NASA's latest analysis of the intersection of peak oil and climate change argues that oil and natural gas alone probably won't get us to 450ppm. If we can constrain our use of coal fairly quickly, we probably can avoid the worst outcomes -- unless of course, the impact of reduced global dimming or methane from melting permafrost gets us. Still, it all sounds rather hopeful.
What are the chances that we're going to constrain our use of coal, so that we can avoid this tipping point? So far, the world is engaged in a massive build-out of coal infrastructure, that has been only slightly, if at all, constrained by environmental awareness. Despite Al Gore's call for 100 percent renewable electricity, the general path seems to be toward more coal usage, not less.
As winter approaches in the North, we begin to see how peak oil doesn't just work for the climate, it works against us. Coal stove sales are up -- my local AgWay recently posted a cheery sign saying "We Now Carry Coal"-- and so are wood stove installations,which include reinstallations of older, inefficient stoves from the 70s and 80s. Long wait-lists and high prices for newer stoves drive people to heavily polluting wood stoves and thus to cut more forests to feed them.
Electric space heaters, powered by coal-fired electricity, are likely to be the saviors of many freezing households. Instead of getting closer to Gore's goal, increasing gas prices drive customers off of comparatively cleaner fuels and on to coal fired electricity. The actual number of generating sources required to get anywhere even remotely near 100 percent renewable energy and meet demand is rising faster than the capacity for renewable energy generation.
Will customers care enough about climate to change to bear being cold in the winter and hot in the summer? Will they tolerate rising electric costs without demanding more cheaper coal? Will the preponderance of our populace democratically choose to accept less energy, and its matching lower economic growth for the good of the world? And will China, India, and other nations do so? It is not impossible, but we didn't do it when oil and natural gas were plentiful. It is about to get much harder to do these things.
Meanwhile, one of the consequences of the energy peak is its widespread economic impact. The cost of energy, along with other factors, is driving many nations into recession -- or worse. The U.S. economy is doing well only in comparison to some much worse-off economies -- and the word "Depression" is being bandied about more and more. Meanwhile, more and more of our funds are being allocated to bailing out financial institutions, instead of the kind of massive investment in renewable infrastructure that is required. While we've lived on the principle that there is always more money -- money is tied to energy, and it may be that for the U.S. -- there isn't always enough money for massive public investments. Again, the shift away from coal is looking further and further away.
The ugly truth is that peak oil and peak natural gas are going to push us toward coal very hard while we're struggling to get away from it. What we could not do when both oil and gas were plentiful, and cheap energy fueled a booming economy will only be harder in a recession, as energy prices rise and the incentives to use the coal become greater.
How might we avoid a climate disaster? I think it is clearly time to stop selling the narrative that we can all keep things going much as they have been. The "no one has to make sacrifices, everything will be essentially the same, just driven by solar panels and windmills" account that the public has been given of climate change must be replaced with one that acknowledges that sacrifices will be required, and that contextualizes those sacrifices, just as the sacrifices of the World Wars were once contextualized.
Unless we draw together the links between climate change and peak oil clearly, and help people understand what they already viscerally know -- that this is costing them -- we cannot even remotely hope to bring the public around to the new reality. The only hope is a narrative in which self-sacrifice and powerful conservation now ensures a tolerable future for our posterity. That discussion cannot even begin until climate activists stop talking about the shift to renewables as though it will be comparatively simple and painless and start acknowledging the pain already out there.
Comments
View as Flat
Angelsnecropolis Posted 8:42 am
11 Sep 2008
In short. No they won't. The majority of the populace doesn't care about anything outside the range of their daily commute. You can't tell them to eat less meat. You can't tell them to adjust your thermostat. You can't tell them to cope with slightly off lighting for the greater good.
For example: I do almost everything I can to urge my parents to actually give a damn including buying them the CFL's and 100% recycled paper towels. But my father always retorts by calling me a hypocrite for not living in a mud house that utilizes no electricity. It prob doesnt help much trying to convince him since hes a supervisor at Seminole Electric, a coal fired power plant.
My mother refuses to buy the paper towels made from recycled content because it's not as aesthetically pleasing as her Bounty.
To think they care more about the aesthetic appeal instead doing their part to make a difference... It sickens me.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:28 am
11 Sep 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:13 am
11 Sep 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
human power Posted 1:45 pm
11 Sep 2008
So, perhaps the reason our current population is more likely to choose extinction over mild discomfort has something to do with the burning we have already done.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:50 pm
11 Sep 2008
People are unlikely to keep politicians who make their lives less pleasant in office.
Permalink
OregonJim Posted 5:12 pm
11 Sep 2008
In a remarkably short span, a movement that began in England toward decentralization, toward in fact having an enjoyable life in local communities, has sprung up and spread around the world from Japan to Hungary.
Called the Transition Towns movement, it began in Totnes, an English town of about 8,000 people, when one Permaculture advocate began spreading the word about Climate Change and Peak Oil. Within a year the citizens had organized a Great Unleashing, at which they formed groups to pursue various projects that would transform their community into a resilient one that is more or less independent of the greater culture. And more fun. An article describing the movement appeared today (Sept. 11, 2008) in the Christian Science Monitor. More information is also available on their web site <http://www.transitiontowns.org>
The point is, it doesn't have to be this way. Angelsnecropolis no doubt tells an accurate story, but it isn't the only story available to us. If we can organize our neighbors into communities, we can support a significant number of them in learning the truth and making the changes, organizing from the grass up. And indeed the political leaders who can see over the horizon are helpless to make change absent that kind of movement. That's the new story we can make up - and make happen.
OregonJim
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:33 pm
11 Sep 2008
Either you have to eat lots of greens nuts and seeds or you have to eat other critters that did. No exceptions.
Look in the shopping carts of Bush-McCain voters and better than half the calories in that cart are corn or sugar. They literally eat themselves stupid and get grumpy with complicated thinking because it hurts. No fuel left for higher functions.
Look up the link between Omega-3 fatty acids and depression and it all becomes clear. They're Republicans because of their pasty white diet not due to being pasty white people.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:59 am
12 Sep 2008
But I wonder what chance voluntary "self-sacrifice" has of succeding with large numbers of people? (of course, nothing at all seems to be working at present!)
I would promote the Transition Towns movement, but I think it is equally vital to pressure national governments to give us the best renewable energy grid that is possible. They are the only forces with the resources to do this. If we can afford a $3 trillion war for oil, we can afford a $3 trillion renewable energy transition.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:01 am
12 Sep 2008
Neighborhood stores and neighborhood cafes are FUN as well as reducing trip miles by shoppers. That's why rich people drive or fly across the country to walkable shopping areas with good scenery and art. Our weekly farmers market is at least as much a baby brag, social network and promenade as food vending. Try chatting with the people at Winco and they glare.
Nobody takes a vacation so they can tour the strip malls of the midwest but the villages of France are all the rage.
Trolley rides as a group are part of the fun of a night out where the drive in the car would be a worrisome hassle about parking places and designated drivers. Take the trolly and if you can walk straight you're good.
Which sacrifice are people talking about?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink