The Progressive Crises: Global Warming and Peak Oil

Every Progressive should recognize and incorporate, deep in their soul, the plain fact: Peak and Global Warming are the most serious threats to Progressive ideals, concepts, policies, and aspirations through the 21st century ... AND today.

These are not just let's wait until tomorrow issues, that should be put in the back of the line to deal with after other issues, we must address them with urgency today if we hope for a progressive world tomorrow.

Without better energy policies starting now, the future could be bleak economically for decades to come with the impending strike of Peak Oil. Amid recessions and depressions, what happens to mental health programs? What happens to music in the classrooms? Training programs for economically disadvantaged among us? Will there be funding for these and other progressive causes? I doubt it. Don't you?

With ever-increasing environmental stresses, global refugee and food crises, multiple-Katrina-like challenges and choices over whether to protect or abandon America's coastal infrastructure, will Head Start funding be secure? Will Americans focus on expanding GLBT rights? Will there these and other progressive concerns be the top of the agenda?

I doubt it.

Don't you?

Arriving at understanding ...

Energy Blogger Jerome a Paris (Oil Drum, EuroTribune, etc ...) has written eloquently and passionately about his son's illness. He has discussed how this illness drives his passionate concern about energy and global warming issues. Jerome has written how desiring a world where his son (and others similarly challenged) can have a fruitful life drove him to a fundamental realism about the criticality of turning the world toward a better path in the face of Peak Oil. He brought me (and many others) along with him.

From another perspective, NNadir, one of the most passionate proponents of nuclear power in the blogging world, has expressed how having children drives his passionate advocacy of what he views as a key tool for carving a survivable path to a better future.

So I'm writing all about nuclear power for a wholly selfish reason, to protect my own. More nuclear reactors in my view will give everybody's children, including my own, their best shot.

They are not alone. So many others are driven to change by their desire to foster a better (or less worse?) life for their children. And, by extension, this extends to others' children.

I share their passion.

As for me, well, staring one's children in the eyes and considering the world that we are creating should be enough to motivate any of us toward change.

And, they motivate me to fight for a better world for me, for you, for my children, for yours, for all of us; for US and the world.

The more I learn about the economic implications of society not taking mitigation action in the face of impending peak oil, the more terrified I become. A good place to start, to become concerned (if not scared), is the Hirsch report on Peak Oil mitigation:

The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.

A small problem: Many of the best analyses of Peak Oil place this well within the next decade (if it has not already occurred, as stated last year by oil financial analyst Matt Simmons). And, even in the face of $4 gallon oil, do we see any serious action within the United States (led by the Bush-Cheney Administration) toward mitigation, toward ending America's "oil addiction"? What a joke? For too many, ignoring the realities of Peak Oil and global demand increases, the "right response" to $4 gallon gasoline seems to be: DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!

Facing Peak Oil does not represent simply a question of paying a few dollars more for fuel, but decades of economic tensions and problems globally. And, in the face of recessions and depressions, with constrained oil resources, what might happen to the potential for conflict?

This passionate concern driving Jerome, myself, and others engaged with Energize America 2020 nearly three years ago led to many 3 am internet interactions as we sought to develop a set of policies to help turn us (both US and, as well, the world) toward an energy future to mitigate Peak Oil's most serious challenges.

If it were only Peak Oil ...

And, along with the (potentially) imminent economic challenges (if not catastrophes) associated with Peak Oil, we all recognized the ever mounting reality of Global Warming and how this could even overshadow Peak Oil as a challenge. Considering the potential implications for feeding an ever-growing population amid increasingly disrupted weather conditions does not make me sleep easily at night.

When a key scientist from the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change tells me that, if things go well, that we might lose only 50 percent of the world's biodiversity by 2050 (and that we could lose 50% of the globe's species), I listen.

And, I tremble.

And, I think of my (and your) children.

We (collectively) have created and are creating a world that will be radically different for our children than what we enjoyed.

50% of biodiversity gone by 2050? 50% of species extinct by 2050??? What a catastrophe. There is a reason to call it Catastrophic Climate Change. 50% by 2050 ... that is, I was told, if things go well.

