|
|
| |
Peak Oil vs Global Warming
|
|
| |
A decline in the supply of cheap oil-based energy will have an unavoidable and far-reaching impact on the economic prosperity of the World. It may on the other hand have a positive impact on the environment generally. For example, climate change concerns might evaporate.. —C. J. Campbell, 2003.
How can you reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Run out of oil. —Kenneth Deffeyes, Beyond Oil, p. xvi
Note that Deffeyes' claim is false according to his own assertions and logic. He claims we have 300 years of coal left, and that we will be forced to choose between liquid coal and doing without oil. Obviously, if this were the choice coal would win and the climate would lose.
Heinberg (Mr. Peak Everything) has written a revealing essay on peak-oil vs. global warming. Here are some expcerpts.
"It is fair to note that some Peak Oil analysts seem to be of the opinion that oil depletion constitutes a solution to the dilemma of global greenhouse gas emissions, or that Climate Change is actually not a problem at all. ...
Most oil depletionists (excepting the small group discussed above) appear to hold the opinion that Climate Change is indeed a legitimate concern; however, since the economic impact of Peak Oil looms in the immediate future, the economic and geopolitical chaos that may be triggered by declining global fuel supplies pose the more timely threat."
[In other words, Heinberg thinks peak oil is the "more timely threat" and so should be addressed first. Next Heinberg explains why he wants the cooperation of ecologists.]
"It is obvious why such cooperation would benefit the depletionists: Climate Change is already a subject of considerable international concern and action, whereas Peak Oil is still a relatively new topic of discussion.
But how would such cooperation aid emissions activists? In a word: motivation. As discussed earlier, emissions activists appeal to an ethical impulse to avert future harm to the environment and human society, while the Peak Oil issue appeals to a more immediate concern for self-preservation."
[In short, Heinberg want to piggyback on the world-wide credibility of climate change, to boost the credibility of his "die-off" doom saying, and in return is offering the peak-oil's help with fear mongering to motivate people. But he admits this leads mainly to "concern for self-preservation," which is really opposite to the attitude of ecology and will only undermine it.
|
|
http://zfacts.com/p/864.html | 01/18/12 07:21 GMT
Modified: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:56:18 GMT
|
|
