Peak Oil Production

[Grand Inquisitor]

I know this is sort of a heavy topic, but I was curious if anyone here has read about the possible arrival of global peak oil production and the possible socio-economic consequences.

Basically the idea is that-
1) Fossil fuel based resources are universally integrated into our everyday lives (automated transportation, large-scale agriculture, electricity, the majority of raw materials used in homes...)

2) These fossil fuels are a finite resource (or at least they renew at a rate miniscule compared with our consumption of them)

3) While the world-wide demand for oil has been on a (accelerating) rise since oil's industrial discovery in the 19th century, it is predicted that the supply will hit a peak in the near future (most predictions range from present to 2030)


The fact that gasoline has doubled in price in the last year has made a decent amount of news, but if you compare the general response of America today with the clamor of the 70's oil shocks, people seem blissfully non-responsive.  There's been a rash of books published on the subject (I'm just finishing 'The Long Emergencey'), but hardly any public discourse.

Since the predictions I've read seem pretty severe in terms of the changes to everyday quality of life, I was hoping to both gauge the general awareness of our reasonably well educated community, and hopefully spark some discussion.

Thoughts?

[Machinus]

Hubbert did work on this, and yes it is very alarming. However, the general populace is little-informed about the actual science behind these concerns. There is even legitimite "debate" in government about such topics as whether or not global warming is real.

Yes, fossil fuels are going to run out, but this is hardly news, and something that is in fact quite obvious to anyone who has taken some basic science and given the matter a little consideration. Yes, this could be disastrous both economically and otherwise, for the entire world. And yes, there isn't being very much done about it.

What bothers me more than anything else about this matter is that people care only about the fact that fossil fuels are limited, and that is what drives them to other souces of energy. The real problem is what internal combustion does to the atmosphere and the environment, but this gets no attention at all. We should have stopped using fossil fuels a long time ago. We should stop using them now just because of what they do to the atmosphere.

In the end, though, humanity is going to have to suffer both the lack of lightweight potent energy sources as well as the severe damage to the environment and the ecosystem. The next century is going to be very pleasant for everyone involved.

[Matt]

Most of what I've read on the subject is about the woeful inadequacy of any alternative to fossil fuels - why solar power and so on aren't going to solve the problem. I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say on the matter!

[Bram]

I've so much to say on this, I don't even know where to begin. For anyone interested in this particular topic, I suggest reading 'Beyond Oil: The View From Hubbert's Peak' by Kenneth Deffeyes.

Some random thoughts on what has been said in this thread:

I was curious if anyone here has read about the possible arrival of global peak oil production and the possible socio-economic consequences.

The arival is not just 'possible', it is a mathematical certainty. As long as we use up fossil fuels at a rate that's higher than the rate in which they are produced, we are depleting our net resources. Even if technological optimism proves to be justified ('we'll find better ways of extracting it or discover vast new fields'), this will only postpone the inevitable. The question is not if peak oil production will arrive, but rather when.

The fact that gasoline has doubled in price in the last year has made a decent amount of news, but if you compare the general response of America today with the clamor of the 70's oil shocks, people seem blissfully non-responsive.

Interestingly, the reasons for the strong reaction is the 70s were more political than environmental in nature. Percieved dependancy on oil-producing nations as well as economic consequences of depletion were the prime motivators. I imagine both issues are no longer as frightening as they once were (I mean, in the minds of the public, it proved to be a 'false alarm' in the seventies...if we need more oil, we justy invade more countries, and if we're fresh out, we'll build more nuclear power plants, right?), which leaves only the whole global warming issue. This relatively new environmental concern just doesn't seem to scare the public as much as it should. And with good cause: the effects of, for example, a rising sea-level will be felt most strongly in those countries with the weakest socio-economic structure. If the level would rise by three feet, the Dutch would engineer a new dike. In Bangladesh, millions upon millions would simply die.

However, the general populace is little-informed about the actual science behind these concerns. There is even legitimite "debate" in government about such topics as whether or not global warming is real.

Global warming isn't really up for discussion, but rather the question if humanity's carbon dioxide (among others) emissions significantly contribute to the problem.

And yes, there isn't being very much done about it.

Hey...I resent that I've been working very hard on this problem for the past four years or so, and expect to continue to do so.

Most of what I've read on the subject is about the woeful inadequacy of any alternative to fossil fuels - why solar power and so on aren't going to solve the problem.

Alas, 'tis true. Though I'm wary of publications that oppose the implementation of renewables on the grounds that this 'research' is often funded (indirectly) by oil companies or environmental organisations (who are the strongest imaginable opponents of, for example, wind and tidal power), they do appear to have a point. While it is ofcourse nonsensical to state that solar energy isn't going to save us (which is a statement along the lines of 'we'll never be able to fly'), it is unfortunately true that at this point in time and in the forseeable future, it will make no great contributions to a reneweable society.

I'll edit this later today to include some more musings.

[Machinus]

However, the general populace is little-informed about the actual science behind these concerns. There is even legitimite "debate" in government about such topics as whether or not global warming is real.

Global warming isn't really up for discussion, but rather the question if humanity's carbon dioxide (among others) emissions significantly contribute to the problem.

I speak about America here. Unfortunately Bram, global warming is up for debate in this country. As unbelievable as it sounds, the "moral" and "political" values of society have in fact taken precedence over everything else, including hard science, among the highest levels of government, and the majority of the population. All it takes is some Rovian editing, and the "white house media" can make people believe anything. Global warming is a joke in the Senate.

And yes, there isn't being very much done about it.

Hey...I resent that I've been working very hard on this problem for the past four years or so, and expect to continue to do so.

