Peak Oil and a Changing Climate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- The scientific community has long agreed that our dependence on fossil fuels inflicts massive damage on the environment and our health, while warming the globe in the process. But beyond the damage these fuels cause to us now, what will happen when the world's supply of oil runs out? In a new video series from The Nation magazine and On The Earth Productions, Bill McKibben, Noam Chomsky, Nicole Foss, Richard Heinberg and other scientists, researchers and writers explain.
Visit TheNation.com for more videos in this series.
It is so useless trying to argue with people on this issue. Just like Tobacco companies used to claim cigarettes weren't harmful and people just couldn't believe they would lie to us. Only when those same people got lung cancer did they finally believe. Same is true of oil. Most deniers of this type of thing won't admit they are wrong until it is too late.
great come back dude! i would expect a response like that for a 9 year.
Everything Chompsky said was incredibly wise and true. Calling him a nutjob is an insult to your own intelligence.
another great come back! you are really impressing me with your intellect
One billion barrels burned every 12 days...when they say they found a new oil reserve of 10 billion barrels it means nothing...gone in 1/3 of a year
@villel80 It's good to know that there is someone else out there who knows how free markets work. In the context of energy production, the phenomenon you speak of is called "grid parity." Places like Hawaii are already close to reaching parity because shipping petroleum there is so expensive (though subsidies cloud the picture a bit). The rest of the country will likely follow suit within a decade if we really are at or past peak oil--no regulation required.
@MMGWsceptic I agree it is hard to tell whether oil price increases are due to supply shortages or simply inflation. What we do know with certainty it is now 2011 and we still haven't hit the 2006 barrels per day peak.
Regarding Shale gas: the world currently uses about 84 million barrels of oil per day - shale oil currently contributes less than 1 mbpd. The Alberta tar sands and the Bakken play can probably scale at best to 10 mbpd. Where will the other 74 mbpd come from?
Man, this was 10 years ago. God help us.
@mojwnun I completely agree. I compare it to a heartrate. My heartrate is changing and will always do so. Does that mean I should ignore it when it accelerates to never seen before levels? Of course not.
@VangelVe Great and none of the papers you reference dispute AGW in any way.
Can you cite exactly where the refutation was if there was one?
While I consider Chomski's comment about meteorologists uninformed (they do more than just present the weather, thank you), this is a fascinating-and terrifying-documentary.
If i were to choose between Chomsky, and some youtube troll. I'll take Chomsky everytime. Period
@VangelVe That's not the point at all. You've consistently only mentioned a handful of places, and I don't believe that there was any cherry picking. Is it cherry picking to take an average of something?
@Paladiea @Paladiea Really? What temperature graph do you have that shows the raw data trend?
The USHCN raw data shows no warming. Neither does the NZ data, the Australian data, the Scandinavian data, the Greenland data or the Pacific Basin data. Look them up in google images. For some reason I can't get the links to take.
@MrEnergyCzar I also believe that many of the people born during the oil glut will become expendable if they haven't the resources to survive till the planet stabilizes with new energy for electricity & transportation. I am working toward those goals.
@Baadger Um...great reply. Thanks for that.
I saw that same Scientific American paper about peak oil around 2000. I thought, "Oh, that's decades off", but apparently it's happening now - production has been flat since 2006, and economies aren't dealing with it too good.
You had no idea how right you were
@Paladiea "For instance that one shows that there was warmer temperatures and that CO2 was high then as well.."
The links don't work so I can't see what you are referencing. I also prefer to know which papers you are referring to because I made no point about the Carboniferous. But it is good that you brought up high CO2 levels because we had iceball earth conditions when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today. That does not fit the AGW theory or models.
People forget (or aren't aware of) the principles of free market. Once oil becomes more expensive than alternative energy sources to use, the market will automatically transform and so will the investments in the new techology. This will happen gradually and has already began. A sitiuation where oil suddenly "runs out" and everybody are screwed is just absurd.
Fabulous
Hartmann: "Hi, I'm Thom Hartmann. Join me in listening to various experts discuss fossil fuel depletion and global warming."
