Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2007: Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate.

[OKIsItJustMe]

Am I the only one who missed this? (Not yet published paper co-authored by James Hansen.)

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/submitted/Kharecha_Hansen.html

Abstract

Kharecha and Hansen 2007, submitted

Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2007: Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO₂ and climate. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, submitted.

The amounts of fossil fuel "proven" and potential reserves are uncertain and debated. Regardless of the true values, society has flexibility in the degree to which it chooses to exploit these reserves, especially unconventional fossil fuels and those located in extreme or pristine environments. If conventional oil production peaks within the next few decades, it may have a large effect on future atmospheric CO₂ and climate change, depending upon subsequent energy choices. Assuming that proven oil and gas reserves do not greatly exceed estimates of the Energy Information Administration, and recent trends are toward lower estimates, we show that it is feasible to keep atmospheric CO₂ from exceeding about 450 ppm by 2100, provided that emissions from coal and unconventional fossil fuels are constrained. Coal-fired power plants without sequestration must be phased out before mid-century to achieve this CO₂ limit. It is also important to "stretch" conventional oil reserves via energy conservation and efficiency, thus averting strong pressures to extract liquid fuels from coal or unconventional fossil fuels while clean technologies are being developed for the era "beyond fossil fuels". 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.

Download PDF (Document is 295 kB)

[Dead_Parrot]

1. k&r nt

[Strelnikov_]

2. Dr. Kharecha interview (MP3) w/ David Room

NASA research scientist on peak oil and climate change
http://globalpublicmedia.com/nasa_peakoil_climate

"In terms of resolving these two problems of peak fossil fuels and climate change... mitigation policies for peak oil, peak coal and peak gas should be done in tandem with mitigation policies for climate change. And I think there's no reason that that shouldn't happen. In fact it makes the most sense to me." NASA research scientist Dr. Pushker Kharecha speaks with David Room about "Implications of 'peak oil' for atmospheric CO2 and climate," a paper Kharecha co-wrote with one of the world's foremost climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen. The paper, which has been submitted for peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal, is one of few that consider both climate instability and oil depletion.

Dr. Pushker Kharecha is a research scientist with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the Columbia University Earth Institute. Dr. Kharecha joined GISS after earning a dual PhD in Earth science and astrobiology from Pennsylvania State University in 2005. In the interest of conducting research that has direct relevance to environmental policy, Dr. Kharecha shifted his focus to the field of climate science. His paper, "Implications of 'peak oil' for atmospheric CO2 and climate," co-written with GISS Director Dr. James Hansen, is available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov. Examining the impact of a range of peak oil scenarios on CO2 emissions, Kharecha and Hansen conclude that peaking of global oil production could have a major effect on 21st-century climate change, depending on the timing and magnitude of the peak, and subsequent energy choices. They argue that a fair yet effective price on carbon emissions should be implemented in order to move energy choices in a direction that averts dangerous climate change. They also outline several key policy recommendations regarding global use of coal and unconventional fossil fuels -- specifically, that coal CO2 emissions (not necessarily coal use) should be phased out globally within the next few decades, and that unconventional fossil fuels such as methane hydrates, tar sands, and shale oil should not be widely used unless their emissions are also captured and sequestered.

[GliderGuider]

7. deleted

[pscot]

3. I've been wondering about this

We've got two trends that would seem to cancel one another. THe key would seem to be our ability to develope an effective sequestration program for coal plants.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. We've also got the ability to make coal into liquid fuel

Not good. And an "effective sequestration program" seems about as likely as ZPE, at the moment.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. "Effective sequestration"

I don't believe in the "pump it into the ground" solution. That just seems to scream "won't work!"

The only scheme I have any hope for is algae:
http://altfuelsaustralia.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/joint-venture-for-coal-sequestering-algae-announced/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnOSnJJSP5c&feature=related

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Algae is interesting...