And, these crises interconnect.

Some of the paths toward Peak Oil mitigation, to solving potential oil challenges, could greatly exacerbate Global Warming challenges. Making liquid fuel from tar sands, heavy oil, shale oil, and coal will put (far) more carbon into the atmosphere to get that gallon of fuel into a Hummer than would be the case for Texas sweet crude.

But, the opportunity exist, the opportunities exist to enable us (US and all of us) to turn aside from our headlong rush into economic disaster of Peak Oil and massive destruction of Global Warming.

Now, dealing competently with these challenges is neither an easy task nor a quickly resolved one. And, navigating a path through the Peak Oil minefield while charting (and sailing) a course through the turbulent seas of Global Warming is critical for ensuring a decent future for us all (US and the world).

Al Gore speaks of the calling of a generation. Gore calls on the nation (the globe) to realize that this is beyond politics and partisanship, that this is the moral and ethical challenge for this generation. And that we must rise to the challenge as did The Greatest Generation in World War II.

For those focused on "national security", they must realize the 'security' implications of an economically disrupted world experiencing weather/climate conditions increasing refugee movements and driving natural disasters. For those most concerned with traditional economic measures, they must realize that Peak Oil threatens decades of negative GDP growth and that Global Warming is already hurting the economy. (Tried to get insurance for a beach home recently?)

While these are challenges for us (US) all, progressives should realize the particular criticality of dealing effectively with Peak Oil and Global Warming. Without resolving (mitigating) these challenges, Progressive dreams for a better tomorrow risk becoming dim memories rather than reality of daily life.

Richard Smalley conceived of the Terrawatt Challenge (pdf) (see also).

Energy is not just "any old issue." Most people, in fact, understand its importance very well. When I have given talks on this subject before, I have often asked people in the audience to name the most critical problems we will have to confront as we go through this century. In every case, after a bit of discussion, the audiences have agreed that energy is the single most important issue we face.

Why is energy always preeminent?

When we look at a prioritized list of the top 10 problems, with energy at the top, ... energy is the key to solving all of the rest of the problems

And, if you care about the potential for achieving a better future, a future in line with Progressive values, finding a path toward a prosperous and sustainable energy future must be part of your agenda ... or else you risk achieving none of your other priorities.

Our concerns, collectively, drive us in our desire to Energize America, to work to turn America and the world from our blind, headlong path over the dual cliffs of Peak Oil and Global Warming.

Join us in our efforts to Energize America toward a prosperous and sustainable energy future.

Ask yourself: Are you doing your part to ENERGIZE AMERICA?

Are you ready to do your part?

Your voice can ... and will make a difference.

So ... SPEAK UP ... NOW!!!

PS: And, support Energy Smart candidates

Comments

[SixBillionPlus]

I would suggest you read a very old book called 'The Limits to Growth' they seem to come to a slightly different conclusion about the Earth's major problem.
After running a computer simulation of the World at least 200 or 300 times they come to the strange idea that the Earth is "OVER-POPULATED"
This seems to occur in all 'animals' * when they exceed the "CARRYING CAPACITY" of their species.
Of course, they must be wrong, and you must be right, because OUR ENTIRE OPERATING SYSTEM DEPENDS ON ETERNAL GROWTH.
Growth couldn't possibly be the problem.

*according to Darwin, every geologist, and at least 25% of all humanity humans are in fact 'animals' another fact that couldn't possibly be correct.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Overpopulation combined with too great an appetite combine with the overwhelming demand on the earth's carrying capacity.

ZPG was right 30+ years ago. Even without Peak Oil and Global Warming, demographic trends suggest a peaking of population toward mid-century and then (slowly) declining population (absent massive medical advances extending life).

But, the exceeding of carrying capacity could well cause those numbers to be drastically changed ... downward, and not for good reasons.

In other words, I agree that the extent of population combined with how we live on this earth exceeds the earth's carrying capacity. And, absent major change, growth in the world's population (combined with growing demand) will only make this worse.

