IPCC Summary and Fossil Fuel
Posted by Chris Vernon on February 12, 2007 - 11:00am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: carbon, climate change, coal, gas, global warming, IPCC, oil [list all tags]
Column yards have been written about it already, I’m just going to offer brief comment on a single extract spread over pages 12 and 13. (GtC = billions tonnes of carbon)
Based on current understanding of climate carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest that to stabilise at 450 ppm carbon dioxide, could require that cumulative emissions over the 21st century be reduced from an average of approximately 670 [630 to 710] GtC to approximately 490 [375 to 600] GtC. Similarly, to stabilise at 1000 ppm this feedback could require that cumulative emissions be reduced from a model average of approximately 1415 [1340 to 1490] GtC to approximately 1100 [980 to 1250] GtC. {7.3, 10.4}
How does that compare with the resource we have available to us?
Oil
This is the data form the latest ASPO newsletter available here (.pdf) table:
The important number is 1398 Gb all liquids future production to 2100.
1.4 trillion barrels of oil left to burn, that's 191 Gt (7.33 barrels per tonne) or 162 GtC (assuming an average carbon share of ~85% by mass) in the remaining oil.
Gas
Gas... is less. The 2005 BP Statistical Review lists world gas reserves at 179.83 trillion cubic meters. 1.0 cubic meter natural gas contains 0.49 kg carbon so we are left with 90 GtC in the remaining gas.
Total so far
Total carbon in remaining oil and gas is therefore 252 GtC or barely half the IPCC’s 490 GtC threshold. This supports James Hansen’s point I emphasised in the past about being able to burn the remaining oil and gas reserves without causing dangerous climate change (considered here to be +2C and 450ppm CO2).Assuming that all the remaining oil and gas will be burnt as fast the depletion curve allows, it is strangely addictive stuff after all, what does this leave us with? A remaining “allowance” of 490 – 252 = 238 GtC, a whole lot of coal and the significantly smaller anthropogenic CO2 emissions from land use change.
Coal
The World Coal Institute lists 2005 world coal production as 4973 Mt hard coal and 905 Mt brown coal/lignite. Hard coal is approximately 95% carbon and lignite is around 35% so that totals to approximately 5.0 GtC in 2005 from coal. Not all the hard coal will be the "good stuff" though so this will be a slight overestimation. Coal burn has increased rapidly in recent years - I wouldn't be surprised if 2007 doesn't come in close to 5.5 GtC.Taking our remaining budget of 200 GtC (leaving the other 38 GtC for land use change and other minor sources) would allow 200 / 5.5 = 36 years of 2007 coal burn. It is this statistic that shows us where to focus our attention. It appears the climate change problem is all about coal. One approach would be to stop coal expansion and new build within a decade (at least without proven carbon sequestration technology) and be off coal by the 2nd half of the century. If we do stop new build within a decade the old plant will gradually retire producing the desired result.
Is this even remotely feasible? I can't help thinking that it is easier to move away from coal than it is oil and gas leaving it unburnt in the ground and surely that is what is important, the easiest of a bunch of hard choices? I say easiest as we have many alternative (wind, wave, nuclear, tidal, solar, geothermal, biomass etc) ways of generating electricity and from where we stand today electricity consumption could be reduced significantly with minimal pain.
Previously on The Oil Drum
Peak Oil and Climate ChangeDr James Hansen: Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change?
Greenland, or why you might care about ice physics
More Coal Equals More CO2
Climate Change and Electricity From Biomass
I made the following analysis at this link: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2244#comment-155897
As you say, there are 2 problems here.
1) global warming
2) peak oil
The solution to problem #1 is not as obvious as simply finding a 'sustainable' rate of fossil fuel consumption. I doubt that there exists such a rate of any significance because what ultimately determines the Earth's climate is the cumulative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is, the total amount _not_ sequestered in the ground or water. Since the time scale is hundreds of years, then any rate that would consume all fossil resources within, say, 300 years would end up more or less like consuming them in 30 years. It might give a some extra time, but the end result would be the same. I don't think any rate that we set as a 'sustainable' amount will last over 200 years.
Ultimiately, we need to have as much CO2 sequestered in the ground or water as possible. Clearly, the amount in vegetation is limited. Most CO2 must be sequestered under ground, either in form of coal or waste CO2. We have to set limits on what we can burn and/or how we burn it.
