This is part two of a three part series that began with Energy Bill Ignores Depletion

Introduction
In our zeal to do something about global warming, we need to avoid solutions based on false assumptions. Mistakes made now will be impossible to correct later. Of particular concern is our approach to balancing CO2 reduction versus the realities of fossil fuel depletion.

Media discussion of global warming seldom makes any connection between the ecology of temperature change and pending fuel shortages. Our political leaders appear reluctant to discuss fossil fuel depletion and global warming in the same conversation. Although both Democrats and Republicans know about the consequences of fossil fuel depletion, critical questions about depletion are – for the most part – taboo.

All this denial raises a critical question. How can we expect our political establishment to make intelligent decisions about the price, availability and use of our energy resources if they refuse to acknowledge half the data? For me, global warming and fossil fuel depletion are the evil twins. We must deal with both of them at the same time. Else we risk making tragic policy mistakes.

Is Global Warming Real?
Absolutely. There is plenty of real data and empirical evidence to support the contention our planet is going through one of its natural, normal, climate cycles. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), over the last 420,000 years temperatures on our planet have ranged from plus 4 degrees C (five periods of very warm weather) to minus 10 degrees (four periods of very cold weather) when compared to a nominal baseline. If we go back 600 million years, temperature variations are even larger. In fact, average temperatures have been significantly higher (over 18 degrees C) than today (about 14 degrees C) for much of the earth’s history. We can associate warm periods with lush plant life, dinosaurs, swamps, deserts, and overflowing oceans. Our treasure trove of coal, oil and natural gas (all are forms of carbon) was created during these warm cycles. Low temperature cycles have been associated with expanding glaciers, ice ages, struggling animal populations, and limited vegetation.

Is Fossil Fuel Resource Depletion Real?
Absolutely. The depletion of our oil, natural gas and coal resources is not a phenomenon that will happen sometime in the distant future. It is happening now. It has already raised the price of energy, altered the objectives and alliances of international diplomacy, empowered the political aspirations of producer nations, restructured how world energy markets work, and changed the economics of fossil fuel exploration and production.

Depletion creates a critical problem. Here is why. Make a chart of world population growth. Add the data for fossil fuel consumption on an appropriate comparative scale. Population growth has obviously driven the consumption of energy. The more people on this planet, the more energy we consume. Within OECD nations, fossil fuel energy has provided the foundation for economic wealth and population growth. But this begs a question.

If we no longer have enough cheap and readily available energy to support our lifestyle, what happens next?

False Assumptions
Public policy has thus failed to make a meaningful connection between fossil fuel resource depletion and global warming. This has led to the implementation of politically expedient pop-culture energy solutions of dubious (and often negative) value. The underlying fossil fuel energy assumptions are frequently false:

• American energy policy currently assumes we will forever be able to consume unlimited quantities of cheap oil. This assumption is false. Reliable, available and affordable oil resource consumption will peak before 2020.
  
• American energy policy assumes unlimited quantities of low cost natural gas. This assumption is false. Although opinions differ, it appears that reliable, available and affordable natural gas consumption will peak before 2050.
  
• American energy policy assumes the continuing availability of unlimited quantities of low cost coal. This assumption is false. Although opinions differ, it appears that reliable, available and affordable coal consumption will peak before 2075.
  
• Many global warming advocates assume we will be able to minimize the consumption of coal in order to reduce CO2 production. This assumption is false. As propane, kerosene and fuel oil increase in price, and fuel shortages become a continuous problem, coal will become the fuel of choice for residential and commercial heat wherever it is available.
  
• Advocates tell us we can “grow” our way out of fuel shortages with biofuels. This assumption is complex. There is a Malthusian tradeoff between biofuels and hunger. The more arable land we use to grow biofuels, the less arable land there is to grow food. For this reason, it is unlikely food stock biofuels will never provide more than 5 – 7% of today’s fuel consumption. In addition, documented evidence shows that agricultural biofuel production seriously damages our EcoSystem. On the other hand, there is hope (with crossed fingers) that processed algae can be used to supplement oil fuels.
  