As for things being done about it, I refer to this on a global scale. There are many factors set against those working on modern energy problems, which Bram should elaborate on. The sad truth is that it isn't just a matter of science - the world is in love with oil, and nothing can stop the consumption. Even if Bram happened on a renewable, cheap, potent, and versatile energy source (which is quite a challenge), it would likely take one or two decades to see even modest adaptation to it. Take away just one of those characteristics - and again, Bram should elaborate more on this - and the process becomes much more difficult.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Despite the fact that I should be doing homework, I don't think I could force myself away from a good discussion of apocalyptic pessimism about some issue we suppose isn't getting as much attention as it deserves. As a rule, if an issue is important, it is getting attention, and there's lots of powerful people with a vested interest in seeing it resolved.

First, as Bram points out, the debate is not about whether global warming exists, it is about whether human activity causes it. I'm pretty sure there is some legitimate uncertainty in how much if any warming is brought about by human industrial output. The climate is really, really complicated, and there's a number of other factors, the impact of which most of us (including me) are totally unqualified to estimate (e.g., the sun). The 1990s are known to have been a quite warm decade, but it's not unambiguous whether there have been other, hotter periods in the last few millennia completely without industrial influence.

Second, the problem is getting wicked huge attention. Toyota can't build Priuses fast enough to meet demand; they are just about to change 10% (IIRC) of Camry production to hybrid vehicles---their most popular model. Automobiles now produce ~5% of the emissions they did in the 1970s, and both filtering technology and gas mileage are still improving. SUV sales have plummeted so far that General Motors and Ford have had their corporate bonds reduced to junk status on the market, because they can't compete with more efficient Japanese cars (this is of course not the sole cause, but it is a significant one).

Hydrogen is not as ridiculous as some would suggest; and nuclear power is being reconsidered now that its safety is apparent (yes, uranium is finite, too, but that's a much further-future consideration than oil). Solar may not be quite there yet, but the technology is becoming cheaper, so as oil stays at $60/barrel or higher, it becomes much more commercially viable.

Obviously things might not be moving at the ideal, perfect pace, but resolution of massive technological hurdles and overhauls of the infrastructure built up over a century throughout the industrialized world simply will not happen very fast. Call me in a decade if things aren't leaps and bounds better.

[waSP]

There IS a limit to how much mileage we can get with an X-lb (kg) car using x gallons (liters) of gasoline.  We're getting close to that.

There are a few hydrogen gas stations if I recall correctly (maybe in Greenland?).  The problem with hydrogen is stability.  It hasn't been proven to be safe.

The economics of alternative energy change drastically when the government stops subsidizing things like Ethanol with a ridiculous amount of money.  The people will buy their conscience, we need not worry about oil dependance on the Middle East.  More relevant is the issue of corrupt officials in my opinion, but, we shan't be discussing that here.

[Bram]

There are a few hydrogen gas stations if I recall correctly (maybe in Greenland?).  The problem with hydrogen is stability.  It hasn't been proven to be safe.

Actually, it has. Using hydrogen as a fuel is really no more dangerous than using, say, natural gas. There are also a few hydrogen gas stations in the USA. There's one in Washington (though I don't recall if it is the city or the state) built by Air Products, the guys who supply the Space Shuttle hydorgen.

The real problem with hydrogen is twofold.

1. For one, there is as of yet no economically feasable renewable way of producing it. Many of you might not know this, but about 90% of our hydrogen suplly is produced by a process called ' steam reforming' of methane. True, upon the burning (or other means of conversion such as in fuel cells) of this hydrogen, no CO2 will be released. However, obviously, CO2 will still be relased during the aforementioned steam reforming proces. And what's worse, is that making H2 out of CH4 is an ' extra' conversion step, one which would be absent if we were to simply burn the CH4. This means a loss of exergy, and as such an increase in the use of CH4 in order to meet the same energy need (and as such a more rapidly depleting fossil fuel reserve).

2. There is no decent distribution infrastructure. It's a sort of stalemate position, where people developing hydrOgen applications will wait until there's a decent delivery system, and people who would creature the infrastructure would wait untill a sort of critical mass of applications exist. As such, little investments are done, and government action is required of we are to ' force'  the development of a hydrogem economy.

There are however multiple concievable solutions for both problems. For example, in the first case, it is relatively easy to capture the CO2 that is produced during the steam reforming process of CH4 into H2. One could store this in, for example, depleted gas fields, or use it as a floating agent to increase yields of virtually depleted gas/oil fields. This would indeed not be a sustainable option (as eventually, the storage capaity for CO2 is finite, as well), but it would buy us some time to make renewable ways of hydorgen production feasable (such as electrolysis of water by wind or solar power, thermonuclear cracking, or even nuclear fusion). It would already open up the door for the development of various hydrogen applications. If these were to exist because we increased hydrogen production by steam reformging and CO2-storage, investment opportunities would increase.

[Dozer]

Apart from burning Hydrogen for energy, fuel cells are an additional option -- or were we talking about them? Anyway, the main reason the distribution system is not being built is in my opionion the stance of the automobile companies. Eliminating the internal combustion engine and replacing it with fuel cells has already been done in prototypes. It would cost a lot of money and additional research for the efficient production of hydrogen, and as long as money can be made more easily with internal fossil combustion, the incentive for environmental research is very low.
Environmental and social responsibility of any kind take the back seat when money has the wheel. Sad, but often true.

