run.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Mar 27 2007, 11:01 PM) [snapback]413341[/snapback]</div>

The response has already started to a degree and every time gas prices start to spike the end of the road for fossil fuels gets that much closer. Do you think opec increases production out of the goodness of their heart? Long before there is a "real" shortage of fossil fuel, the United States will no longer be dependent. I know it is only my opinion, I just don't buy all the hype. I was told twenty years ago by many environmentalists in my extended family that by today there would be a huge shortage of oil and it would be $5-$10 dollars a gallon. In inflation adjusted dollars it is as cheap as it was then.

 

Is it even remotely possible that "global warming" is a natural cause, that can't be controlled by humankind?
For example the earths rotation and slow wobble could that be an effect bringing the earth closer to the sun? Could the sun have long term cycles that could have an effect on its energy output? In the middle-ages the earth went though a mini ice age that stopped the black pelage, could we now be experiencing the opposite effect?
when I was in elementary school I was told we would have ran out of gas by now and the earth was going though an ice age.

Should we lower emissions into the environment, sure, but is mankind the exclusive reason for global warming the science and debate is on going.
When we run out of oil, we are all screwed if we do not figure out other forms of energy. People may like the nuke option but in the short term, we should press on such as the French and other European countries.
In Norfolk Naval Base, each aircraft carrier has two reactors and each sub has one. That around 15 reactors just in the city of Norfolk, VA alone.

Regardless of the opinion of nuclear power is already here in the military and has been used safely for decades. We will find a way to dispose of the waste material safety just like we have overcame all other obstacles in our technological past. When the electric cars come, that can be plugged in to the power grid and we are still using oil to generate power are we really changing anything?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Mar 28 2007, 09:25 AM) [snapback]413487[/snapback]</div>

We need to continue to look for alternatives to fossil fuel burning and conserve wherever possible. I think it is impossible to prove at this point that there is "man-made global warming" and I think all of the hype and Al Gore type hyperbole will in the end do all of us a huge disservice. If I was a scientist dependent on government grants to do my research I would be trying to get Al Gore to shut up!