And a focus on "growth" (not just of population) in traditional economic terms does not make the problems easier to solve.

[SixBillionPlus]

You agree that population is a problem but you left it out of the main article?
You know that this problem is probably the biggest one humanity has ever faced but you forgot to mention overpopulation?

I'm confused I thought the way to solve problems was to talk about them? I must be missing something.

[OverCoffee]

I was amazed to watch a CNN special, 'Out of Gas', over the weekend. In Brazil, they switched to ethanol made from sugar cane. Brazil is now 100% free of using oil from other countries. Over half of their cars are called Flex cars which use this type of fuel - which is a lot cheaper. The number one reason Americans don't, according to this report, is that the oil companies won't install these types of pumps in gas stations! I don't know if the US can grow sugar cane in large quantities like Brazil, but if we can, it's supposedly 7 times more efficient than corn ethanol. It's worth public discussion.

[RoloTomassi]

One problem we have in relation to sugar cane farming/sugar production in general is our ridiculous subsidies to sugar cane farmers; we have agreed to buy all that they produce at a set price, and at current world market prices that's aapproximately SEVEN times the going rate.

I seriously doubt that ethenol made from sugar cane could take up that much slack in our fuel hungry country, but surely it could make a dent; but first we'd have to get real about sugar prices and subsidies.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

To me, the "right" path forward on transport is Plug-In-Hybrid Electric Composite Fully Flex Fuel Vehicles:

* Plug-In to enable runnig on electricity for perhaps 80% of travel
* Hybrid Electric to increase engine/operating efficiency when on liquid fuel
* Composite structures for lowering weight
* Flex fuel: to be able to move between various fuel types/options
* Vehicles: not just cars, but buses, trucks, and trains (although we should fully electrify the rail system)

Brazil is a dangerous role model for the US. Lessons to be learned there, but we can't match for a range of reasons.

[PeakOilBoy]

OverCoffee,

You are learning as the truth seeps out. It is time to kick farming into high gear and start producing sugary sweet hooch across America.

1. Almost every country can become energy-independent. Anywhere that has sunlight and land can produce alcohol from plants. Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world imports no oil, since half its cars run on alcohol fuel made from sugarcane, grown on 1% of its land.

2. We can reverse global warming. Since alcohol is made from plants, its production takes carbon dioxide out of the air, sequestering it, with the result that it reverses the greenhouse effect (while potentially vastly improving the soil). Recent studies show that in a permaculturally designed mixed-crop alcohol fuel production system, the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by plants"and then exuded by plant roots into the soil as sugar"can be 13 times what is emitted by processing the crops and burning the alcohol in our cars.

3. We can revitalize the economy instead of suffering through Peak Oil. Oil is running out, and what we replace it with will make a big difference in our environment and economy. Alcohol fuel production and use is clean and environmentally sustainable, and will revitalize families, farms, towns, cities, industries, as well as the environment. A national switch to alcohol fuel would provide many millions of new permanent jobs.

You can learn more here: http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/?bid=2&aid=CD1&opt=

[RoloTomassi]

A. Siegel:

There has been much discussion and argument about Peak Oil here at HuffPo; many are of the opinion that Peak Oil is here now, and is the driving force behind current oil prices. Others [myself included in that number] feel for various reasons that Peak Oil isn't that far away, but isn't here yet, and that market forces are more responsible for the artificial manipulation of current oil prices. Others still claim that Peak Oil is a questionable concept and that all we need do is to open up previously restricted areas to drilling to find more oil.

My take on this [having worked as a contractor in the oil industry for several years] is that Peak Oil isn't here yet, and that our best bet on getting oil prices under control short term is by market regulation and to some degree, accessing the multitudes of unproduced capped wells here in the US [oil companies want ot pretend that they don't leave a lot of wells capped for later production, but I know that such is a common practice].

Would you care to weigh in on this issue? Your input would be greatly appreciated.

[KillTheMessenger]

Since you "feel" that peak oil is not the issue, maybe you want to start checking facts. They are usually much better for dealing with reality than "feelings".