...but I've not heard of of anybody seriously suggesting we bury it - most schemes seem to be a way of putting off peak oil and reducing emmisions. Which is better than nothing, granted, but I want to see us off fossil fuels altogether, ASAP.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. In the past, I've heard it suggested:

1. That "Peak (Carbon)" will prevent the worst effects of "Global Warming"
2. That "Peak (Carbon" will come too late to have any meaningful effect on "Global Warming."

(Take your pick.)

This seems to come right down the middle.

[GliderGuider]

8. Given that Hansen now thinks 350 ppm is the safe upper limit

And we're already over 380, and none of the scenarios in this paper peak at less than 440, and the most probable scenarios have us at 480 by the year 2050, and there is going to be an irresistible global pressure to burn coal once the oil and gas begin to slide...

Estamos tan jodidos...

[pscot]

9. I'm trying to get around the notion that we are

hopelessly fucked (Spanish is such a`colorful tongue) but you guys are not very encouraging. I ran across those carbon figures a few weeks ago in Fred Pearce's latest Jeremiad. I don't believe I had really internalized our situation before that. Those numbers, effectively the Keating curve, hit me like a ton of coal. I understand that sequestration, at this point, is largely a game being played by Big Coal, and that bio-fuel is a pipedream. So what's the plan? Do we just roll over and die? I wish I had some sense that any of the people running for president understood the problems half as well as the GliderGuider.

Lately I've been wondering if a global war on coal generation might not be justified. I'm not thinking of a figurative war, but a literal shooting war to take out all coal fired generating plants. The mere threat of such an action would certainly change the tone of the debate. Probably be bad for business too. But we are rather in the position of the climber who, facing death on the mountain, cut off his arm to free himself. Desperate times require desperate measures.

[GliderGuider]

11. No we don't roll over.

We localize with a vengeance. We build our networkks of friends, family and kindred spirits. We educate everyone we can. We start pulling in our horizons, circling our wagons, going local, building lives where the influence of the Wal-Marts and the Exxons and the General Motors penetrates as little as possible, where their very existence is irrelevant. We leave them on the outside, ignored, and turn our attention to each other.

We can not fight the big boys on their own terms - we will lose. However, in the prophetic words of Jim Morrison, "They have the guns, but we have the numbers." So we fight their local adventures where we can, but otherwise we build a parallel society. It will be a society of small communities that are as self-sufficient as possible, where everyone is interdependent even if they don't understand how crucially important that is. Communities of gardeners and handymen and seamstresses and mechanics who trade their skills and cement their relationships and learn they can depend on each other. So that when the shit really does hit the fan, and it's time to raise whatever drawbridge you might have, there will be others you can can stand with, shoulder to shoulder.

That's the way human societies have worked for tens of thousands of years. We know that way works, we just have to figure out (again) how to do it.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Out of interest...

Do you recall this thread, and are you looking at hidey-holes? Or are we not there just yet? It strikes me that having a plan B may not be totally out of order at this point.

[GliderGuider]

17. Yes, I remember the thread.

I'm not looking at hidey-holes with any more than casual interest yet. The urgency depends on where you live. If I lived in New York City, or Great Britain or anywhere in Africa I'd be leaving smelly brown trails on my search for a refuge. I'm in Canada, and I figure we have about 10 years before stuff gets really serious. For much of the USA the time line is probably more like 5 years, given the potential for problems in the oil export market. If you live in any large city anywhere in the world (say over 2 or 3 million) now is not to soon to be getting serious, even if your country is a net oil exporter.

I've come to realize over the last few days that what we're looking at is a convergence of three tipping points - energy, ecology and economy. The tips will all overlap to the point of being simultaneous, and the effects will all reinforce each other. That means it could start to go within the next year or two, and then could accelerate really fast over the following 5 years or so. Your current circumstances dictate how urgently you should be planning and what those plans should be, but I'd say everyone should be prepared to make some kind of life change if required within 10 years. Most of that is just having contingency plans in place, and making sure you won't be not encumbered when the time comes.