Problem #2 complicates things. Given the tremendous value of liquid fossil fuels, I would say that if we are going to emit CO2, then using oil gives the most punch for the emissions. So, I would write off all crude oil as gone. It will be burned. The stuff is too good.
That leaves coal, tar sands, and oil shale. Since these give less return for cO2 emissions, this is where we need to set limits. Designate areas as 'no mining', or 'carbon-sequestered mining only'.
Natural gas may be in the same boat as oil.
My suggestion would be to ban oil shale globally. Move towards banning tar sands globally. Designate the most envirnomentally sensitve areas as 'no mining' zones. And figure out how much CO2 from the remaining coal must be sequestered.
Of course, nobody suggested that I was onto something. So I found your post to be very affirming.
Hm, 2 problems, Peak Oil, and Global Warming.
Folks, only Global Warming is a real problem, Peak Oil is a problem for only one species out of millions.
Yeah, unfortunately fleam, it's that one species whose finger rests on the trigger.
I object to the use of this ASPO data. Not to mention that this is one of the most confusing charts of all time. EIA, IEA, OGJ would be better. Not to mention IHS Energy or Wood Mackenzie.
I'm thinking C+C+NGLs.
I'm thinking C+C+NGLs.
What the ASPO calls "All Liquid" is in fact C+C+NGL.
Then, I can already see a major descrepancy between EIA (81.55 mbd in August, 2006) and ASPO (79.7 average 2005). Who could believe that C+C+NGLs production increased that much (= +1.85 mbd, for even that one month in 2006) — the difference between the ASPO 2005 average and the EIA August, 2006 number? Not me. One is right, the other is wrong. Actually, they are probably both wrong.
People talking about peak oil should always use the historical production data least supportive of their position. I find that this helps matters, because the same peak oil arguments still hold. In addition, we are talking about production projections which, as I said, are nonsense beyond 2010. Everyone's production projections beyond 2010 are subject to large margins of error.
Use of ASPO data probably indicates a selection bias. No one uses it, including me. Therefore, that detracts from the argument.
Not sure I understand your point. The EIA estimates for 2005 and 2006 are 81.45 mbpd and 81.37 mbpd repectively (the ASPO is saying 80 and 81.90 mbpd, see here). Anyway, what matters in Chris argument is future cumulative production i.e. the URR minus past consumption. The ASPO URR is probably the most conservative.
Are you talking about this?
Solid Red Line is ASPO (C+C+NGLs, I think?)
Shows a rather sharp peak, don't you think?
ASPO-(70)71 forecast -- 84.48 mbd in 2007, 90.00 mbd in 2010, 85.00 mbd in 2015? Or, is it ASPO-58? Or is it ASPO-45?
Actually, there are so many forecasts on the page you referred me to (in the figure above) that I can't even begin to get it straight. The ASPO forecast (solid red line) does stand out, however, in it's pessimism.
By the way, the numbers I quoted (for ASPO) were taken exactly from Chris's confusing ASPO chart as shown in this story -- that's not Chris's fault.
Sigh. My standard comment: Jesus wept
So will there be a near term Oil and Gas peak or not?
I'm rather convinced there will be.
If so, then ecomomics will sort out the Oil and Gas depletion scenario and we will have to focus our political efforts on coal (and maybe shale oil), which is much more abundant and extremely tempting to use.
I assume that:
ASPO-70 (CO) and EIA (Crud Oil + Cond) is the same thing
ASPO-70 (CO + NGPL) and EIA (NGPL) is the same thing
ASPO-70 does not forecast other liquids
Which means that last production data is below ASPO.
Most of the time, ColinC does not incl proc gains of 2-mbd. Once a year he does. He does not incl BTL or CTL or Syncrude or any synthetics for that matter. When he says Regular Conv, he does not incl NGL either.
There is about 4 mbd difference betw his All Liquids & that of EIA, IEA or OPEC. And sometimes just 2.
And, to be clear, I might accept the figures out to 2010. The others are meaningless.
Total carbon in remaining oil and gas is therefore 252 GtC or barely half the IPCC’s 490 GtC threshold.
Hansen is saying in his presentation Global warming: can we avoid dangerous climate change
The discrepancy revolves around what numbers are used for the remaining reserves of gas and oil. Hansen is using higher estimates.