Now, what was your function as a contractor for the oil industry? Did it actually require you to analyze geological data from Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the North Sea? Because if it did not, the "reference" to being an oil industry contractor in this context is rather unspecific and... for all practical purposes, completely useless. For all we know, you might have been a hired driver to bring lunch to the drill crew.

[RoloTomassi]

And what, pray, tell is your official capacity within any aspect of the oil industry? Are you an analyst? Are you a geologist? Do you hold any position that would allow you access to information on worldwide oil deposits, current rates of extraction and untapped deposits that the average individual doesn't have? Exactly what expertise or even gross, unfiltered inormation do you possess that you haven't gleened from an oil company-sponsored website or publication?

I likely have read much of the same material you have, but my take isn't to take issue with concept of peak oil, but with timing of shills like you promoting it as an excuse. I take the source into account, which speaks to a basic concept of intent--if you believe that oil companies are furnishing you or anyone else outside of their industry with the best information available then you are naive beyond belief.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Rolo,

Couple things:

1. In terms of the post, the timing only matters for just how bad it will be, not as to whether there is a problem. I don't see how peak of 'sweet' oil is longer than 20 years out, thus we are within Hirsch's timeline which is a good rule of thumb (even though I see many problems with the study, especially on the potential for aggressive amelioratives to have impact and, for example, an undervaluing of efficiency options).

2. While I watch and am aware of many of the studies/numbers and am more on top of this than the 'average Joe', I am not an oil industry/oil field expert. Looking at production numbers and the concerns over peaking in Mexico/Saudi Arabia/elsewhere, I believe that we are at the plateau period of peaking. Basically, we've been at about the same production level for three years. While it might be possible to eke out more (imagine if Iraq weren't mired in conflict), that "more" would not be 20-30 million barrels/day. I have a hard time seeing how the world will hit the 120 million+ barrels projected by EIA/others. In other words, I fall into the camp of 'we've probably already peaked but, if not, we're not far from that peak'.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

3. Having said that, there are likely many capped/such wells that could be productive/profitable at $120 / $150 / $200+ barrel oil. Don't see how those would magically double US production.

4. And, re Peak Oil, when considering the crisis of Global Warming, we should be striving to figure out how to keep carbon in the earth rather than burning it.

[Ethanol]

Greetings: Thanks for your insight Mr. Siegel. Please see attached link for a study by Bruce Dale from Michigan State University.....I believe this link will answer all of your questions much better than I. I do know that farmers are moving toward the no till to minimum till which is moving in the right direction. Cheers, Jeff

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/82/allocation_procedures.pdf

[jvarga]

I have a question about the ""we might lose only 50 percent of the world's species by 2050", I listen." statement.

I went to look up this statement and found the following PDF, a summary of the Stern Review (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_10_06_exec_sum.pdf)

It says 15-40% of species becoming extinct is attributed to one study. My question for you (to pass along to your scientist contact) is how skewed is this analysis in terms of what its calling a species? Since most species on earth are bacteria, and in general bacteria are significantly more resilient than "big things", is the statement that 15-40% (or the changed statement of 50% if we're lucky) suggesting that climate change will be so drastic that half of all bacterial species will no longer be able to live? Considering the range of environments (and temperatures) that bacteria live in, this suggests truly catastrophic climate change.

If this is not the case, then perhaps the scientists need to work on their precision and accuracy when making public statements, lest they be accused of fear mongering.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Your point about bacteria / etc is a good one. I don' t know the answer to the extent of this.

The 50% comment came from a lecture / talk / conversation by Justin Mundy (http://www.energyconversation.org/?q=node/45). From his comments:

At 550 ppm, there is a 50-percent chance that there will be massive crop failures in many developing countries, that there will be between 50 to 40 percent of global biodiversity loss, that we will have started an unstoppable process of tropical deforestation, that we will have started the permafrost in Russia and Canada melting. It has already started melting, and that the temperature in the Southern seas, particularly of concern in the Southern Pacific, would have risen beyond the 2-percent level at which phytoplankton can survive. There is a 50-percent chance if we stop at 550 that we will hit those figures. As a betting man, I would say a 50-percent chance of certain catastrophe is not great odds.