• Public policy has thus far assumed fossil fuel depletion will not impact on our (world) economy. This assumption is false. Historically, there has been a close correlation between fossil fuel consumption and economic growth. Thus far, no alternative energy solution appears to be robust enough to fill the gap left by declining fossil fuel consumption. Of particular concern are liquid fuels for mobile applications.
  
• American energy policy assumes the worst case IPCC CO2 scenario. This assumption is false. Fossil fuel depletion CO2 levels will begin to decline in the second half of this century – even if we do nothing. That makes it highly unlikely we humans will ever produce the amounts of CO2 envisioned by the IPCC worst case scenarios.

So. What does this all mean? It means that if we want to make good public policy decisions about global warming, we must include the effect of fossil fuel depletion in our calculations. These are the evil twins – global warming and fossil fuel depletion. We can not deal with them one at a time. Public policy must include both of them in the legislative deliberations that lie ahead.

NASA Has Looked At Depletion
Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies have in fact made an attempt to include a consideration of fossil fuel depletion in a set of CO2 production scenarios. You can find the PDF of this work: “How Will the End of Cheap Oil Affect Future Global Climate?”, on the Internet http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov. (Ref 1).

From the text:
“Peaking of global oil production may have a large effect on future atmospheric CO2 level and climate change, depending upon choices made for subsequent energy sources. …. . We suggest that it is also important to “stretch” conventional oil reserves via energy efficiency, thus avoiding the need to extract liquid fuels from coal or unconventional fossil fuels. …..”

In the following graphs, the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario shows total CO2 emissions will peak around 2075. American energy policy currently assumes this data is correct. However, if we incorporate the depletion of oil, natural gas, and coal, CO2 production peaks around 2050 and declines thereafter. It would appear the Peak Oil Plateau (e) best describes the CO2 emissions of oil depletion. Total CO2 emissions peak in 2025 and fall below 2000 levels by 2050. If these graphs are adjusted for unlimited coal consumption, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels would peak before 2075.

 

 

The Effect Of Oil Depletion On CO2
Congress has used IPCC data in order to determine the levels of CO2 that would be present in 2050 (the end date of H.R.2454 CO2 reduction goals), if America does nothing to “fight” global warming. In the following graph, the data used by The House of Representatives to justify H. R. 2454 is shown in the left column. It suggests there will be a 21.2% increase of atmospheric CO2 in 2050 versus 2005. This data ignores any consideration of fossil fuel depletion. The right hand bar, however, shows that if we do include the reality of oil depletion on CO2 emissions, then it can be determined CO2 levels will actually decline by 9.2% by 2050. This reduction will occur even if we do nothing to decrease the production of manmade CO2.

At first glance, the CO2 data used by Congress does not justify the terms of H. R. 2454. But the subject of green house gas production is far too complex to make this simple conclusion. Fossil fuel resource depletion and global warming are joined at the hip. Evil twins that threaten our human existence. Failure to consider them together could lead to even greater CO2 production over the next 50 years because coal will become the fuel of choice for populations trying to stay warm. Of particular concern is untreated fossil fuel combustion occurring within nations located on the western shores of the Pacific basin.

Conclusion
The availability, security and cost of energy, along with the impact of energy consumption on our EcoSystem, are subjects of the highest priority for our political establishment. They belong – together – center stage in America’s energy plan. We should demand our politicians engage in a frank and intellectually honest discussion of energy. Start with an assessment of what kinds of energy we will need, how much of each kind of energy it will take to sustain our economy, and an assessment of alternative energy choices. A relatively simple energy plan that includes fossil fuel conservation, improvements in the efficiency of energy consumption, and the development of lower carbon alternative fuels will decrease manmade emissions and help to ensure energy security. How we chose to utilize, stretch out, and allocate our remaining fossil fuel resources is a critical decision, one that will impact America’s future – and the welfare of all nations.

Ronald R. Cooke
Author: Detensive Nation

Reference 1: Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2008: Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 22, GB3012, doi:10.1029/2007GB003142. See: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_01/

OECD
Do you live in one of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) nations? You do if you live in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United kingdom or the United States.

http://dev.evworld.com/blogs/