The other big issue in that respect is not a technical one, I think. People will have to change, the earlier, the better. A time will come when they need to instead of being given the choice. For example, why are we taking 24h power supply for granted? Or hot water? These things are commodities that lure us into a false sense of availability of comforts. Nobody who can afford hot water and electric power has to stop using them all over sudden. But we need more general awareness of these issues. That includes small things like less fuel wasting, not throwing litter anywhere except for the waste bin, trying to keep waste production to a minimum. But it goes all the way to not throw nuclear and chemical wastes into the oceans, preserving the rain forests, and stopping feeding antibiotics to cattle by the pounds.

We waste a lot of food in Europe. The farmers here are horribly over-subsidized, so we actually have an overproduction. The results are often destroyed because they can't be used in any way (and this is no joke). Both the money and the food could be put to better uses. We get cheap wheat from Poland, but we still pay German farmers to produce wheat themselves. That's stupid. In a global world, we should at least act regionally. And that also means we should care about the environment we live in, and do so together.

Lots of things don't belong into nature and the atmosphere. Deodorants are still mostly powered by CFC's. Why? Nobody knows. Global emissions of greenhouse gasses should have been reduced by the Kyoto protocoll -- didn't really work. Litter doesn't belong on the streets as well as chemicals don't belong in the ocean or nuclear waste does in the ground. A huge part of earth's human population has no clean water.

Anyway, I digress horribly... the point is that we cannot just switch to another energy resource, but we also need to switch to another lifestyle that is less consuming. Even with an endless energy resource, we should keep this world liveable. We owe it to our children to preserve the environment. I don't worry about the planet, or life in general. Whatever we do, the planet stays around and life will find a way. I just worry about humanity. We could take a hedonistic stance and say "ach, the next two generations won't feel a difference anyway" but we shouldn't. Be hedonistic with your own life -- not with the lifes of others.

Dozer

[waSP]

The stuff I read must have been old (or are now old 9 months later).  There's no problem with random combustion of it?

I worry about the accuracy of my other statements.  How are we with getting better gas mileage?  Beyond the application of current technology to new models, is there more to be discovered with the current engine types?

[Bram]

Well, it's not that it's 'safe' exactly. It just that natural gas (LPG) or gasoline (benzine) aren't safe either. People tend to exaggerate the risks of somthing new, and trivialize the risks of something they already have. It has been proven that neither the transport nor the use of H2 is more dangerous than using the fuels we already do. This does not, however, mean that it's perfectly safe There are some benefits however. Unlike gasoline, H2 doesn't cause cancer. Aditionally, H2 is lighter than air, so in case of a leak & burn, it will rise into the air and form a brief, contained fireball over there, unlike current fuels, which will spread out over the ground surface and set fire to most anything.

Regarding mileage etc, there's still some way to go regarding fuel cell cars. While performance (range, accelleration, top speed, weight) are all objectively acceptable at this point, they are by no means equal yet to the average performance of regular cars. And I fear that, for them to catch on, they won't just have to equal that performance; they'll have to surpass it.

[dandan]

I speak about America here. Unfortunately Bram, global warming is up for debate in this country. As unbelievable as it sounds, the "moral" and "political" values of society have in fact taken precedence over everything else, including hard science, among the highest levels of government, and the majority of the population. All it takes is some Rovian editing, and the "white house media" can make people believe anything. Global warming is a joke in the Senate.

The problem is that when some people talk about Global Warming they take it to mean 'a clear trend showing that global temperatures will continue to rise' whilst others see it as 'the trend of the last century or so'. The second version is clear and unquestionable, the first is not at all clear (can anyone supply average temperature grahs covering the last 1000 years or last 100000 years?) There a macrotrends with ice ages and mini-ice ages which existed way before man was able to affect climate. I believe that the current observed rise in global temperature IS almost certainly the result of carbon emission and not such a natural trend but people ignoring other historical periods of changes in climate makes it too easy to dismiss the current global warming. How can you prove the 0.9C increase in global temperature over the last 150 years or so is significant if you haven't considered +/-10 degree changes in the past that were not caused by our actions.

Don't even get me started on how every bit of weather is caused by 'Global warming'. Weather is freaky, climate shouldn't be.

[Machinus]

I wrote a big long post about yours dandan, but the library computer I am using went nuts and closed all the windows I was using.

The two points of my post were these:

1) Ambiguitiy in the term "global warming" is unacceptable. It was created to refer to a particular process - specifically, the destructive effects of greenhouse emissions on the atmosphere. Anyone using the term in a different manner is just incorrect. The extent and process of this occurence lead to more questions regarding the future, however the science is irrefutable.

2) The flucutations of climate change on 1000 and 10000 year periods do have an effect, but they are largely irrelevant to the modern studies. There is a huge body of pristine science dealing with these issues, and everyone ought to read about things such as CFCs and other emissions which are deadly to the air. The FACTS are: we are dumping historically unprecedented amounts of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere; such large quantities of gas retain EM radiation much better than the normal atmospheric mixture; increased temperatures raise sea level, speed up desert formation, drastically alter ocean habitats, and generally disrupt the global ecosystem. Combined with other actions stemming from a general ignorance and disregard for natural balance, such as deforestation and water pollution, we are rapidly pushing the earth past its breaking point.

[Jacob Orlove]

If you want definitive proof of global warming, don't look at the atmospheric temperature changes--look at the oceans. The effects there are both easier to see and far more pronounced.

[BigMac]

I have some things to say about the discussion here so far.

i am not an expert and all things i say are my own assumptions and very much open to debate. I do not say i am right i am just going to throw my oppinion towards you all.

First about global warming.
We only have started to measure the temperature the last 150 years. Who is to say that the 0.9 degrees it has gotten warmer is not something that was happening before this 150 years as well. The earth has known ice ages and perhaps we are still on the rise after an ice age and we will get back lower when we start to go towards another ice age.

