<DrumBeat: October 6, 2006 The Oil Drum The End of Fossil Energy>
<DrumBeat: October 6, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: October 8, 2006>

119 comments on DrumBeat: October 7, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

roel on October 7, 2006 - 11:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I did not have the idea that you like oilsands, Robert. And I share your interest in finding out the net energy involved.

Canada is 24% over their 1990 emissions (early '06, undoubtedly even more now). Kyoto says they have to be 6% under by 2012. Hence, they must cut 30% of present emissions.

Oilsands operations, which already are one of the key factors in Canada CO2 emissions, are now projected to triple/quadruple by 2015.
The math is easy: something's got to give.

About ignoring Kyoto: that is not without consequences, it's a legally binding document with stipulations. My guess is they count on more countries not meeting their target. They've singled out Spain, for instance. But Spain is part of a total EU 'package', and can be over if others are below.

Germany has spent billions on meeting their target, public and private investment. Will they be idly silent while others don't invest that kind of money? Or will they claim unfair competition for their industries?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on October 7, 2006 - 3:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
i see the failure of kyoto as a example of why the peaceful 'powerdown' scenario won't work without some currently non-existent, omni-present force enforcing it by dealing out immediate consequences for not following it while following it themselves.
Each country that refuses or fights it means that the rest have to work that much harder doing it just to stand still and of course that does put them at a serious dis-advantage economically compared to the country's that do not follow it.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on October 7, 2006 - 8:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There is a big difference between kyoto, which asks us to give up what is cheap, easy, and enjoyable in exchange for a far off goal (less global warming) and a "powerdown" scenario when energy shortage and high prices stare us in the face.

Sure, we are unlikely to powerdown when gasoline is around two bucks a gallon.  You tell me, would our commitment really be exactly the same when gasoline is ten, or twenty bucks for the same gallon?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on October 7, 2006 - 9:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
no. it will be worse.
let me give you a example, during the great new york blizzard at bars milk was served more often then bear. not because the milk would spoil. but because it became a status symbol to those who could afford it after the price spike. people bought it simply to have a glass of it, to tell people around them that they can afford it.
this will happen with gas, the more the price rises the more people who can afford it will use it because the more it will become a status symbol.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on October 7, 2006 - 10:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
opps i mean beer
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on October 7, 2006 - 10:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Solid gold bathroom fixtures are a status symbol too ... but the desire doesn't seem to bring us down to ... a collapse in bathroom plumging(?).
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on October 8, 2006 - 6:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
get back to me when you find out how they got that gold and to what ends one must go now to get it compared to the good old days of finding it in a river bed.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on October 8, 2006 - 7:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You know I thought I might have to explain my sense of humor here too.  When you gave me that milk example I thought it was funny to respond with a gold example.  Tit-for-tat.  Even Steven.

Of course the joke is that neither one really means anything.  They are both stupid point cases in a broader (and "uncollapsed") economy.

Now I'm boggled that you want to continue down to ... river beds?  You are a long way afield from the original question.

My comment:

Sure, we are unlikely to powerdown when gasoline is around two bucks a gallon.  You tell me, would our commitment really be exactly the same when gasoline is ten, or twenty bucks for the same gallon?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldhippie on October 7, 2006 - 8:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You have just made an argument for the impossibility of any treaty succeeding. In the real world many treaties succeed. Some longer than others. Quite a few for long enough to achieve the intended purpose.
Please realize that treaties and agreements and arrangements and understandings are what we do as social animals. Creating a 'logical' case for the war of all against all does nothing to describe the world in which we live.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on October 7, 2006 - 10:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
your re-framing the argument.
the kyoto protocol and the power-down protocol are technically a treaties but they requires all country's sign on and agree to what it says.
a normal treaty is only between a small handful of country's, this treaty has one thing kyoto and and what a peaceful power-down lack. the counter weight that there will be immediate consequences if the treaty is broken by either a governing body like the U.N. or the neighboring country's to the ones who signed the treaty.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
toilforoil on October 7, 2006 - 11:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You're wrong.  The Kyoto Protocol required a mininum number of signators- 55 representing at least 55% of 1990 CO2 emission, and this was achieved when Russia signed on.  It has the force of international law, for those signatories.
In this respect it is like other international treaties, such as for example the treaty banning the production and use of landmines.

In August of 2006, 165 nations were signatories to the Kyoto Protocol.

The USA keeps turning up on the list of non-signatories to international treaties aimed at improving the lot of humanity.  This appears to be linked to a special dispensation from God. Or perhaps a pact with Satan.
 

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on October 8, 2006 - 7:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
OK so i was wrong on the numbers, but that doesn't kill my point.
tell me what punitive measures the current signature nations are doing to punish the nations that do not sign on if they truly do care about this planet?
economic sanctions?
withdrawing any and all diplomatic ties?
military action?
the future of our plant is at stake and playing politics wont help. each nation not signing makes it harder for the rest if not impossible.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

119 comments on DrumBeat: October 7, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version