Funny thing though; for the last year or so Thom Hartmann himself WONT TALK ABOUT PEAK OIL. Anyone know why?
@Paladiea "That paper shows that during the last ice age, there were other forcing factors before CO2 kicked in..."
I cited several papers. When you can have natural factors increase temperatures to much higher levels without CO2 emissions we do not need CO2 emissions to explain the changes. The weak spot for the warmers was the MWP, which is why they tried to kill it. But there is too much research showing that it was as warm or warmer so the effort failed. Try reading the papers.
@VangelVe Or any other isolated areas. What about the arctic? Canada? Northern Europe? It's easy to look at an isolated spot and say "ha! No warming" when the trend for the planet clearly shows one.
The real problem are the costs for unconventional oil production. There is still more unconventional oil today than conventional oil have ever been. We never had a oil-shortage that wasn't political. The oil will be more expensive and this will lead to more use of gas, coal, nuclear and renewable energy. Renewables could provide the energy needed to extract oil sands e.g., but oil multis don't want that yet. Here in Europe 7,50-8$/gal is normal today, Americans should prepare for such prices...
Why doesn't he mention the tons of oil that it takes to make an EV?
The I look at peak oil, the more I see that the technologies needed to phase out oil are things we've already had for decades.
Electrified rail, nuclear powered container-ships, electric street cars, heat pumps, solar water heaters, electric mining equipment(drag lines, crushers, pumps, pipelines all have electrified models), in-situ leaching; the list is long.
Only 7% of oil is used to produce chemicals and farming is similarly insignificant; most oil is pissed away in passenger cars.
I feel like doing some research on the Chicken Little story.
I've got a mouth with a tongue still inside. Will that work? :D
Damn this monitor. It is in the way.
I really am not so saddened by this peak oil though, I see it as an opportunity to be more kind to and appreciate nature. We will always have energy, last resort atomic energy. And metals like copper will always exist to transmit the energy. Was the food and housing so bad before the industrial age? We will always have global trade though, we will probably appreciate and respect certain things alot more. By the way oils will still be around to make plastic which we would hopefully learntorecycle
EROEI is irrelevant as it pertains to oil production, so long as the energy invested (the energy input) isn't oil. The only thing that changes when EROEI goes negative, is the oil is no longer a SOURCE of energy, the input energy is the source. When they say our EROEI is 10 barrels of oil for every 1 barrel of oil invested, they really mean 1 barrel of oil equivalent invested (that is, the amount of energy contained in a barrel of oil, but from a different source).
"herd" How apt.
@VangelVe Isn't Alaska folded in with the US? Moot. What about the 75% of planet that are represented by the oceans?
i wonder . i think the typical city greeny will never learn and never take a good lesson . but you are right , we have to be happy that we have lots of energy . it is a blessing . meanwhile the greeny thinks that when it hits the fan they will move out into the bush and live with the animals in peace and harmony . they also think power comes from the swich on the wall by the doorway and that meat comes from little white packages in the supermarket . lol
I know global warming is happening, but I have never seen evidence suggesting it could lead to human's extinction.
Humans should never underestimate mother Earth. It has slayed well over 90% of the species that have called it's lands and seas home. I would wager their are things us humans don't even understand yet about how this place functions.
@Paladiea "preferably from one that's been peer reviewed..."
Since this thing gives me an error if I try to link something I will reference papers by author, journal and issue.
Go to the International Journal of Geosciences, Vol.1 No.3, 2010 and look at the article by Paulo Cesar Soares. The paper shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Or try, Oxygen-isotope (δ18O) evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica, The Holocene 13: 251-263
@adowns87 Peak oil is not complicated. It just means that oil is finite and one day we'll reach the limit of how much we can pump out of the earth. That is not by any means a wild statement.
The debate surrounding peak oil is:
1. When will oil peak?
2. Can we smoothly transition to other forms of energy?
So far the data suggests that the peak was in 2006 at around 79 million barrels of oil per day of conventional crude oil. And 2008 taught us that high oil prices can devastate the economy.