The hole in the ozone layer above the poles.
This is a phenomenon humans only have been able to see for the last 20 years due to technical advancements. Who is to say it has not been there like forever.

CFC's, and CO2 have always been a part of the atmosphere. We produce a whole lot of it with the burning of fossil fuels and production of certain plastics and other things. However, a big volcanic eruption blows into the air more CO2 than the whole world in a year. OK, we do it every year. Perhaps we make sure nature does not get a chance to deal with such an eruption due to the pressure we create on our environment. Fact remains that an eruption is as bad as 1 year of us.

The use of fossil fuels. At the rate we are using them the will be gone within 30 years for sure. Right now most oil related businesses are looking for alternatives and have found them in the use of certain plant oils. In what way that will have an impact on the environment i have no idea, but the use of oil as a fuel will remain, it only will not be fossil plants but grown plants.

Now let us assume the environment is changing and more disasters will be happening. This is not only because of the environment. It is also because we people keep on breeding. Mr Smith in the matrix was right about one thing. We are breeding like a virus depleting our home of all its resources. More people means it will be easier for more people to be in the warzone of nature.

I have a big belief. The earth and nature will pay us back eventually. So if we keep on raping the earth, it will one day retaliate. Until that day people will keep on squabbling and big companies will keep their big finger in everything and nothing will happen because to many people depend on the money of those big companies.

I think that every person should start with himself in bettering the environment en try be like oil on water. Try to spread out your way of living. If everybody does that in the end we all will be better of.

[Matt]

Mr Smith in the matrix was right about one thing. We are breeding like a virus depleting our home of all its resources.

This would be a good place to note that, generally speaking, the more industrialized a country is, the fewer children the average citizen tends to have.

[Vegeta2711]

We aren't going to wake up one day and Oil won't be there anymore. We aren't going to deplete all of our fossil fuels for some time. What WILL happen, is it'll become harder and harder to mine sources of it. Basically at this point we have every easy large sized oil field tapped, along with most of the mid-sized ones. What will happen over the next couple of decades is we'll have to move to smaller and harder to reach spots. Que cycle over and over again. Oil isn't going to run out suddenly, it's just going to keep getting more and more expensive.

It basically does a number of things for Americans. It
A. Punishes every asshole who decied 'lolz, i'll go buy big ass fucking suv'
B. Suburbia for being crap. All these suburban mini-cities is why public transportation is a JOKE for 1/2 of the work-force here and why some cities are just killers price-range compared to out in the boondocks. With high prices on gas and such, eventually people will once again return to metroplis type cities and they would become increasinly higher in quality.
C. Makes some families have less kids. That'd be nice,

Not everything is quite 'awful' when this happens. The problem is that, yeah, we have no reasonable alternative fuel sources. We have cute trick alternatives to help us conserve some things (Just look at hybrid cars. All they have is a high effiicenecy engine and a trick braking system). As Bram said, Hyrdogen we have no infastructure for. Fuel Cells are still essentially using the same fossil fuels, just in a different way. Basically the best route at this time is energy conversation, but the only real way for that to work is really to wait for gas to go up or add a nice fat gax tax, so we can get an income tax break and force the process.

[dandan]

1) Ambiguitiy in the term "global warming" is unacceptable. It was created to refer to a particular process - specifically, the destructive effects of greenhouse emissions on the atmosphere. Anyone using the term in a different manner is just incorrect. The extent and process of this occurence lead to more questions regarding the future, however the science is irrefutable.
2) The flucutations of climate change on 1000 and 10000 year periods do have an effect, but they are largely irrelevant to the modern studies. There is a huge body of pristine science dealing with these issues, and everyone ought to read about things such as CFCs and other emissions which are deadly to the air. The FACTS are: we are dumping historically unprecedented amounts of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere; such large quantities of gas retain EM radiation much better than the normal atmospheric mixture; increased temperatures raise sea level, speed up desert formation, drastically alter ocean habitats, and generally disrupt the global ecosystem. Combined with other actions stemming from a general ignorance and disregard for natural balance, such as deforestation and water pollution, we are rapidly pushing the earth past its breaking point.

First of all, I do believe that emissions have caused significant and environmentally damaging global warming, the effect of which is undeniably bad for humans (and most other life on earth). That is not an emotive position, it is a natural consequence of a reasonable amount of knowledge and common-sense.

HOWEVER

1. Fact - there is global warming if global warming refers to a global increase in temperature. Fact - there have been periods in history where similar or larger global warming has occured which could not have been the result of carbon emissions. Since you specifically say It was created to refer to a particular process - specifically, the destructive effects of greenhouse emissions on the atmosphere. Anyone using the term in a different manner is just incorrect then you are saying that it is only correct to say that 'global warming' is a fact IF it is the result of the destructive effects of greenhouse emissions on the atmosphere. I would call this very likely or even extremely likely but not a proven fact.

