It looks from the graphs like oil emissions are about equal to coal emissions,and that in the case of the US oil emissions are larger than coal emissions.  So I really think that oil use has to be attacked at the same time as coal use.

Maybe Hansen thinks it would be politically easier to go after coal, since people don't care where there electricity comes from, while replacing oil with electricity in the transportation sector might require more personal day-to-day changes.

I think what sets coal apart is the growth trend. The point would have been clearer if he had plotted coal on top.

Re "oil use has to be attacked", it will be - by peak oil.

I had the same thought exactly--Wow oil causes that many emissions!  I guess Ken is right, these overlay graphs always trick me because the high growth rate seems to carry over to the graphs on top.  Wish I had the actual data to play with.  

I'd be interested in seeing these as a function of mt-C per capita, as well corresponding graphs in BTUs--for instance the Russian graph is particularly interesting: the coal dropoff post-USSR has not recovered, but you'll notice their emissions are starting to rise, albeit slowly, probably as they've started to embrace their NG reserves.

It's unfortunate that Germany doesn't have more emissions from NG, then their graph would like a mixed-up German flag.

@Jon

As a scientist, what concerns Dr Hansen are the concentrations of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As these levels climb up, the effects on climate change will become worse and worse.

Also as a scientist, Dr Hansen doesn't care about whether we increase these CO2 levels right now or 10 years into the future. It is all the same from a climate change perspective.

Why is Dr Hansen not worried about oil ?

Because we don't have too much oil anyways. It is all going to get burnt up. And even then, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will not be beyond hope. What makes crucial difference is the amount of coal we leave unburnt.

Instead of thinking like an activist, try to think like a scientist. Then you will get a longer perspective into the future.

Also, everyone please check the references to the book of Tom Blees "Prescriptions for the Planet"  mentioned by Dr Hansen. Tom is a first rate chap and he is with us on gristmill as President Lindsay.

@Jonas

If you look at the picture in the post above, you see how rapidly the black curve going up for China and India. With depleting oil and natural gas, it will be coal that will fill up the energy needs for China and India (both have copious amounts of coal).

The energy consumption per capita (in kilograms of oil equivalent / year) :

USA : 7794.8
UK : 3918.1
France : 4518.4

China : 1138.3
India : 512.4

These numbers will rise up to both China and India to around 3000. Most of this demand will be filled up by coal, if alternatives are not quickly available.

Biomass can be good but cannot replace even a fraction of this demand.

we could burn all of the oil and still wind up at 350ppm?

There's a danger to what he's saying, because if we ignore the oil problem, and don't make alternatives a central plank of a mitigation platform, then his worst fears have a better chance of occuring, that is, in order to replace oil, tar sands/shale will be developed, or coal-to-liquid will make it much more difficult to stop the use of coal (and a much greater biofuel use would lead to disastrous deforestation).  So I'm not just thinking like an activist here, the rumblings from expensive oil are scary enough to think that the oil problem must be tackled.

I understand why he doesn't want to go there, because it's actually much more straightforward to replace coal at this point than to replace oil, because if people want big,heavy,fast,long-distance cars, and if they don't want to live in denser environments with more transit, there's no way out.  So better to concentrate on the more straightforward replacement of coal with solar/wind/geothermal.  But people should be aware of the potential problems going forward.

People don't talk much about oil as a material. It's too good for burning, vital for paint, plastics, medicines, dyes, components of many devices/small products -- light bulbs, hair combs, pens. Reach in any direction, you'll touch oil.

India and China are said to be planning an additional 500 power plants.

And, overlays often confuse me.

from Hansen's report:if CO2 emissions from coal were phased out over the period 2010-2030, and if use of unconventional fossil fuels (tar shale, tar sands) remained negligible, atmospheric CO2 would peak at 400-425 ppm. In that case improved forestry and agricultural practices, especially reforestation, could get atmospheric CO2 back beneath 350 ppm within a century or less