The Oil Drum

I've taken a second look at your video, and a full look at the Hansen paper.

First up, if you want to say that peak oil doesn't mitigate climate change, you need to say that more clearly in the video. You say it, then contradict it, then hedge, and so on; but the overall impression is, "peak oil will give us lower carbon emissions", which to the average viewer will mean, "so actually it's good news for climate change". So you need to redo that section if you don't actually want to say that peak oil will mitigate climate change. Clarity.

Second, in reference to Hansen, you say,

The key point I was trying to get across in that part of the video is that fossil fuel reserves, especially in light of peak oil, are not influencing climate change thinking as much as they should.

But in that paper Hansen doesn't say that low reserves influence climate change. In fact, what he says is,

We illustrate five CO2 emissions scenarios for the period 1750–2150. The first case, Business-As-Usual (BAU), assumes continuation of the ~2% annual growth of fossil fuel CO2 emissions that has occurred in recent decades [...] This 2% annual
growth is assumed to continue for each of the three conventional fuels until ~half of each total reservoir (historic + remaining) has been exploited, after which emissions are assumed to decline 2% annually. [p3]
Peak CO2 in the BAU scenario is ~580 ppm in 2100 [...]. This is more than double the pre-industrial CO2 amount of ~280 ppm and already far past the 450 ppm threshold under consideration. Likely nonlinearities in the carbon cycle with such large CO2 amounts would
make the real-world peak CO2 even greater, as would any contribution from unconventional fossil fuels.[p6]

So in fact Hansen is telling us that peak oil, natural gas and coal won't prevent catastrophic climate change, expected if we pass 450ppm.

What he says rather is as in the final sentence of the Abstract,

We argue that a rising price on carbon emissions is needed to discourage conversion of the vast fossil resources into usable reserves, and to keep CO2 beneath the 450 ppm ceiling.

That is, peak fossil fuels will not prevent catastrophic climate change, for that we need a carbon tax.

So this would be why peak fossil fuels receive little attention in the climate change discussions; they're not relevant. If we rely on the declining of fossil fuel supplies, we get to 580ppm or more CO₂.

That's what Hansen's paper says. There exist more than enough fossil fuels reserves to ensure we pass 1,000ppm CO₂, even without considering deforestation, declining carbon sinks, non-fossil fuel greenhouse gas production, and so on.

The bar may run out of booze, but I'll have drunk myself into unconsciousness long before that. That's why it's been ignored.