[traditional dandan going off at a tangent which to me seems relevant]
This viewpoint may very well be the result of 2 things
1. A scientific background where something is only a fact when it can be proven rather than when it is merely blindingly obvious.
2. I do not think we need to wait for something to be a scientific fact in order to act. Indeed, I don't think we need to wait for it to be blindingly obvious. Frankly even if there were only a 10% chance of the effects of our actions causing the global warming and consequent problems, relevant action should be taken (in the same way that Russian roulette is only dangerous 17% of the time, not pointing the gun at your head is still reasonable). Then again I'm a simple soul who views people as guilty depending on whether or not they did anything rather than whether or not they have been proven guilty in a court of law. Sorry Bush, but global warming as a direct consequence of emissions being only 99.999% likely should not mean doing nothing. And other countries doing nothing is also not a good reason to do nothing, even if you use that logic, most other countries ARE doing something so America should do something). And no I don't count the recent 'technology' initiative from America, Australia, China and India (the world's largest coal producers) for more efficient coal-fired power stations as a reasonable alternative to Kyoto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4721449.stm
[/end tangent]

2. If they are not relevant I want to know WHY. Where exactly is the Earth's breaking point? Huge meteorite smashing into the Earth, causing near darkness for years type breaking point? Or rather less than that? Glaciers covering vast areas of where we now love or changes less than that? The Earth is far more durable than its inhabitants. And humans are pretty durable. As are any species we require in order to survive. I strongly diasagree with the Chicken Littles. This doesn't mean we should do nothing. Global warming is a serious matter but not the end of the world (pretty please, before I get flak about oceanic conveyors, water level, leaching of soil etc, could you ask yourself if this has happened before and if the world managed to recover from it). Dandan says global warming is bad. But Dandan disagrees that horse shit proves the presence of the four horsemen of the apocalypse (although Horsemanship IS coming).

Want to do something? Consume less. I have walls so thick all untapped creatures in my house get +0/+3! My windows are all double-glazed. My loft is stuffed full of insulation. My appliances are chosen for energy efficiency. I use energy-saving light-bulbs everywhere I can. My shower has a water saving head (so much so that it takes a while to get wet). I'm still not doing enough but I am doing something.

I suspect many of you live in countries that have not ratified the Kyoto protocol. Ask anyone who wants your vote about it. (BTW Kyoto is a pretty tame target, most people agree that far sticter targets are actually needed)

Alternatively give me your best shot.

[Vegeta2711]

Where exactly is the Earth's breaking point?

Who knows. We could launch all our nuclear weapons and wipe out the surface of the earth and then have a meteor hit us and odds are on some species of life still surviving it. That's why I always hate this bullshit, 'omg we're killing the earth, oh nos'. We're not. We are killing ourselves and other species on the planet, but even if we -tried- we could maybe make a scratch or a dent in the planet at best. ^^

[dandan]

Clearly it is all the fault of Yawgmoth's Will and banning that card will result in utopia on Earth for all time (with no need to ban further cards or emissions in the future and possibly even allow us to unrestrict some cards, brown coal, CFCs and deforest large chunks of rainforest)

[dandan]

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/climate/GCremote3.html

Yippee, I found a graph showing temperatures over the last 150 000 years. Note that the source is a rather pro-environmental one. Note that although the graph shows a clear link between CO2 levels and global temperature (one that backs up the views of just about everyone who has posted so far, I think it also shows that there have been periods of greater global warming that were not caused by man and looking at the last 10 000 years (albeit too small to draw accurate conclusions) we can see that there has been a net cooling. In short, although I am in no way disputing the conclusions that most people have reached, it is wrong to continually talk about rises of less than 1 Centigrade whilst ignoring macrotrends orders of magnitude greater.

[Bram]

We only have started to measure the temperature the last 150 years. Who is to say that the 0.9 degrees it has gotten warmer is not something that was happening before this 150 years as well. The earth has known ice ages and perhaps we are still on the rise after an ice age and we will get back lower when we start to go towards another ice age.

An important means of proving global warming is measuring the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This can be done for thousands upon thousands of years into the past by examining ice layers on the North Pole. No direct temperature measurement is necessary.

The hole in the ozone layer above the poles.
This is a phenomenon humans only have been able to see for the last 20 years due to technical advancements. Who is to say it has not been there like forever.

Yearly measurements prove that even in that relatively short period of time, the layer above Europe is growing gradually thinner and the periodical hole about the South Pole is bigger each year (in the year 2000, it was three times the size of the USA). This hole was dicovered in 1985 (seven years after aerosols were banned for this very reason in several countries), and had been present for quite some time at that point, and it has been more or less conclusively proven that the rapid deterioration has been due to the very large emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) in the seventies and eighties. Naturals variations (seasonal, for example) do most certainly occor, but humanity's emissions have strengthened these fluctuations. There is little to no dicussion on that subject. OIn 2003, it was announced that the hole growth is slowing down, likely due to the international ban in CFC's. Until recently, ozone depletion and greenhouse effect were thought to be separate problems. It now appears they reinforce eachother.

CFC's, and CO2 have always been a part of the atmosphere.

Excuse me? Carbon dioxide, yes (in much, much smaller quantities than are present today). But chlorofluorocarbons? Not unless Neanderthal man used aerosol cans or fire extinguishers.

Right now most oil related businesses are looking for alternatives and have found them in the use of certain plant oils. In what way that will have an impact on the environment i have no idea, but the use of oil as a fuel will remain, it only will not be fossil plants but grown plants.

Yes, but the use of this bio oil does not have an overall negative impact on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. During its lifetime, the plant will have absorbed (and converted into oxygen) as much CO2 as it will release when it is incinerated (or otherwise turned into an organic fuel, such as bio oil). The CO2 cycle is thus complete within a reasonable amount of time (the lifetime of a plant). Strictly speaking, the CO2 cycle is complete for fossil fuels such as coals, too, except that all the CO2 was absorbed millions of years ago, and is now suddenly (and from the earth's viewpoint virtually simultaneously) released.

This is not only because of the environment. It is also because we people keep on breeding.

True. And in addition, many of the environmental problems are the consequence of this as well.

