Skip to main content

View Diary: 2030: The End of Easy Oil (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not sure why I'm bothering to answer you. (0+ / 0-)

    Oxygen levels are in a closed sustainable loop. At least before we f-d it up, it used to be that photosynthesizing life took in CO2 from oxygen breathing life and gave it back oxygen in return. This could continue infinitely as long as the delicate balance is maintained (balance naturally maintained through feedback mechanisms prior to human "intelligence" intervened) because life evolved within this closed loop and it quite worked well for a billion years until we came along just 200 years ago and threw the balance off.

    So that is not a valid comparison.

    And it is also not sensible to say that we should not worry about a serious issue just because there are other serious issues. The issue of water shortage is only exacerbated by the constant search for ever more difficult to extract sources of oil which require on the order of 5-10 times the volume of water per volume of oil to extract. And my point regarding global warming is that I see oil running out before the effects of temperature rise are felt. ALSO, almost all climate scientists are in agreement that if we DO burn off the remaining 1258 billion barrels of oil that are proven reserves, then the degree temperature rise will far exceed 2 degrees.

    The study also shows that, if all conservatively estimated available fossil fuels were to be burnt, two to three times more CO2 than allowed for the 2°C target would be emitted. This only takes into account the fuels which are already known and which are economically viable to extract. The fossil fuels will therefore not run out before the maximum CO2 emission calculated by scientists is reached. If we continue to use them, this must take place in combination with effective technologies which capture the CO2 and extract it from the atmosphere.

    So what are you saying exactly? I'm saying that we absolutely must transition to solar energy as quickly as is humanly possible for a number of reasons. My point in bringing up peak oil is that it could be a useful tool for convincing people of the necessity whether or not they "agree" with global climate change. You are saying don't worry about it? We're going to run out of water anyway? So then what is the point of your contribution to the conversation except as an example to people like me of how very nearly impossible change will be politically? When there are selfish, defeatist, fatalistic, uneducated people ostensibly on the progressive side of the political spectrum throwing obstacles in the path of those attempting to strategically form a platform argument for productive solutions, how can we possibly get anywhere?

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by intrados on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:37:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I understand exactly what you're saying (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      intrados

      You want us to get away from fossil fuels as soon as possible in order to stop global warming (and a host of other reasons as I assume) and you think that if we convince people that we're going to run out of oil anyways, it might be a lot easier, or maybe it won't be difficult at all.

      I'm saying that the argument for getting away from fossil fuels is probably in my opinion going to have to stand on its own outside of the Peak Oil argument. I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong, but I've been reading everything that I can about energy for the past 10 years or so, and it's just the conclusion that I've come to.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site