When I was young, Yankee Stadium had ~70,000 seats. It seldom sold out, and almost any kid could afford the cheap seats. Capacity was reduced to ~57,000 when the stadium was remodeled in the 1970s. Most games sell out now, and prices have gone up.
The new stadium, opening next year, will reduce seating further, to ~51,800. This intentional contraction is aimed at guaranteeing sellouts, increasing demand, allowing the owners, in pretty short order, to hike prices to double, triple, and more. The owners know that scarcity will fatten their wallets, even though it reduces the number of sales.
This is more than a bit distasteful, as it discriminates against the lower middle class. Nevertheless, it should be a great stadium and as long as the owner is footing the bill without public subsidies for the stadium itself, we may have little grounds for complaint.
The reason that I draw your attention to this practice is that fossil fuel moguls are intent on hoodwinking the entire planet with an analogous scheme.
The basic trick is this: fossil fuel reserves are overstated. Government "energy information" departments parrot industry. Partly because of this disinformation, the major efforts needed to develop energies "beyond fossil fuels" have not been made.
The reality of limited supply forces prices higher. Eventually, sales volume will begin to decline, but fossil fuel moguls will make more money than ever. They will continue to assert that there is plenty more to be found, aiming to keep the suckers (that's us) on the hook. Indeed, they could find somewhat more in the deep ocean, under national parks, in polar regions, offshore, and in other environmentally sensitive areas. They don't need much to keep the suckers paying higher and higher prices.
Oil "reserves" suddenly doubled when OPEC decided that production quotas would be proportional to official reserves. These higher reserves are, at least in part, phantom. Coal "reserves" are based on estimates made many decades ago. Closer study shows that extractable coal reserves are vastly overstated, which is consistent with present production difficulties and rising prices. The presumed "200 year" supply of coal in the United States is a myth, but it serves industry moguls well.
Conventional fossil fuel supplies are limited, even if we tear up the Earth to extract every last drop of oil and shard of coal. Tearing up the Earth to get at those last drops, even though Exxon/Mobil proudly advertises that they are drilling to the depths of the ocean and going to the most extreme pristine environments, is, for us, as insane as the smoker who trudged four miles through a raging storm to buy a pack of Camels to feed his nicotine addiction.
It would be possible to find more fossil fuels, and extend our addiction and pollution of the environment, should we be so foolish as to take the path of extracting unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale and tar sands on a large scale. That choice cannot be left to the discretion of industry moguls. The planet does not belong to them.
Basic fossil fuel facts (about reserves) must be combined with basic climate facts described in the paper "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?". That paper has been submitted to Science and is available in arXiv, the permanent archive for physics preprints. The main paper is here and the Supporting Material is here.
Our conclusion is that, if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, CO2 must be reduced from its present 385 ppm to, at most, 350 ppm. We find that peak CO2 can be kept to ~425 ppm, even with generous (large) estimates for oil and gas reserves, if coal use is phased out by 2030 (except where CO2 is captured and sequestered) and unconventional fossil fuels are not tapped substantially. Peak CO2 can be kept close to 400 ppm, if actual reserves are closer to those estimated by "peakists" (people who believe that we are already at peak global oil production, having extracted about half of readily extractable oil resources).
This lower 400 ppm peak can be ensured (assuming phase-out of coal emissions by 2030) if a practical limit on reserves is achieved by means of actions that prevent fossil fuel extraction from public lands, off-shore regions under government control, environmentally pristine regions, and extreme environments. The concerned public can influence this matter and it is important to do so now -- time is short, the industry voice is strong, and climate effects have not yet become so obvious to the public as to overwhelm the disinformation of industry moguls.
A near-term moratorium on coal-fired power plants and constraints on oil extraction in extreme environments are important, because once CO2 is emitted to the air much of it will remain there for centuries. Our paper describes ways in which improved agricultural and forestry practices, mostly reforestation, could draw down atmospheric CO2 about 50 ppm by the end of the century. But a greater drawdown by such more-or-less natural methods does not seem practical, making a long-term overshoot of the 350 ppm level, with potentially disastrous consequences, a near certainty if we stay on a business-as-usual course for several more years.