The earth and nature will pay us back eventually. So if we keep on raping the earth, it will one day retaliate.

It is a misconception that man was even 'one with nature'. Ever since we emerged from our caves, we have plundered, abused and pillaged the environment which surround us. We are 'nature destroying machines' at our very core. The problems have become more pronounced in recent time, because we've gotton so much more efficient at it and there's so many more of us now. We shouldn't completey dog that part of our history, though, for it has brought us many great things (for example: the luxury to even be able to consider changing our lifestyle to protect that of other lifeforms around us).

I think that every person should start with himself in bettering the environment en try be like oil on water. Try to spread out your way of living. If everybody does that in the end we all will be better of.

This above all else is true.

We aren't going to wake up one day and Oil won't be there anymore. We aren't going to deplete all of our fossil fuels for some time.

These two statements contradict eachother. You're right that it'll be a long, long time before we actually deplete our resevers (since we're still finding new fields, mining techniques are improving, and possibly we could at one point be using less) but it is self evident that if the extraction outweighs the creation of fossil fuels, we will in fact wake up one day and be fresh out (alternatively, it might happed on a late afternoon at 5:17 PM, which is somehow more fitting).

2. I do not think we need to wait for something to be a scientific fact in order to act. Indeed, I don't think we need to wait for it to be blindingly obvious.

Hooray! That's the spirit! I'd like to point out that the exact nature and workings of gravity have never been adequately explained, either. Similarly, the First Law of Thermodynamics has never been proven (weve just never happened to see anything that goes against it....it's blindingly obvious rather that proven). When designing an energy conversion system, I still like to take these two phenomena into account...so why not CO2 emission measures?

Want to do something? Consume less.

Quoted for truth.

We could launch all our nuclear weapons and wipe out the surface of the earth and then have a meteor hit us and odds are on some species of life still surviving it. That's why I always hate this bullshit, 'omg we're killing the earth, oh nos'. We're not. We are killing ourselves and other species on the planet, but even if we -tried- we could maybe make a scratch or a dent in the planet at best. ^^

True. Also: insects. Those little bastards will survive anything.

[dandan]

Global warming and cooling during the past 1000 years.
The average temperature of the Earth has varied during the past one thousand years. Grape growing and wine making were possible in England between 1100 and 1300--a time known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The Vikings settled Greenland at this time. There were 3000 farmers in Greenland in 1300, but they died out during a time known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), which ran from 1350 to 1850. The Thames froze solidly during some winters in Shakespeare's time, an occasion for "Frost Fairs." The last Frost Fair occurred in 1814, the last time the Thames froze solidly.[1] The MWP and the LIA were global phenomena, although not all areas were equally affected. The modern warming trend started in 1850 and it too is a global phenomenon.

It is possible to estimate the actual temperature increases and decreases that occurred in the past one thousand years. The MWP was 1°C or 2°C warmer than the average temperature of the millennium. The LIA was 1°C or 2°C colder. The current warm era is about 0.75°C warmer and thus not warmer than the MWP. Grape growing and wine making are still not possible in areas that supported it during the MWP. These temperature excursions, both positive and negative, are not very different from excursions occurring during the past 10,000 years.

Not my words, look up global temperature 1000 in Google.

[Matt]

It is also because we people keep on breeding.

Let me tie two disparate threads together here: how many CFCs does it take to make a condom?

[Machinus]

The skepticism in this thread is disturbing. Saying things like "humans have always been this way" and "the earth can handle it" demonstrates a complete ignorance of environmental science. These problems are studied in many different fields of science, and almost all the modern studies of humans' effect on the environment share similar conclusions.

Human beings as a species are at this very moment progressing technologically faster than they have at any other second previously. In fact, the RATE of change of technological progress at this second is faster than at any other previous second. By itself, there isn't anything wrong with this. But better technology leads to more powerful industry and machines, and so far human beings (as a whole) haven't paid much attention to the effects our technology has on the environment. It has become so powerful that it DOES threaten the earth, and it is a very likely possibility that in a short time, perhaps 100 years, the earth will be at a point ecologically that it cannot regenerate from. "Breaking point" refers to the amount that we can abuse and neglect the earth before the stable equilibrium of nature changes, and becomes unstable. Once you pass the breaking point, no amount of support can restore the balance. We don't know exactly where this point is, and we don't know how long we have until we reach it. We do know that we are heading towards it very quickly. Do you require to know exactly where it is before considering that it might be a good idea to stop?

Right now, all of the devices and machines that have been designed to make the life of humans better are in fact threatening to doom it. It is a sad way to motivate people to care about the environment, but we are entirely dependent on the global ecosystem, and the devastating effects we are having on it will one day be experienced by us, or our children, or theirs. It is everyone's responsibility to be aware of what we as humans are doing to our environment. If we hope to preserve the sustenance and beauty of the earth, we have to change our interaction with it now, before the opportunity is lost.

Regarding living as an environmentally conscious person: I have a pretty cynical perspective on what individual people can actually do to preserve the earth. Recycling is great, water conservation is great, not using petroleum products is great, but I think we all know this isn't going to save us. There needs to be more - there needs to be change on an international level. The most offensive and contrary nation in the world is obviously the US, and from what I have read about governments in other places, environmental science here (and organizations like the EPA) is ignored more than almost every other industrial nation. I think the best thing that you can do is to understand the problem as accurately as you can, and to spread the information. People who don't realize their impact on nature are the problem, because our first natural priority is to use the earth to serve ourselves - which is why things like CFCs exist in the first place (Evil, environment-hating industrial giants, while holding massive power in the US, are not the source of the problem. The people who buy their products are). We never considered what they would do to the environment when we created them. But now we have a large body of knowledge to guide our advancement, and we need to use it. Given enough time, human society would incorporate a lot of knowledge of the earth and environmental impact into industry and technology, and improve. The problem is that this would occur much much after we had already destroyed everything, and too late for us.