Note that his comments were to lose of biodiversity. In a separate conversation with several of us, he used extinction in the comments. Sparked by your comment/reaction, perhaps the "biodiversity" loss might represent his true estimate/point rather than specific species percentages.

[jvarga]

I certainly don't disagree with the major premise (looming disaster). And I liked your post, too, sorry for not including that already! I was just caught off guard by the species extinction numbers.

The phytoplankton die-off is happening all over and I imagine is a sign of really bad things happening to the ocean (loss of buffering capacity / CO2 absorption?, nutrient depletion, toxic accumulatins etc).

With respect to my first post, two possible options I guess would be referring to it as "visible biodiversity" or for me to just be quiet since the point remains and is valid regardless of whether or not microbes are counted. Me being quiet being the easiest of the two :P

[peterg76]

I question your "most species on earth are bacteria" nonsense. Bacteria are by far the most abundant life in terms of individuals, but the most diverse group in terms of speciation is insects. And I don't think we need to fuss over the difference between catastrophic climate change and "truly catastrophic" climate change.

[jvarga]

So first I had looked up some studies on bacterial diversity in distinct environments (human mouth, human large intestine, a specific sargasso sea samples, and 4 1-gram samples of soil), and I've saved it else where in case curiosity strikes.

I'll leave it at saying that insect species contain their own unique microflora (like every thing else) . So for however many insect species there are, there have to be, at a minimum, several-fold more bacteria species. This is without taking into consideration all of the places that bacteria live that insects do not.

I'm sorry you consider this nonsense. I'm also sorry that I'm having all sorts of problems posting this, so I apologize if its double posted :P

[jvarga]

Try number 3, having browser problems :P

So first I had looked up some studies on bacterial diversity in distinct environments (human mouth, human large intestine, a specific sargasso sea samples, and 4 1-gram samples of soil), and I've saved it else where in case curiosity strikes.

I'll leave it at saying that insect species contain their own unique microflora (like every thing else) . So for however many insect species there are, there have to be, at a minimum, several-fold more bacteria species. This is without taking into consideration all of the places that bacteria live that insects do not.

I'm sorry you consider this nonsense.

[Ethanol]

With all due respect, buring ethanol does not put more carbon into the atmosphere.

Argonne National Labs. found that in 2007 carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from the nation's automobile fleet were reduced by 10 million tons due to the use of 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Additionally the analysis found that nearly 25% of ethanol facilities are capturing their carbon dioxide emissions for use dry ice production and carbonated beverage bottling, and over a third of distillers grain is being sold in wet form, therefore reducing energy needed to dry and transport the product. These trends are making ethanol more efficient and environmentally friendly. For the rest of the story, go to the Altenative Fuels Institute's website; www.fieldstofuel.org. Cheers, Dr, Jeffrey B. Zeiger, Executive Director of the Alternative Fuels Institute

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Recognizing that this is your field and your specialty, I appreciate your comment. Ethanol is a very difficult element to calculate. You are making a valuable point about the systems-of-systems implication. I am also worried about the overall tillage implications, the farm use of fossil fuels, the transport of the corn-based ethanol to the market space, etc ... Does the GHG emissions total that you provide deal with the calculation of that way of examining systems-of-systems?

In any event, ethanol has nothing like the negative CO2/GHG implications of the other processes and is a marginal point (at best) within the discussion, thus it makes sense to modify the discussion to remove this item of contention and, I would hope, we continue this conversation/interaction further without this obstacle.

[KillTheMessenger]

Here is a simple fact to ponder about: a farmer who puts up a few acres of solar panels on his farm will produce more net energy than with a hundred acres of corn ethanol. You can check the numbers yourself. They are trivial. And many farmers will produce even more energy by installing a single large wind turbine on their land. If we use that energy to replace electricity generated by natural gas powered plants, we have a "source" of hydrocarbons that can be used to provide liquid transportation fuels.

Any more detailed discussion about ethanol is academic but does not do anything to solve our energy problem.