<Georgia Conflict - Open Thread #2 The Oil Drum POLL: CLU08 went through $114/bbl..so, in the next 60 days, the front month price of CL will...>

94 comments on A Plan for Increasing Your Carbon Emissions

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Robert Rapier on August 11, 2008 - 2:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The reason that there is no contradiction is that the oil in the SPR is already out of the ground, and the oil in presently exploited fields will almost surely be burned.

The contradiction is not the burning of the oil in the SPR. It is the idea that tapping the SPR will drop prices, which will then spur demand. How one can champion both this action and taking action on global warming is baffling.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on August 11, 2008 - 2:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Aah, I was thinking that you might be confused there. From the point of view of global warming, it does not matter if you burn the oil sooner, or in a few years. So, if you have given up on the idea of not burning the oil and have decided to focus on coal then it does not matter if oil consumption is encouraged or discouraged by price. There isn't that much more of it and it is all going to get burned anyway.

As I say, I think that this is a mistake. We have to pay for any fossil fuels we burn with sequestration at this point so our best solution is to stop using fossil fuels ASAP even if we close down EROEI=100 oil wells.

But, burning the easy oil fast or slow is not a big issue if you have already admitted you can't do anything about it all being burned.

To me, the largest error to avoid with respect to oil is encouraging oil alternatives like corn ethanol, tarsands and oil shale. Keeping oil prices low can help with this: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/06/oil-is-too-expensive.html
The sunsequent rapid run up in prices once we have transitioned off of oil should help to send new cars to the junk yard more than opening up these foolhardy alternatives. But, a worldwide effort to end oil use would be better.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on August 11, 2008 - 3:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"From the point of view of global warming, it does not matter if you burn the oil sooner, or in a few years."

I'd have to say that, as with Oil Production, it's about flowrates. I don't know how much the Atmosphere can or will 'clean' carbon out of the mix, but in this case, I'd say its really the flow of Co2 that reflects our emissions-habits, if you will. This tapping of the SPR would be both a signal and the actual tool for condoning more Driving and a BAU approach to our fuel usage. Pelosi, who probably just hasn't found a Cardigan that matches those sharp pantsuits, should nonetheless take a dangerous lesson from Amory Lovins and Carter and say that reducing consumption will BOTH reduce the amount of GHG we're putting into the air, and probably, with demand destruction, cut the cost of Gas.. while cutting your overall gas consumption and hence fuel bills right at the getgo. Hmm.. 3 solutions in one tactic.. but they'd rather die than really push that one. Then again, maybe Obama's going to surprise us and hang tough with his ridiculed but righteous 'Inflate your Tires' message.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on August 12, 2008 - 1:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It is not actually a flow rate problem if all the oil is to be burned. If we are going to take the flow rate to zero before all the oil is burned, then yes, you can cast it as a flow rate problem. But, the modeling that has been going on, where the finiteness of the oil resource is considered, does not look like BAU.

CO2 persists in the atmosphere for quite a while so it does not really matter if you spread out fossil fuel use to leave some for the future (Carter's idea way back) or if you blow right through it. The amount of warming depends on the total amount used. Right now, we've already used too much to avoid dangerous climate change if the most recent climate sensitivity estimates are accepted. So, we are already at the point where we must intervene to put carbon back in the ground. It thus make sense to leave as much carbon as we can in place in the ground. We won't have to clean that bit up. One could even consider the SPR as a form of sequestration and never burn it. But, I doubt we'll do that with the SPR.

We do need to cut our emissions. If we are not discussing cutting them to zero, we are wasting our breath. This is the reason that the SPR and its effect on price is unimportant. Price does not eliminate emissions, it only reduces them for the present and actually makes more carbon available in the long run because we'll go do stupid things like tarsands if the price is high.

I agree about cutting consumption by a significant amount right now to bring the price down. This also frees up funds for a speedier transition to zero oil use and zero emissions.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PhilR on August 12, 2008 - 2:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I don't know how much the Atmosphere can or will 'clean' carbon out of the mix

CO2 persists in the atmosphere for quite a while

Hundreds of years. Detailed discussion and pretty pictures in the IPCC AR4

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

94 comments on A Plan for Increasing Your Carbon Emissions

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version