[Vegeta2711]

These two statements contradict eachother. You're right that it'll be a long, long time before we actually deplete our resevers (since we're still finding new fields, mining techniques are improving, and possibly we could at one point be using less) but it is self evident that if the extraction outweighs the creation of fossil fuels, we will in fact wake up one day and be fresh out (alternatively, it might happed on a late afternoon at 5:17 PM, which is somehow more fitting).

Yeah, they are. I could've phrased that better. All I meant was that some people act as if a few years from now it'll be Mad Max time, when that really isn't the case. 

[dandan]

The skepticism in this thread is disturbing. Saying things like "humans have always been this way" and "1. the earth can handle it" demonstrates a complete ignorance of environmental science. These problems are studied in many different fields of science, and almost all the modern studies of humans' effect on the environment share similar conclusions.

Human beings as a species are at this very moment progressing technologically faster than they have at any other second previously. In fact, the RATE of change of technological progress at this second is faster than at any other previous second. By itself, there isn't anything wrong with this. 2 But better technology leads to more powerful industry and machines, and so far human beings (as a whole) haven't paid much attention to the effects our technology has on the environment. 3. It has become so powerful that it DOES threaten the earth, and it is a very likely possibility that in a short time, perhaps 100 years, the earth will be at a point ecologically that it cannot regenerate from. "Breaking point" refers to the amount that we can abuse and neglect the earth before the stable equilibrium of nature changes, and becomes unstable. Once you pass the breaking point, no amount of support can restore the balance. We don't know exactly where this point is, and we don't know how long we have until we reach it. We do know that we are heading towards it very quickly. 4. Do you require to know exactly where it is before considering that it might be a good idea to stop?

Right now, 5. all of the devices and machines that have been designed to make the life of humans better are in fact threatening to doom it. It is a sad way to motivate people to care about the environment, but we are entirely dependent on the global ecosystem, and the devastating effects we are having on it will one day be experienced by us, or our children, or theirs. 6. It is everyone's responsibility to be aware of what we as humans are doing to our environment. If we hope to preserve the sustenance and beauty of the earth, we have to change our interaction with it now, before the opportunity is lost.

Regarding living as an environmentally conscious person: I have a pretty cynical perspective on what individual people can actually do to preserve the earth. Recycling is great, water conservation is great, not using petroleum products is great, but I think we all know this isn't going to save us. There needs to be more - there needs to be change on an international level. The most offensive and contrary nation in the world is obviously the US, and from what I have read about governments in other places, environmental science here (and organizations like the EPA) is ignored more than almost every other industrial nation.7. I think the best thing that you can do is to understand the problem as accurately as you can, and to spread the information. People who don't realize their impact on nature are the problem, because our first natural priority is to use the earth to serve ourselves - which is why things like CFCs exist in the first place (Evil, environment-hating industrial giants, while holding massive power in the US, are not the source of the problem. The people who buy their products are). We never considered what they would do to the environment when we created them. But now we have a large body of knowledge to guide our advancement, and we need to use it. Given enough time, human society would incorporate a lot of knowledge of the earth and environmental impact into industry and technology, and improve. 8.The problem is that this would occur much much after we had already destroyed everything, and too late for us.

1. The Earth CAN handle it. I have given links to graphs showing how and when the Earth has already handled global warming far in excess of what the current level is. Of course that is not to say that humans can handle such an Earth, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that a considerable number of humans would die as a result and the others would almost certainly have a lower quality of life as a result. Save the Earth? No. Save our own sorry backsides, save the lives of our children? YES. I know the latter has more appeal to the masses and am amazed that chose the former desite its lack of truth or effect.

2. Technology odten leads to less power and more precision, less use of energy and less requirement for materials. Fusion would be an improvement on burning brown coal or timber.

3. Whatever we do, Earth will find a new equilibrium (or stable change if you prefer). Humans might not like such a world but that is another point. The Earth is far more able to regenerate that mere two-legged mammals. Global temperatures dropping 10 degrees, no problem, rising 3 degrees, no problem. Earth OK, inhabitants of Earth some not OK.

4. I don't think a single person here has suggested doing nothing, except perhaps you.

5. In fact whilst many people are doing a lot of work to try to improve the situation, big bad industry is also keen on a thing calle efficiency which coincidently tends to help too. Cars drink far less (around half that they did back in the 60s), however more people want cars.

6. See your point 4. How exactly is using much less water, petrol, electricity and gas not exactly what we need to do? Do you think the solution is for everyone, especially western countries to carry on consuming as they do now and blame global warming on developing countries where the people want the same luxuries we enjoy? Can Bush do anything better for the environment than 270 million Americans cutting water/energy requirements by 20-30%? I doubt it.

7. Knowing the problem is a help but doing something about it is more useful. I note with interest that although you doubt the power of the individual, you come to the conclusion that it is the consumer that is the driving force of the problem.

8. The problem will be solved when the costs of not solving it are greater than the costs of solving it. That is not a purely financial equation but in the end I believe it is the people who don't give a damn about the flight of the Amazonian rainforests who are more likely to sort this out.

[Bram]

Saying things like "humans have always been this way" and "the earth can handle it" demonstrates a complete ignorance of environmental science.