If we choose a different path, which permits the possibility of getting back to 350 ppm CO2 or lower this century, we will minimize the chance of passing tipping points that spiral out of control, such as disintegration of ice sheets, rapid sea level rise, and extermination of countless species. At the same time we will solve problems that had begun to seem intractable, such as acidification of the ocean with consequent loss of coral reefs.
A fundamental point is that, in any event, we must move beyond fossil fuels reasonably soon. The underlying reason is that a large fraction of CO2 emissions remains in the air for many centuries. Thus the upshot: we must move to zero fossil fuel emissions. This is a fact, a certainty, a lead pipe cinch. So why not do it a bit sooner, in time to avert climate crises? At the same time, we halt other pollution that comes from fossil fuels, including mercury pollution, conventional air pollution, problems stemming from mountain-top removal, etc.
Breaking an addiction is not easy. But we may now be at a point analogous to that of the smoker who told me about trudging four miles through rain to get a pack of Camels -- when he got back to his motel he threw the pack of Camels away and never smoked again.
Fossil fuel addiction is much more difficult -- an epiphany to one person cannot solve the problem. This problem requires global cooperation. We must be on a new path within the next several years, or, our paper shows, it becomes implausible to reduce CO2 below the dangerous level this century. Developed countries, as the cause of most of the excess CO2 in the air today, must lead in the steps needed to develop clean energy and halt CO2 emissions. Yet it is hardly a sacrifice: "green" jobs will be an economic stimulus and a boon to worker well-being.
A major fight is brewing -- it may be called war. On the one side, we find the short-term financial interests of the fossil fuel industry. On the other side: young people and other beings who will inherit the planet. It seems to be an uneven fight. The fossil fuel industry is launching a disinformation campaign and they have powerful influence in capitals around the world. Young people seem pretty puny in comparison to industry moguls. Animals are not much help (don't talk, don't vote). The battle may start with local and regional skirmishes, one coal plant or other issue at a time, but it will need to build rapidly -- we are running out of time.
P.S.: Do not fall for the moguls' dirtiest trick -- "green" messages spewed to the public. That is propaganda, intended to leave the impression they are moving in the right direction. Meanwhile they hire scientific has-beens to dispute evidence and confuse the public. How will you be able to tell if they ever "get it"? When they begin to invest massively in renewable energies, when they become truly energy companies aimed toward zero-carbon emissions.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 6:27 am
11 Apr 2008
Certainly, they will do their part to make everybody's lives as miserable as possible, but so far, even on the left, there seems to be little admission that the basic problem is an ecological one -- no resource in any ecosystem is infinite, including oil and coal.
In fact, it may be that in coming decades the real sin of the oil companies and countries will seen to be, not be that they fleeced the world with high prices, but that they lied about how much oil (and coal) was available.
This is also the first time I've seen Hansen talk about green jobs; and I don't know that I've seen him advocate zero emissions, although maybe I wasn't paying attention. Zero emissions is an important concept because it means that people need to focus on how a society would work with no fossil fuels, and no deforestation. Great post!
Permalink
bigTom Posted 7:18 am
11 Apr 2008
But the results are the same regardless of motivation. Most of the public, and indeed most policy makers are unaware of the severity of resource depletion we face. I think we are entering a crucial time period, where energy scarcity is going to start to bite hard. Angry people could respond by demanding that any possible FF source be used damn the consequences -or we could get down to the business of solving the problem via conservation and renewables. The next several years should be important for setting our future trajectory.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 7:21 am
11 Apr 2008
Well, obviously, government moguls. Government profits more from oil than private interests do. Dr. Hansen, do you understand that carbon already is heavily taxed, and this makes conservation and substitution more difficult than they otherwise would be?
