The growing recognition that the world is at or nearly at the all-time peak of conventional oil production (meaning from that point on, oil flows will inexorably decline at some unknown rate) has prompted a furious search for replacements, all intended to keep the high-carbon, high-flying, automobile lifestyle going.
Like crack addicts warned of a future shortage, we are literally searching the corners of the Earth to figure out how we're going to get our fix when times is tight.
But given our climate crisis, peak oil could be appreciated as a push in the direction we already have to go (a decarbonized society). If we adopt the oil depletion protocol suggested by Colin Campbell, and made more widely known by Richard Heinberg, we can improve our resiliency, our health, and our social well-being -- and avoid the chaos that comes when a junkie loses his supplier while still stuck in full-blown addiction.
New Scientist offers yet another argument for this approach:
It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fueling cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.
They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process." It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn -- an alternative to oil -- "it's essentially a zero-sums game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France (see Complete carbon footprint of biofuel -- or is it?).
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 9:36 am
17 Aug 2007
On the other, the [pithy term here] who realizes it's time to ease up on the accelerator, to get smarter rather than bigger, happier rather than richer.
You see the two bashing heads on almost every problem, but nowhere clearer than the climate/energy nexus.
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:34 am
17 Aug 2007
In "The upside of down", Homer-Dixon discusses the phenomenon in which such a large burden can be put on the society/environment that everything seems to hit at once, and that is what we are seeing here. In my opinion, either ecosystem destruction or global warming could destroy the biosphere, so any "solutions" must be seen through the criteria of dealing with both problems, or at least not making one of the two worse.
On top of all this, the problem that is going to force itself into the general public's daily life -- the one that already is -- is peak oil, whether we like it or not. as JMG and others point out, that could lead to bad problems for both global warming (tar sands,ctl) and ecosystems (biofuels).
So, to use a completely nonpithy phrase, the people who think long-term and system-wide will need to envision a civilization that puts on the brakes in terms of energy and materials consumption, and use the technological stock of knowledge that we have accumulated over the last several thousand years to create what I think would be a higher quality life -- and by technology I mean both solar energy and permaculture, passive buildings and trains -- I'm not talking about super high-tech or not-yet-invented.
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:48 pm
17 Aug 2007
The Buddhists might say that the duality is about attachment: the folks who are attached to more things vs. those who have learned non-attachment (i.e., those who remain in suffering and seeking comfort in material things vs. those who are enlightened). Sounds pretty pejorative to those unfamiliar with the terms.
Perhaps the term used by some peak-oil-aware folks is most apt to describe one half of the duality, although there's not an obvious counterpart term: Those who follow the religion of infinite growth are called "Cornucopians," for their belief that the earth is an endless cornucopia of bounty from which we can draw forever. Maybe we could refer to the debate between Cornucopians and Missourians, so named for their insistence on being shown ...
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:06 pm
17 Aug 2007
Cf. his character's comment, in "Annie Hall," when one of his pre-Annie girlfriends has taken him to a lecture by her favorite guru, whom she has referred to as equivalent to "God": when, before the lecture, the guru is seen to have used the facilities, Woody Allen says, "Oh, there is God, coming out of the bathroom."
On "attachment," and what may sound "pejorative": We lose our credibility, and our ability to offer sound counsel, when we dismiss so simply and arrogantly the wisdom of ancient religious traditions.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:38 pm
17 Aug 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:30 pm
17 Aug 2007
Like crack addicts warned of a future shortage, we are literally searching the corners of the Earth to figure out how we're going to get our fix when times is tight.
as:
Like hungry bears, we are searching the corners of our range to secure energy sources.
Certainly the "crack addicts" bit feels good, and sends the message you want ... but the continual search for food, and energy, is as old as life.
The only animal that stops searching is dead.
(I don't think we want humans to die. What we want them to do is search creatively and sustainably ... and the reality is that our world is a messy assortment of sustainable and non-sustainable searches in progress.)
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:25 am
18 Aug 2007
"He and Spracklen conclude that if the point of biofuels policies is to limit global warming, "policy makers may be better advised in the short term to focus on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use, to conserve existing forests and savannahs, and to restore natural forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is not needed for food."
Agrofuels are making global warming worse, forget the fact that they are accelerating the extinction event.
On the other hand, maybe these scientists are full of crap. I don't think so because I have also run the numbers for the forest property I own and the amount of carbon it will sequester over the next 40 years dwarfs what you could get from 11 acres with an agrofuel. By growing soybeans on it for biodiesel to fuel my car instead of letting it go back to a douglas fir forest, I would be adding almost 15 times more CO2 to the atmosphere.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:04 am
18 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
racc Posted 6:12 am
18 Aug 2007
Our overuse of energy has lead to a host of other problems like congestion, air pollution, loss of greenspace, obesity, miners trapped a mile below the earth, suburbs with acres of parking lots, ect...
Solutions such as more rail, buses, better cycling facilities built around compact walkable communities will lead to better, heather more enjoyable lives for many people. Time to create a new American Dream with a future instead of trying "Making do without".
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:29 am
18 Aug 2007
If you start asking "Why?" are we doing these things, rather than "How?" as in "How can we keep doing them on some fuel other than oil?" I think you get a higher quality answer.
Why are we driving cars to the mall to get a bar of soap?
Why is everything out of walking distance from where we live?
Why do we need to encase our 200 lb bodies in 2 Ton vehicles to get around?
Why...why...why...ask these questions like a 5 year old, and you may start to see reality.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
xephemeroptera Posted 1:48 pm
18 Aug 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:25 pm
18 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 5:07 pm
18 Aug 2007
I'd hesitate to call it modernism (aren't we supposed to be post-modern -- or was that a fad?)-- versus "slow, mini-modernism". Or linear West versus mystical East.
How about a corporate-driven outlook (the infamous Corporate Oligarchy?) vs. a democratic-driven outlook?
That is, corporations favor infinite growth in their quest to turn the Earth into a parking lot. Ordinary people favor those intangible quantites that can't be dollarized (relaxation, art, companionship,...)
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:41 pm
18 Aug 2007
Is that all that all of us do? No organic farmers in the world?
What I'm really asking here is how we should view the world. Are we all crack addicts? Or are we a messy human mix of good and bad behaviors?
If it's the latter I think we have a better chance of nudging things, and reinforcing the good behaviors we have, expanding the good and sustainable practices we now pursue.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 1:29 am
19 Aug 2007
"Presently,we have three, clearly interacting problems: global warming, peak oil, and ecosystem destruction."
Although I would personaly posit that 'peak oil' may not be so much of a 'problem' as possible beginning of our salvation from the other two problems.
To put a finer point on it, Peak Oil is a near-term 'problem' for a world whose paradigm seems to be Growth at All Costs. However the Peak Oil 'crisis' also represents a long-term opportunity for a world seeking a better and more sustainable paradigm.
Or at least it should. As the lead article notes, the unfortunate tendency is toward denial of reality and a desperate search for alternatives to keep the Old Paradigm rolling for at least a few more years. This is what needs to be overcome.
I'm not convinced we have yet reached Peak Oil. There is much data to suggest that could still be 10, 15 years away. But in any case, for the sake of future generations and the survival of a diverse and healthy planet, I hope we are there. This could be the beginning of forcing humanity's hand to come to terms of what it means to be human, to live full lives, and to care about something and somebody other than ourselves.
Planting more trees is good, but it won't save us. Developing biofuels is OK -- sometimes -- but it won't save us. Learning how to modify and simplify our lifestyles -- that will be priceless.
Permalink
trock Posted 5:50 am
19 Aug 2007
That stuff about trees and use fossil oil, better than Biofuels makes sense to me. One idea I always thought we should do is have a small forest next to every small town. (in areas that can grow forests) That would be a multiuse forest. We've heard about Permaculture, but this would be Permacuture town size instead of farmstead size.
Plant the forest for recreation, hiking/walking, bike paths. That would help for health care. we strip everything away that's visually interesting and then expect people to have interest in exercise. put in 20 miles or more of bike/hike/walk paths in a square mile of forest.
put in cabins and people wouldn't have to drive 100, 200 or 500 miles or whatever for forests. Just put it out next to the town/city limits and have private cabins for any day and walk/hike there from home.
the forest could also produce sustainable firewood, small scale lumber for the town. The forest should be a mixed tree forest.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 10:25 am
19 Aug 2007
Does that mean we're at peak? Maybe. Or maybe the Saudis are holding back on production as long as the world will cough up $70/barrel (rather than $40) without reeling into recession or without seriously persuing alternatives to relying on oil.
There are many arguments both ways, but no one outside of Saudi Arabia really knows.
God I hope we're there. Timely political leadership may help wean us off of fossil fuels, but $200/barrel oil will wean us off a hell of a lot faster.
Permalink