SOCORRO, New Mexico (STPNS) -- In the preceding articles we have seen that the burning of fossil hydrocarbons (oil, coal and natural gas) increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, triggering potentially catastrophic global warming. In previous articles we have also seen that these hydrocarbons, and particularly oil, are at or very near a global peak in production, to be followed by a rapid and economically disastrous decline. Readers can be excused some confusion regarding the interaction of these two phenomena. After all, if we're running out of oil and natural gas, why should we worry about the global warming triggered by burning these rapidly depleting fuels? Won't atmospheric carbon dioxide and hence global warming diminish as the fuels themselves dwindle?Regrettably, things are not that simple. Peak oil doesn't in and of itself guarantee a sufficiently rapid decline in human carbon dioxide generation, for several reasons.
First, as we have seen, peak oil will occur when our species has burned about half of the accessible global supply of oil. This still leaves the remaining half. Second, as we ever more desperately seek alternatives to oil, it is quite possible that we will turn to even more polluting alternatives. These include, first and foremost, production of gasoline from coal. In terms of generation of global warming, coal is an even dirtier fuel than oil.
Then too, we will see attempts, some at least partially successful, to produce gasoline from oil tars and perhaps even oil-bearing shale. All such recourses will further increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. This last burn-off of energy resources will not reverse the dwindling of hydrocarbon energy supplies, but it is likely to further enhance global warming.
Consequently, the solution to peak oil and global warming is one and the same. We must, as a species, rapidly reduce burning all forms of fossil hydrocarbon fuel. Such reductions are mandated by both peak oil and global warming. For Americans, there are at least three other reasons that our nation must replace oil, coal and natural gas as our primary source of energy.
The first such reason involves a long-range view of our national future. Fossil fuels not only provide energy, they are also an irreplaceable source of raw materials. Feedstocks for the manufacture of plastics, pharmaceuticals, synthetic rubber, asphalt, lubricants, nitrogenous fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides are synthesized from oil and natural gas. Indeed, some 20 percent of American oil use is in the form of such feedstocks. Certainly if we stopped burning of such irreplaceable raw materials, their supply would last some five times longer.
Another, grim, consideration involves the huge oil appetite of the military. Perhaps our nation will be fortunate, perhaps we will never again be called upon to fight a major world war. But who would want to bet on that possibility? War consumes vast amounts of energy. Even the minor fracas in Iraq is costing our nation 3.5 million gallons of oil daily. Hence a judicious consideration of our military future suggests the necessity of conserving our dwindling oil supplies.
In short, especially in the context of peak oil the only sane American policy is to leave as much of our diminishing fossil fuels in the ground for as long as possible. Our childrenās children may be able to survive without fossil fuels. It is far less certain that they will survive at anything like our current standard of living without adequate feedstocks, and without a viable military.
One final consideration. We have seen that even today we import the bulk of the 20-some million barrels of oil we consume daily. The approximate 12 million barrels of oil imported daily in 2007, at a landed cost of at least $61 per barrel, totals a cost of 280 billion dollars yearly. This huge sum of money goes to other countries, including countries currently inimical to the United States. Here too a sane response requires rapid reductions in oil imports.
In summary, then, considerations of energy availability, global warming, American dependence on oil imports, and the need for continued fossil hydrocarbon supplies as feedstock and for military preparedness all lead to the same unavoidable conclusion. We must immediately begin a serious crash program to replace fossil fuels as a source of energy.
It is likely that such a crash program is financially and technically possible. What is less likely is that as a nation we will come to our senses and implement such a crash program in time to prevent serious, even disastrous, economic consequences of peak oil and global warming. In an influential study of the requirements for a successful mitigation effort, Robert Hirsch and colleagues identified time, not financial resources or technology, as the primary constraint on a successful mitigation program (see reference at end).
These authorities estimate that implementing a crash mitigation program 20 years prior to oil peak could avoid most harmful consequences. Waiting to initiate a crash mitigation program until 10 years before peak would still leave a substantial liquid fuels shortage for at least a decade post-peak. However, if as seems increasingly likely we are at peak now, even an immediate crash program would leave the world with a significant energy deficit for almost a quarter century.
The conclusion is obvious. The powers-that-be, and most especially corporations and their congressional supporters, will continue their denial of both global warming and peak oil. These forces simply have too much invested in business as usual to be able to rapidly adapt to changes of this magnitude. Our only hope of promptly implementing a major crash mitigation program depends upon the average American. Unless and until we as a people demand immediate action, we will continue our lock-step march over the twin precipices of peak oil and global warming.
Conclusion
Peaking of oil will not produce a sufficiently rapid decline in the rise rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide, especially if alternative fossil hydrocarbons such as coal or oil shale are used as replacements.
. Rapid replacement of existing fossil fuel use is a necessity, to deal with the twin challenges of peak oil and global warming.
. Such replacement is also highly advisable in order to save vital raw materials for our children, to retain an adequate oil supply for possible military purposes, and to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil supplies.
. Meeting these challenges will require immediate implementation of a huge remediation effort, larger by far than either the Manhattan or Apollo programs.
. Such a program is possible only if the American voter demands it. It will not come about as a painless gift from our current corporate-dominated power structure.
References:
Hirsch, R.L., Bezdek, R.H, Wendling, R.M. Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management. DOE NETL. February 2005. Available at nationalacademies.org.
Robert Holson is a relative newcomer to Socorro, having lived here for only 10 years. He is a professor of psychology at New Mexico Tech. His opinions do not necessarily represent the Mountain Mail.
© 2007 Mountain Mail Socorro, New Mexico. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from STPNS.