The Climate Box
October 18th, 2007
climate change, economics, global warming, peak oil
Phrases like “business as usual” or “think outside the box” raise the hair on the back of my neck along with a red flag. “Business as usual” is in current vogue among the global warming fear mongers such as James Hansen of NASA – and of course Al Gore. Fortunately “think outside the box” lost some of its popularity once the catch phrase was assimilated into commercials for one fast food chain or another. But “thinking outside the box” suggests that sometimes its better to do something “unusual” - rather than the usual “in the box” thinking.
The furor over anthropogenic global warming is a good example of “in the box” thinking. It’s a bit of fun in its own right. And of course, there are some who think “outside” the global warming box too.
Is it possible we’re too focused on the “climate box”? Here’s the short form of the debate - which is apparently now over.
The earth is getting warmer because of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Potentially catastrophic changes will occur as a result of this warming. To stop and reverse this global warming, the world must reduce its carbon emissions by 80% of those in 2000 by the year 2050 (or the world as we know it is doomed). To accomplish this, we need carbon permits, carbon caps, carbon trading – we MUST control carbon emissions.
The vast majority of energy used to drive the world’s economy is carbon based; 37% crude oil, 25% coal, and 23% natural gas. The combustion of these fuels produce heat and mechanical energy along with carbon dioxide. Virtually all transportation energy relies on carbon based fuels. How do we cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80% without severely limiting energy usage? Efficiencies can’t even begin to make up the difference. And carbon sequestration will require additional energy that further removes some of energy supply from commerce. It is difficult to imagine reducing energy use by more than 50% and not have it significantly impact the economy. To accomplish this, we will all have to accept a standard of living that no one today can even begin to imagine. Imposing carbon restrictions without an overall economic plan that clearly identifies how society can transition to a low carbon standard of living is an invitation to disaster far greater than global warming climate effects. And if climate changes alter agricultural patterns, feeding ourselves without adequate means to transport and store food will be a very significant problem.
One consideration in favor of carbon regulation is that it would conserve remaining fossil fuel reserves; in the global warming carbon emissions discussion, little if any attention is paid to “peak oil”. The depletion of fossil fuel supplies as world population and demand grows could well reverse the emission of carbon dioxide without any government intervention. Some predictions of the peak oil suggest that by 2100 less than 20% of current oil production will be available. This alone would reduce carbon emissions. Biofuels – also carbon dioxide emitters, would not make up any significant difference and if invested in, would severely harm agriculture – coupled with climate change the world’s food supply may be in danger.
The climate “box” quickly becomes irrelevant and any commitment of resources to the issue may be ill advised. Energy shortages coupled with rapid changes in climate modified agricultural production become the “box”. This is where attention needs to be focused.
What are the alternatives? Are they realistic? Do we “grow” fuel at the expense of food?
Cogent planning and social cooperation are needed; it will fail if it becomes a competition rather than a collaboration.
Comments