Your analysis makes the assumption that climate response will be linear and proportional to the quantity of CO2.
Hansen has said that this linear response cannot be assumed and that a non-linear, abrupt sequence of climate change is much more likely.
The fairly recent discovery of accelerating glacial ablation is evidence for a non-linear response.
If we follow your logic we are placing a bet that climate response to CO2 is linear and we therefore can go ahead and burn all the CC and NG available to us.
This is not science; it is betting. The stakes are very high. You may wish to ask your children if they wish to assume the risks to which you appear willing to subject them.
I agree that the uncertainties arund climate change are an excellent justification for reducing emissions sooner rather than later. I did just want to point out that the growth rate in emissions is part of reason climate change is accelerating. Emissions from fossil fuels grew from 6.5 GtC/y in 1999 to 7.2 GtC in 2005.
Key point. In fact the two are related by various feedback mechanisms, some negative, some positive, appears to be net positive (oceans, permafrost ...). At least historically T leads CO2 out of recent ice ages, though CO2 probably leads T out of massive glaciations.
Also, that 90 Gt C in NG is only true for economically recoverable sources. If we decide to tap methane hydrates (or otherwise release them, by say, warming at least the shallow water reserves) the whole game changes.
The above is from page 43 of the PDF Vernon cites above for Hansen. In this PDF Hansen is clearly arguing against the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario and is most emphatic that BAU may result in runaway, uncontrollable climate change.
Chris Vernon's post above appears to be arguing in favour of BAU. I do not believe Hansen has changed his opinion. If not then Vernon's post appears to be an irresponsible distortion of Hansen's warnings.
No I think Chris is simply saying this is where we get to, if we burn all the estimated available resources.
He also points out that if you burn all the ASPO estimated gas and oil reserves, you still don't really have a GW problem.
However if you burn the estimated coal reserves, you do.
Pardon the fact of my being a complete and utter blockhead but perhaps you or someone else can clarify the following:
We have to date burned one half of the ASPO estimate and it appears that we already have a GW problem. Glaciers are retreating, isotherms are galloping north at 6 km a year, Australia and Sudan both subject to prolonged drought. I am puzzled how it is that half of a bad thing produces these results while the full amount of a bad thing is not a problem at all.
I fail to understand how Hansen can be seen as a climate change radical or why he complains over political attempts to muzzle science reporting. He appears to be saying pump it and burn it, no problema. How does this radical position get him into trouble with the Bush White House?
I agree that coal is dirtier than oil and NG and has a higher carbon loading. But CO2 is CO2. If the current level of anthropogenic emissions result in evidence of climate change how do you argue for more of the same and deem the outcome to be safe?
One half of the ASPO number, but we have been burning a heck of a lot of coal as well.
And of course we have had massive land use changes such as deforestation of the rainforests. And emission of a large amount of non CO2 greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs etc-- as much as 40% of the greenhouse gas effect).
Hansen uses much larger estimates for oil and gas reserves.
Hansen is a radical because he has consistently said that global warming is a problem, and we need to do something before it is too late.
In 1988 when he said that before the US Congress, most climate scientists thought he was really going out on a limb, and there was no way we had enough data to support his assertions and modelling.
In 2006, if anything, he is only slightly to the radical side on what climate science is saying about what will most likely happen if we do not control CO2 emissions.
He is of course opposed:
'radical' is such a great way of discrediting someone, vs. moderates like, say, James Inhofe or Michael Crichton. 'radical' sounds like 'Islamic radical' or 'communist radical'.
His message wasn't comfortable in 1988, it is less comfortable 19 years later.
On GW generally, if you believe the APSO numbers (I don't) then we will burn our way through the existing oil and gas, and the atmosphere might be OK.
However we will also burn our way through the Canadian tar sands, the Venezuelan oil sands, and all of that coal out there. I think pretty much everyone realises that is enough to drown us in our own CO2.
While radical simply means going to the radix, the root of the problem. I wonder, is latin a subject available in school for US teenagers?
We should have an objective of cutting coal use by 5% a year from now on. For the western world that could mean not only turning off light switches and driving fewer miles but also buying fewer goods and not just from China.
