faetal on 15/8/2012 at 13:49
Yeah the whole North Carolina thing is retarded. But not surprising. Nothing that comes out of the US surprises me much these days - it's like there is a "who can be the most blindly libertarian" fight.
Yakoob on 15/8/2012 at 19:47
Hmmm, just a random thought, we are talking about how in a 1000 years or so shit will go down with our current activity but... aren't we supposed to run out of fossil fuels in the next few decades? I mean, isn't the time needed for our "current activity" (whatever that might be) to royally mess up the planet simply way longer than we can feasibly sustain said "current activity?"
So it's kind of a moot point trying to "solve" over-use of fossil fuels since we'll probably switch to some other power sources, with their own kinks and issues, before things can go to all hell.
jay pettitt on 15/8/2012 at 21:21
Oh there's plenty of minor shit like disease, pestilence, famine and drought to be had before we actually go extinct or have to live under the sea.
We'll only run out of the conventional fossil fuels soon. There's plenty enough of the B-grade smelly coal, & the smeggy shale oils and gases to do it all over again but smellier and dirtier and less efficiently.
But while we won't physically run out of fossil fuels any time very soon, the economics might change in potentially interesting ways that favour cleaner technologies. Doubly so if you add the cost of Carbon Capture on top.
And to switch, you do actually have to switch. It's not much good waiting for the stuff to run out and/or get cripplingly expensive and then say 'doh!'
jay pettitt on 15/8/2012 at 22:00
Also take with a pinch of salt because I'm also an ideologue - but I think Monbiot is kinda wrong.
Peak Oil was always (properly) about crude oil specifically, not total liquids or unconventional oil. And crude oil has peaked or is about to; and the distinction does matter - it's cheaper and easier to turn crude into transport fuels than it is shale oil or other liquids. And there was always enough other fossil fuel in the ground to cook the planet.
faetal on 15/8/2012 at 23:24
Regardless of the type of oil and how it is got at, it is coming out and being used. Let's face it, even with a reduced EROI, the US isn't going to turn down the chance to have major oil production domestically again, so frack they shall. How you classify the oil isn't important - how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere is.
jay pettitt on 16/8/2012 at 00:27
Leonardo Maugeri (The source of Monbiot's argument) is counting Natural Gas as oil - that's how he arrives at his oil boom. It's an important distinction if you actually want to buy Oil (transport fuel) rather than NG (electricity generation). If you want cheap oil products it also matters what the quality of oil you're getting is. Refining and Cracking is a lot easier and cheaper with light crude.
I'm not sure the 'there's oil, it'll get burnt' argument actually holds, at least not always. Lots of fossil fuels are left in the ground when it's uneconomic to recover.
We can have a long discussion about shale gas, but if the US (and a few other places besides) can start switching from Coal to Natural Gas then that's something they can do that could produce substantial emissions reductions tomorrow, and at very little cost.
LarryG on 16/8/2012 at 02:09
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
... but if the US (and a few other places besides) can start switching from Coal to Natural Gas then that's something they can do that could produce substantial emissions reductions tomorrow, and at very little cost.
Oh boy. More emissions. Yummy. Just what we've been lacking.
june gloom on 16/8/2012 at 02:16
Not to mention the shit that does to the water table.
CCCToad on 16/8/2012 at 06:39
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Hmmm, just a random thought, we are talking about how in a 1000 years or so shit will go down with our current activity but... aren't we supposed to run out of fossil fuels in the next few decades?
They've been saying that for the past few decades.