[GliderGuider]

18. One other thing about relocation

I've met a woman who is very aware of the impending oil/climate/ecology/economic crisis. In fact she's so aware of it that two years ago she relocated her entire family from the UK to a small farm 10 miles away from me. She's working at taking her little debt-free homestead off the grid and getting self-sufficient in food. She chose this area because it's geographically and politically stable, underpopulated, well above sea level, in the middle of a continent with lots of fresh water, and Canada is a net exporter of food and energy - so our domestic needs could be met after the importers begin to circle the drain.

If I lived in the UK I'd be doing something like that too.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. I beat her by a year-ish, then...

...since I'm also from the UK, but haven't got as far as finding a hidey-hole within my hidey-hole (I've been in NZ for 3 years, having been scared shitless by hydrate melting points: I ruled Canada out because of the proximity of 350 million potentially starving US citizens). And I think you're right about the convergence of the tipping points: In fact, I don't see how you could be wrong, which is depressing.

At least I know I'm not being unduly paranoid by having a plan B (Plan C is heading up the Cobb river valley near Nelson with a decent rifle. Note to self: When you find a decent hidey-hole, don't advertise it).
:evilgrin:

But there's still time for plan A. I hope... :shrug:

[GliderGuider]

22. NZ is the other relocation that gets talked about a lot.

It's hard to do, though, so I'm glad you made it.

You're right about those Yanks - it's just a couple of hours as the tank drives from the border to my front door, and I suspect they'll go through Ottawa on their way to the oil sands. That's the main drawback of Canada. The drawbacks of NZ are that it's in bad shape for domestic oil and it's far away from anywhere. On the plus side, it doesn't have any domestic oil and it's far away from anywhere.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Technically, I'm not here forever

At least, not yet. NZ Immigration are evil buggers. :(

But, I've heard about the mpg of the Abrams, so I don't think you need to worry about that too much: It's the small-arms stuff that would worry me.

And as you say, at least I'm at the bottom of the list for invasion. And there's lot of wood-smoked possum to go around...

Have you given any thoughts to setting up an enclave of sanity? I would be interested in hammering out the details via PM or Email if you're up for it...

[Nihil]

24. Re: setting up an enclave of sanity

I can't help thinking that most survivors will be "selected" by chance
more than by pure planning as they would have to be seriously isolated
to survive the discovery and subsequent attacks of the starving hordes.

That will work OK at the individual level but I am struggling to envision
it at a community level: anything big enough to be called a "community"
(rather than a "family") will be big enough to find but anything small
enough to be fully self-sufficient is likely to be too small to defend
itself from the mob (e.g., the villages that have been raided by various
ravaging tribes throughout history - adult males are slaughtered, females
and children captured, all resources consumed or destroyed by the ignorant
attackers before the latter move onto their next target).

:-(

[GliderGuider]

25. The trick will be wide distribution

Think of bacterial colonies under attack by antibiotics. Some colonies always survive, either by chance or because they are able to resist the antibiotics. The analogy with human communities is that some will be able to defend themselves against predation or environmental influences, whether through circumstances or good planning or plain dumb luck. Even if we don't create more survivable situations for ourselves beforehand this will happen, simply because humanity is so widely distributed and resourceful. However, we know that small communities have traditionally been the most successful human organizations, so increasing the number of them (and making sure that you and the ones you love are members of one) would enhance our overall survival prospects.

Remember that we're talking about species survival now, not individual survival or the survival of our civilization. Individual survival will largely be a matter of chance, though some of us will be able to shave the odds for ourselves or our families. Our civilization will be so radically transformed by the coming changes that it will not retain its present form.

The species will survive, and our subsequent social organizations will probably come to reflect those of previous low-energy times. Preparing for that new social structure in advance would seem to have survival value. In addition, living in a small community is much more fulfilling, since it's congruent with our psychological evolution over hundreds of thousands of years.