How shall driving gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:30 am
11 Apr 2008
Now there's nothing they can do, so they'll just suck up as much of the world's capital as possible, and the more intelligent (say, some of the gulf states), will try to build non-petroleum-based societies with the proceeds. But I think they are pretty aware of what they're doing.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 8:38 am
11 Apr 2008
Monetary-based measurements, like GDP are terribly skewed and simply do not help us understand what is happening in the economy or the ecosystem.
I have a proposal that seeks to make the workings of the economy far more transparent by relating the meaning of money to the real currency of work - free energy. My latest blog entry suggests that if people perceived the economy, at both a macro and micro level, as a work process that consumes energy in the process of creating wealth, that they would tend to make better decisions about what to spend money on.
My hypothesis is that if we change perceptions about the nature of reality, people will be able to choose more wisely. At present the vast majority of people base their decisions on ideologically-based perceptions of how the world works. The result is exactly the world we have today. If we want a different direction in the future we have to change how people understand the world.
George
http://questioneverything.typepad.com/
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
LGT Posted 11:20 am
11 Apr 2008
if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, CO2 must be reduced from its present 385 ppm to, at most, 350 ppm. We find that peak CO2 can be kept to ~425 ppm
playing 'God' by allowing a ceiling of up to 350ppm and peak CO2 of ~425ppm ...
It is also disingenuous to pretend global warming is our only problem. And I have a problem with that, too!
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/thats-mars-sister/
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 11:38 am
11 Apr 2008
It's also good to see Dr. Hansen outline the political terrain so cogently. I suspect he keeps his lips closed in public about the tactics of the White House. But this is about the oil and coal industry maintaining their share prices and profits (and to be fair, that is what corporate charters are all about). But we know what extraordinary measures they have taken to invent the denial industry. No doubt they are working hard behind the scenes on new tactics to keep the carbon addiction going.
I also appreciate that Dr. Hansen has followed in the footsteps of the peak oilers in questioning the reserve figures of the EIA and co. Peak oil indeed provides the extra motivation to do all we can to build the carbon-free future.
I do think phasing out (unsequestered) coal by 2030 is an appropriate goal for the climate movement. But, as a quibble, I'm disappointed to see Dr. Hansen use a biofuel wedge. That implies he thinks we have no option but to keep the car-paradigm going, (even believing for a moment that biofuels could actually reduce carbon emmissions). But if can promote mass transit over private automobiles we can create a new wedge that reduces our material footprint as well as our carbon footprint, in addition reducing the chance of a catastrophic breakdown of the economy.
But that not ought to make loose sight of the fact that Coal is the (Most Immediate) Enemy of the Human Race!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:05 pm
11 Apr 2008
No, it's more like Musical Chairs.
Those who acquired wealth during the 20th century want to hold on to it during the 21st century.
Since their old paradigms are broken, they are fighting tooth and nail to keep a lid on the new.
"Green" is a code word for "Rich" (bucks, money, cashmoney).
Their apologists such as Hansen don't want us to have the needed fuel to keep progress going.
So they invent bogeymen like "Global Warming" to thwart the middle class and try and keep us in our place.
Look! Nuclear Batteries!
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:33 pm
11 Apr 2008
My understanding is, this stadium required a vicious public subsidy, namely the expropriation and destruction of a large public park the local (lower class) neighborhood had always cherished as its only outdoor space.
Oh well, I guess they can get exercise and fresh air in the alleys, and their children can play in the sewers. Just as long as Yankee fans are happy.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:02 am
12 Apr 2008
So sooner or later...and by sonner, I mean like right now, the drop in reserves becomes apparent. They can say a reserve still has X amount, but if only Y amount comes out the pipelines, and is dropping, then it's pretty apparent that X amount isn't really there.
And then prices rise anyway, 'cause only Y amount is produced and fallin'. The higher prices cause concern, and hopefully conservation increases.
Permalink