As we approach the likely trainwreck that is referred to as Copenhagen, it is worth pointing out that most of the key players are missing half of the picture. In my previous diary, I stated that world leaders are missing the point, and that they lack understanding of the gravity of the climate change crisis. Some commented that they really do know, but don't want to start a panic or encourage a descent into a nihilistic death spiral. That may be true, but comments by G20 world leaders suggest otherwise. Though some of them seem concerned about climate change, and vocalize support for strong measures to mitigate its effects, it seems clear that they are missing the complicating factor that changes everything: Peak Oil.
Climate change gets all of the press these days, but Peak Oil remains largely off the radar, or worse dismissed by the punditry. When I became interested in this topic, I found that most of my well-educated friends had never even heard of it. In a nutshell, Peak Oil is the theory that oil will not "run out," but rather become more difficult and expensive to extract. There will come a point when it will cost as much to extract the oil as one can make selling it. At that point, it will become uneconomical to do so. Even if governments try to buy additional time by subsidizing oil extraction (even more than they currently do), there will reach a point further down the road where it takes a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil. At that point, it will be madness to continue.
Though many oil money-drenched researchers dismiss the idea of a looming peak oil scenario on the basis of new extraction technologies, including the infamous tar sands of Alberta, Canada, their analysis fails to hold up to serious, unbiased scrutiny. Even oil company execs have admitted as much:
Christophe de Margerie , CEO of Total
T. Boone Pickens, chairman and CEO of BP Capital.
John B. Hess, CEO of Hess Corp.
Toyota Motors, official press release
So, we are left with the reality that if we haven't already peaked, we will soon enough. It does not take a rocket scientist to recognize how catastrophic this eventuality will be for our economic system. Just looking around the room at the number of items literally made out of oil, and the items that were transported around the world using oil, it become immediately clear the scope of the problem. Simplistic, superficial quick-fixes do not make even begin to make a dent in the problem. We can exchange all of our lightbulbs, start cycling to work, and give up flying, and we will still be in trouble. In the UK, it is unclear if it will even be possible to feed ourselves.
In 2005, the Bush administration suppressed the Hirsch Report, which they had commissioned, but didn't like the results. It said that Peak Oil is inevitable, and that it will take at least 20 years of advance action to prepare for it. Putting aside the unlikelihood that we could ever maintain our current model of economic growth and globalized commerce using renewable energy, it is moot if we have already peaked, or if we are very close to peak. We are unlikely to have time to adapt gracefully.
The biggest problem we face is that considered in isolation, both climate change and peak oil present solutions that do not make sense when they are viewed together. For example, an emphasis on climate change without recognition of peak oil could lead to increased nuclear power (also subject to a peak), unproven carbon sequesterization technology, tree-based carbon offsets, or sci-fi geoengineering schemes. None of these work in a peak energy reality.
On the other hand, discussion of peak oil without considering climate change could lead to catastrophic coal liquidization, tar sands development, or crop-based biofuels at a time of food shortages in developing countries.
In light of the two issues viewed together, we come to an entirely different set of responses. If we are to avoid an awful Mad Max scenario of catastrophic energy supply failure, we need to get busy learning how to live with less energy. Our ultimate goal needs to be to be to give up fossil fuels altogether, and live locally from the current energy available today in the form of plants and other biomass, and renewable energy sources. Great work is being done in this regard, especially the Transition Towns movement originating in the UK, which mixes a realistic view of the challenges facing us, and a hopeful and positive approach to local action.
Rather than waiting for reactive politicians to solve the problem for us, it is up to us as individuals to start taking action. By re-learning low energy skills and local knowledge, Transition Towns begin the process of adapting those practices to a modern world. There are some who say that we are already doomed to 6 degree warming and loss of energy supplies, and that we should therefore start stockpiling guns. Though I acknowledge the possibility that this is true, I prefer to think that it MAY be early enough to start, and we MAY be able to avoid that fate. Failure to act will make it a self-fulfilling prophesy.