Coal's dream run looks set to continue for a variety of reasons;
1) politicians won't hurt coal jobs
2) politicians won't bring in meaningful carbon caps without giant loopholes
3) green utopians tell us magical energy sources make nuclear unnecessary
4) carbon capture and storage is prohibitively expensive
5) the average consumer doesn't see the connection between shiny appliances and dirty coal
6) oil depletion will spur coal-to-liquids
7) electrification of transport will probably require more cheap generation
I don't see any coal slowdown within a decade.
I agree. That is why I am certain that humankind has entered its terminal phase.
It is not the end of the world merely the extinction of humankind. The world will continue on very well without us for billions of years, perhaps some fossils will testify of our existence in the Universe.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
I agree no coal slowdown in a hurry.
The best we can hope for is restrained *growth* in coal use, as a result of alternative energy, greater efficiency and (perhaps) more use of gas.
Medium term, we could also phase in more nuclear. I am anti-nuke, but better a Chinese or Indian nuclear power plant, than the equivalent coal plant.
The same would also be true of Texas. If there is an environmental disaster around nuclear power, then Texas is a long way from where I am.
(I would probably accept new nuclear units in the UK, on the same basis: our alternatives are few, although I think we can do a lot with wind and with conservation).
UK can also do a lot with tidal (amplitude) power. Severn Estuary, Morecambe Bay, Mersey Estuary, Thames Estuary, Jersey, Guernsey and North Wales coast all have tidal ranges sufficient to warrant the building of tidal barrages simialr to that at La Rance in France (http://www.edf.fr/html/en/decouvertes/voyage/usine/usine.html).
Conservative estimates point to about 15 GW of capacity operating at about 35% capacity factor. Additional benefits would be the ability to use the tidal pools as electricity storage for off-peak wind power generation, not to mention the flood defence protection offered by such barrages. Wind power clearly comes in cheaper on a "per MW installed" basis against the traditional estuarine barrage model, but there are ways of mitigating some of this cost.
'36 years of 2007 coal burn'
however since 2007 is up 10% from 2006, and with the depletion of oil, this rate of increase would increase, we'll hit that limit quite a bit sooner.
(assumin 10% increase)
the amount of coal burnt each year = 1.1^x
the intergral of 1.1^x between 0 and y = -10.5+10.5^y*10^(1-y)
where 10.5 is a rounding of 1/ln(1.1)
: solving for when this reaches 36 gives us 15.6 years, not 36.
the worrying thing is that by 37 years we have put out 10x the amount required to cross the threshold, assuming the 10% per year continues.
Andrew
ps. anyone know a cheap source for electric solar panels in Australia
i'm looking at about 1kw depending on price - yes i know this isn't enough, but they are expensive little beasties atm.
(i think we have roughly until the beginning of next year when a coal power station shuts down due to lack of water because of the drought we are having - http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21189976-5005340,00.htm...)
Hadn't even considered the drought aspect of these coal burners--they love water. On the production growth, you can't assume any type of increase based on the current coal production figures, especially 40 years out, and most especially at high growth rates (i.e. anything over 5% per year). Hard rock mining is an energy intensive process, one that is not conducive to sudden, sustained increases in production.
US coal production is supposed to decline for the next two years, then have a slight uptick in 2008 (back to just under 2005 levels)--this is all according to the EIA of course. I buy it though. Production capacity growth has all taken place in the Powder River basin, and they are maxxed out due to rail constraints--they're hauling as much as they can already. The US DOT just made $1 billion in federal loans available in the 2006 budget for rail infrastructure development; much of it went towards expanding rail lines to and from the Powder River basin. ETA on added production ~3 years. I don't see the rate of production increase heading up past 3-5% per year even after the new rail lines are in place.
US Coal Production, 1890-2005
China, however, is a totally different animal. One look at their leap in production from the mid-1990's to today shows some serious cause for concern relating to climate issues, most especially when you take their exponential power generation growth into consideration.
2005 World Coal Production by Top Producers
Your plot of US coal production is interesting, but another way to look at these numbers is to plot the energy from coal. We are right now moving toward lower quality coal, and although the number of tons being mined is flat, total energy is actually decreasing. Not a good trend.
Another interesting point - stated world coal reserves have been declining over the past decade or more, and at a rate faster than can be explained by production. Very different from coal and NG, for which reserves continue (for awhile) to increase, in spite of increasing production. Peak (profitable) coal before 2050? It is not unthinkable.
