Is Climate Change really the problem?

[Simon.D]

Fossil Fuels are running out.. and we're going to exhaust these resources regardless of any reduction in consumption. Meaning the CO[size=7]2[/size] will end up in the atmosphere regardless..

The media seems to be championing this "Climate Change" catastrophe, when the real catastrophe is going to be energy insecurity. Is there even enough salvagable oil/gas left on the planet to seriously impinge any further on our climate? Global temperatures have only risen by 0.6C over the last century. How much further can they rise?

It's a non-issue, in my mind, in comparison to a world without the energy we've come to rely on.. The whole planet is going to go through a serious "Cold Turkey" style dark age if viable alternatives aren't tried and tested while we still have this comfort zone.. With viable alternatives being hydrocarbon based resources like Biomass, much moreso than wind, solar and nucleur..

[stringjack]

Is there even enough salvagable oil/gas left on the planet to seriously impinge any further on our climate?

Look at this graph:



The area under the curve represents the amount of oil extracted (or remaining to be extracted - see, Gladstone, people use maths all the time). Also, there's still lots and lots of coal.

Global temperatures have only risen by 0.6C over the last century. How much further can they rise?

You're assuming a linear relationship between burning fossil fuels and increased global temperature. Also, when people quote figures on temperature, they're usually talking about mean temperature, which can disguise larger variations.

[Badboy]

Yes climate change really is the problem. So says practically every reputable scientific research body going.

There are more than enough hydrocarbons to make the earth unihabitable.

When we finish with the oil and gas and sands of Canada, we can start on gas hydrates - not extractable yet but attracting great interest from surveyors everywhere!

There is enough water in the ice caps to raise sea levels by 80 metres.

There is enough CO2 locked up to increase the CO2 of the atomoshere several times its current level.

Given that the highest peak in south county Wexford is only about 250 metres this could be considered slightly disturbing.

James Lovelock's analogy is that humans are like smokers than plan on giving up when they find they have cancer.
The earth is a dynamic eco system. The idea that it makes no difference whether all the CO2 is pumped out now or gradually is nonsense.

Imagine you have a yard full of slurry. If you dumped it into the Slaney in one go, you would probably kill every fish in the river down stream and half the ones upstraem when the tide turned. However if you released 10 litres a day, the river would probably be able to cope with it. It would effect the eco system of the river, however the efect would not be catastrophic. (Or how about a bottle of vodka in an hour or a week)


The evidence is there that we need to cut back on CO2 emissions to a level that will allow the Earths ecosystem process them - just as we must moderate our alcohol to a level that our liver can handle. The fact that busineses ignore it so they can maximise profits is understandable. The fact that governments ignore it for political reasons is a dereliction of duty

[MichaelHennigan]

Climate change is a fact and whether it is a natural cycle or not, it is also now accepted that human activity is accelerating the problem.

Energy security is also a serious issue and raising energy and conservation standards over a period of 15 years is one issue amongst many that should be addressed. The developed world's energy effeciency has improved significantly because of measures that were taken by governments from the mid- 1970's.

Much more can be done for example to improve the cleaning process technology at coal-fired power stations for example.

Energy summary on China: China is presently the world's greatest coal producer and accounts for about 30% of the world's total annual coal production. China is also the world's greatest coal consumer, accounting for more than 28% of the world's total annual coal consumption. China's consumption is sufficiently less than its production that China is now a major coal exporter. Domestically, coal currently accounts for about two-thirds of China's total energy usage and is responsible for fueling 70-80% of power generation, 75% of energy used in industry, and even 80% of household energy.

[ibis]

Also, note the current low-key scramble to establish rights over the Arctic Ocean. Climate change is expected to make the Arctic relatively ice-free over the next century, and there's a VAST area of unexplored seabed (deep & hostile, but not impossible) to be drilled.

We're not facing into an era of no energy, just increased energy prices - and as the tech gets better, the oil gets cheaper again. Besides, most of what we pay for fuel here is taxes, not oil price.

Also, just to correct a misunderstanding - it's not about how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere, it's about how fast we do it. The claim that we're adding tiny amounts of CO2 compared to the natural quantity is a favourite of climate change 'skeptics' - unfortunately, it's irrelevant.

[Simon.D]

Are the "Heavy Oil" deposits of Canada and Venezeula a viable long term enegy resource? Once we run out of the cheap gas needed to process the stuff into economical products, what then?

Yes at the current price for oil & gas they are quite economical.. But the energy cost for processing such a resource is massive. When the Gas gets scarce will it still be economical?

The way I see it, industries like Biomass will be much more favourable in the coming years, and our planet will never be desperate enough to go about scraping up the remaining high cost fossilised carbon...

[david]

I strongly suspect that in many cases, the energy required to extract some of these resources - not to mention the transport of the resources - is greater than that contained in the resources themselves.

This would be true particularly in the case of deep waters.

[david]

And what about:

energy/pollution quotas; return of Corrib to us; massive investment in localised energy generation; an aiming towards self-sufficiency in as many areas as possible, particularly food; producer responsibility for waste; diverting money for motorways into low-energy public transport; active discouragement of the most wasteful of resources, particularly in transport; taxation of aviation fuel; tree planting till you're sick of it; intense and prolonged application and improvement of building regulations, particularly regarding energy efficiency; discouragement of living more than a few miles from work; running ESB for our sake, not with a view to sell it off; turning away of GMOs in any shape or form; skewing legislation in favour of credit unions and building societies; and so on and so on.

Rather than digging ourselves into deeper holes?

[civic_critic]

Venezuela has suggested capping the price of a barrel at $50. At this price Venezuela's deposits become profitable to extract and suddenly - overnight as it were - now account for more oil reserves than the entire middle east combined. Then there's these canadian 'tar sands' we keep hearing some much about these days. And the Australians are beginning to dig out huge amounts of coal. There's enough coal apparently to last 1000 years; coal fired plants are hugely less environmentally damaging than they used to be.
It's the economic system surrounding the exploitation of resources, rather than scarcity of the resources themselves, that will dominate the future.

But nanotechnology is the left field in all this, which could transform our scientific approach to energy over the coming 20 years and make wind power and rape seed oil look like something from the 19th century.