I'm sorry, but the first statement and the second by no means imply eachother. While I have uttered the first one, I have never said anything remotely like the second one. I hardly think I am ignorant regarding environmental science, having studied it for six years running, and having recieved both a cum laude Master's degree and a sustainabled development certificate in the subject.

The first statement is simply true, no matter what you say. You may attach a different meaning to it than I do or something, but humanity has never been one with nature. Proof of this abounds. Aditionally, I have not said 'the earth can handle it' in the way that you imply. All I said was that the earth as a planet will survive is. The earth's current ecosystem might very well not.

[Matt]

One thing I find interesting is that in most computer models of earth's climate, one of the stable setups is the Iceball Earth: where glaciers eventually cover the planet to the degree that they reflect most of the sun's light. You spiral into this trap where you reflect so much light that what IS absorbed is able to be radiated away, and you're stuck in permanent ice age. Apparantly this happens often enough that researchers are mystified as to why it hasn't happened already. Thoughts? I'm looking at you Bram.

[Dozer]

It has already happened, once. Earth's geological history knows a period called the "Cyrogenic", the super ice age. It is supposed to have happened about 1 billion years ago, and nobody knows why it melted up again. In theory, as you say, Snowball Earth should be a self-sustaining ice age, reflecting so much sunlight that it doesn't heat up again. Theory has it that tectonic movement with the accompanying volcanoes broke up this super ice age, but nobody knows for sure.

If you want some entertaining reading that summarizes a lot of the history of the questions we discuss here, I recommend reagin Bill Bryson's "A short history of everything". It is neither environmentalist nor ...what's the opposite? It's a book that summarizes the geological history and the history of natural science quite well up to our days.

Bryson also notes that we currently are in a transitional period between ice ages, which is one of the longest interglacials in history. But he also notes that 10 per cent of the Earth's surface is covered in ice, and another 14 per cent locked in permafrost. Three quarters of our fresh water are locked in ice at both poles, so technically, we live in a moderate ice age.

However, I think that's not the point. Eventually, we will have to deal with what the Earth throws at us, and humans would be well advised not to make it worse by their own actions. Of course we could be ignorant, because in a couple of 100 000 years, we will likely be gone anyway as a species. The mission is to make this Earth a place where it is comfortable to live for future generations, and live without having to breathe through gas masks or people dying from pollution or UV radiation (Ozone layer, anyone?) and other man-induced problems of this world. Hunger, too, could become a problem once the ecosystem is tilted over by overfishing the oceans, since we have no idea how the ocean's ecosystems interact with our life. A slight change in the gulf-stream, which we may or may not have influenced with our accelerated greenhouse effect, might make parts of Europe un-inhabitable. We know nothing about this world except a very small sample of the visible things. We do not understand how Earth works. We can only marvel that the ecosystem that created and sustains humans is still there.

We think we have shackled this earth to do our bidding. We built deep mines, we conquered the highest mountains, we build cities that seal off huge areas of ground. We kill forests. We are the only species that has endangered or extinguished another species, ever. We think we are in control, but we are not. And we will never be. Terraforming is a dream that goes back in science fiction a long way, but we are nowhere nearer to it than we were 120 years ago. We can only destruct. The existence of humans is only a very short blip in the history of Earth, and yet we managed to rattle the system like an unnatural force of nature already.

Humans mean change. Humans are change. Interestingly enough, we have only two alternatives: Destruction or preservation. We cannot improve the world we live in, we can only restore it to the point before humans arrived (or try this). Of course, if we weren't so blissfully ignorant, we had to live in constant fear of natural catastrophes. But those happen less frequently than the catastrophes we impose upon ourselves. In the past 70 years, we had more major wars than major earthquakes. And meanwhile, cancer rates continue to grow because we artificially induce lots of reasons to get cancer. Smoking, asbestos, destruction of the ozone layer -- look at Australia, where sun protection is a major topic in children's nursery rhymes and people wear hats and long-sleeves all the time. They still have the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. We conquered plagues like the pest, but have acquired others like AIDS. We have to keep conquering to stay alive as a species.

Humankind is easily capable of destroying itself. We should try to avoid that on both levels, the environmental and the social. We need to accomplish both if we do not want to shorten our species' existence beyond what Earth has in store for us anyway. Ultimately, our individual lifes are pointless unless we give them a direction and a meaning. Preserving our ecosystem for those who come after us may seem pointless, too, if all lives after are meaningless anyway -- but that is (warning: grossly exaggerated!) akin to the murder of unborn generations, murder by neglect. Put it another way, it's species suicide.

Does this sound apocalyptic? Yes. Are we doomed? Eventually yes, but as long as we can hold it off, we should. Small contributions or big ones, even thinking about it helps. Your fellow humans will thank you, and all you get is a warm fuzzy feeling that you did the right thing. And, of course, your genes survive. You might still ask: Why? Why not live as if there was no tomorrow? To be perfectly honest: If you don't care about others, if you never want children, and if you are willing to do your part to make future generations' life miserable, then I cannot present any rationale that stops you. But I know that whatever I do, it weighs on my conscience.

We all take part in the destruction of humanity. We use deodorant sprays with CFC's. We produce far too much litter. Every single one of us cannot live a perfectly ecological life, because our society doesn't particularly allow for that. We have basic needs that we can only fulfill with destruction of something else -- housing, warmth, clothes, food.  But at least we can, as individuals, care about the global issues and try to prevent humankind from self-destruction, socially and environmentally. The more you care, the better. The less you care, the nearer destruction will be.

And in case you wonder: Yes, I am happy with my life! I marvel at the very existence of my own life every day, and it makes me happy. As long as I live, things at the most basic level are enjoyable and I am comforted by the act of living.

Dozer