You might check out these guys:
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/
I would check very carefully. This is still in the category of 'unproven' technology in that it hasn't been marketed before at the consumer level.
That SunCube is a really cool idea. Hope it gets legs.
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R12
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
Feb. 12, 2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2
4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).
Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on "performance based" (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.
Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage.
Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
The head of the U.S. government's renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing "embarrassingly few things" to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation's energy future. "I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen." What's needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,"
solar energy - the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.
Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA 91325
Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com
"MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R12
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable."
you sir, are part of the problem
the amerkin way o' lif knot negotionabible?
energy and economic independence?
blackmail? foreign countries. mosedek Iran, saddam iraq
you're heart may be in the right place, but your head...?
I apologize before hand
earldaily,
I am so sorry he upset you....I can tell that whole idea of American independence and continued existence just kinda' makes you sick don't it?
Don't fret, in that you have much in common with many here....the utter hatred of the United States is strong everywhere, but strongest in the U.S. itself....
Of course, given that the U.S. consumes only 25% of the worlds oil (and yes, that is far too high for it's share of the world population, not only on a moral basis, but in that it is bleeding us to death financially and destroying our nation's history of self determination and destiny, something that all nations consider important) we can assume the following:
>America is not, despite the hubris and lack of understanding of this by it's citizens, in a postion to decide world energy production/consumption and or energy use or efficiency. We can work on our own, yes, we can somewhat reduce our vulnerability, but we are a small percent of the world's population, and a declining percent of it's oil conusmption. What we say has less sway on global energy patterns with passing day.
>Despite what some may wish, and despite the "America hatred" that is so much at the core of many, the U.S. will not go down without a fight. No nation would. I don't know how that blends into the idea "American way of life is non-negotiable". That sentence seems a bit rigid, given that there are differences even in the U.S. about what constitutes the fundamental things about "the American way of life". But many years ago, a very good diplomat/negotiator once told me, "just about everything is negotiable except my own existence. If you want to negotiate that, then it becomes about surrender, not negotiation. The other party or parties in the negotiation will feel pretty much the same way."
A surprising number of people seem willing to agree that even before attempting solutions, America has no right to exist, I am willing to bet that is a contention that will be met with the strongest possible resistance. Perhaps not at TOD, but in America, it will be.
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom.
America has any right to exist. It also has the moral obligation to act responsibly, just like every other nation.
And, to be honest with you, since Americans ride the highest moral horse in the history of mankind, I will also expect them to act more responsibly than any other nation. And it is by their own hybris that Americans fall fall short of these expectations.
In less PC words: if you act like a buffoon, don't be surprised if people call you a buffoon.
go get'em big fella
bomb the're ass take there gas
it's america's right to exist
Whoa, LOL, I think you took Earldaily's comments a bit further than he meant them.
The quote "the American way of life is non-negotiable" I think is generally attributed to Dick Cheney about 4 years ago when he was specifically speaking about US access to oil and energy supplies (please correct me if I am wrong).
Cheney is, of course, wrong: the logical extension of his argument is that the US has the right to appropriate whatever energy, oil and resource supplies by whatever means it chooses and can achieve. So far its economic pre-eminence has enabled that, in future more coercive means might be necessary. Would you agree with that, RC?
Now there are some who think that USA is a cancer on the face of humanity in its profligate use of ultimately limited resources. There is some validity in that perspective but there are many good things about USA, too, and I would not wish to throw the baby out with the bath water. Nor would I support the mass nuclear destruction of USA to reduce global oil consumption by 25% and introduce a bit of global dimming to assuage climate change for a while.
Some might think that humanity is a cancer on this planet. The are valid arguments that may support that view, but I would not support the collective destruction of humanity. (I can't speak for Gaia, though).
I'm hopeful that the US way of life will negotiate itself to a place that is more conducive to humanity as a whole and this planet in general. Virtually everyone, everywhere on this planet, will need to do that, but USA more than most, methinks. Without negotiation and mutual cooperation there will almost inevitably be conflict. I don't think we really want that.
One point of leverage the US federal government has is its mortgage insurance programs through FHA and VA. Requiring the use of solar heating and greater use of insulation in new constr