[pscot]

14. I hate to take issue with the Prophet Morrison

but given a choice between guns and numbers, I'll bet on the guns. As for the rest, I grow some fruit and veggies, but I don't think pea-patch gardens and quilting bees are looking like an effective response to the Planet's Carbon Death. (Say, that might be an appropriate meme: stark, pithy and to the point. Capable of being understood by the meanest intellect. Carbon Death.) My point is that as of right now, the response of goverment consists of subsidies to farmers and coal and oil producers. Collectively, we could be doing a lot better than we are. Time is the enemy. While we dither, thousands of tons of CO2 continue to spew into the atmosphere each day. Somehow we need to find a way to pull the brakes on this runaway.

[GliderGuider]

15. Collectively we could indeed be doing better than we are.

However, by and large we won't act collectively in our own self-interest, at least not in large groups. The institutions we have built to reinforce the competetive, hierarchical, exploitive side of our nature have other plans, another view of reality entirely, and they have already convinced too many people that they're right and we're the fruitloops.

I've quite frankly given up trying to save the planet, or expecting that anyone else will be able to. The big picture is truly hopeless at this point. However, the small picture isn't. I heard a snippet of an interview with James Lovelock on CBC radio last night. He made the point that the human race has come through 7 planetary calamities of this magnitude before and the species has survived, even though most of the individuals didn't. The point is that small groups survived where large numbers perished.

The strength of our species is in its ability to survive and thrive in small groups. The way to ensure that things (or at least some things) keep going is to ensure that there are as many small cohesive groups of people on the planet as possible, dispersed as widely as we can manage, each bearing the knowledge of what happened and why, with the skills to continue and the values needed to seed the next cycle of civilization.

Such groups can do a lot of good right now, since they usually coalesce around an environmental or social justice issue, and contain a sprinkling of activists who can't stand not working on visible problems. For now they are Gaia's antibodies, later they become the seeds of the next cycle. For more on what I'm talking about, read Population Decline - Red Herrings and Hope, especially the last section, "Where Then is the Hope?"

If we try to save the whole shebang we will fail. Sauve qui peut is now the order of the day.

BTW, I love "Carbon Death". Mind if I borrow it?

[pscot]

19. Carbon Death is yours, my friend

I'm sure you'll make good use of it. I personally am working on what the Danes used to call the ale death. It's a slow process, but worth every bit of the effort.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Sign me up. nt.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. I am reminded of this thread, from 2 years ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=40531

C'est la mort.

[depakid]

16. "provided that emissions from coal and unconventional fossil fuels are constrained"

Unfortunately, that seems unlikely.

Every time I go to the beaches south of Newcastle, NSW there are huge ships backed in a line almost as far as the eye can see, waiting to get into port for their loads of filthy coal.

From the Newcastle Port Corporation:

2005 NSW Government announces in August that the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group (NCIG) has been chosen as ther winning proponent to develop Newcastle's third coal loader. The new loader is expected to be operational in 2009.

2005 Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) announces a $170 million expansion program at its Kooragang facility to increase capacity from 89 million tonnes per year to 102 million tonnes per year from late 2007.

2005 The Port of Newcastle remains the world's largest export coal port with 77.72 million tonnes being shipped in 2004/05. A new monthly coal export record was set in October when 7,646,121 million tonnes broke the previous record by 105,521 tonnes which was established in January.

In 2005-06 a new record of 80.2 million tonnes of coal export was achieved.

http://www.newportcorp.com.au/page_default.aspx?pageID=105

More Ominous than that:

Newcastle coal falls from record after China increased exports
October 22, 2007

Power-station coal prices at Newcastle, Australia, fell from a record after China exported more than it imported in September.

Coal for immediate delivery at Newcastle, the biggest export harbor in the world for the fuel, declined 0.2 percent to $75.99 a metric ton in the week ended last Friday, according to the globalCOAL NEWC index. Prices reached an all-time high of $76.16 in the week ended Oct. 12.

China, the largest coal producer and consumer in the world, exported 4.47 million tons of coal last month and imported 3.62 million tons, according to customs data released Wednesday. The nation became a net importer of coal for the first time in January while exports also exceeded imports in February, July and August.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/business/sxcoal.php