If I sounded condescending in my first reply, my apologies. However, who am I telling?! I don't have a say where our oil gets shipped, do you? Oil is a finite supply (fact) and it takes thousands and millions of years to produce more, so why are we not being more conservative with it? I have nothing wrong with global markets, but I just have a problem with money being the only way to acquire the natural resources that come from the country I am a citizen of.
@Paladiea "no one denies that there are other factors affecting climate...."
The IPCC certainly minimized other factors. It ignored or minimized the effect of solar changes, the UHI effect's impact on the data, land use changes, the impact of soot on Arctic temperatures, the various ocean oscillations, and even ENSO conditions. Now that the climate is clearly not cooperating the IPCC is using those factors to explain why the expected warming is not being observed.
@bogusnachos Rational steps to conserve energy can eliminate the need for still more energy from nuclear or fossil fuel sources. Conservation reduces costs, which is good for business, conservation reduces expenses, which is good for consumers, conservation reduces emissions and reduces the need for mining, processing, transportation and storage of nuclear materials. Conservation (i.e. the low hanging and free fruit) first.
@VangelVe Yes I got the link in my email. Let's just say that I warned you about conflating global temperatures with US temperatures.
@iooo007 Thats not right... they already consume as much oil per capita like germany for example... venezuela consumes over 700.000 barrels, I think almost 800.000... population is estimated a bit over 27 million. Germany has 82 million people and consumes 2,4 (a bit less because falling demand in whole western europe since years), most of that countrys I mentioned offer very cheap gasoline to their people... Venezuela I think 14 US-$/10€-Cent per litre. Sometimes its rationed but...
thankyou . thankyou very much !
One person or another has said this is the year of peak oil, for the last 100 years.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, but these guys are not right once a century.
The smart thing to do is use oil until it is too expensive.
The dumb thing to do is worry that the world is running out of oil.
No one is that stupid? ........ Watch the video.
The worldwide production of oil maxed out in 2005. The frenzy of drilling, tracking, and mining tar sands has managed to keep us at that level for about ten years. But it won't last much longer.
+kim weaver only another 1500 years, but it will be left in the ground long before that, no one has a clue what Society will be like even in 100 years. But we will have fusion.
Fusion = pipe dream. IT's always "Free Beer Tomorrow!" All the net energy from all the fusion experiments ever done (costing tens of BILLIONS of dollars) wouldn't charge the average cell phone battery.
Check out Professor Albert Bartlett's TH-cam talks on oiil, population, and arithmetic. There is MOST DEFINITELY NOT 1500 years of oil. We might be able to count on oil for 20 years or so before the delivery rate drops below the level where it matters as an energy source. You need to catch up, Spanky.
@mphello That's exactly the problem--there aren't tests that exist that test for every nutrient possible nor do they test if you're getting and optimal ratio. Supplements do not absorb as well and are inferior in every way.
If I could eat eggs (I'm allergic), I would be a vegetarian surviving on raw goat's milk and raw eggs for my animal nutrients. I always suggest vegans revert to vegetarian and consume these. I think of it as a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship between species.
great video - until it got off topic with Chomsky pushing the global warming stuff
compared to peak oil, climate change is a moot point. Climate Change is popular with politicians because its a less alarming way to prepare the public for rationing
Stop wasting oil. Live your personal life more sustainably. Be a good example. Relocalize food production and the rest of the changes we need will follow.
It's time to adjust to a life with less fossil fuels. This means that many aspects of our lives (namely, food production) need to be re-localized. Even if there are still a few years of cheap oil left, WHY should we deflect this problem onto future generations? Doesn't anybody care about their children/grandchildren anymore?
@Paladiea Well those did not work. Let us go over it again.
Go to Google. Type "us raw temperature". Choose the Images option. Click on the graph showing raw and adjusted temperatures. You wills see no material warming since the 1930s.
After you have done that change 'US' to 'New Zealand' and look at the raw temperature data. It shows no warming. Do the same and replace 'New Zealand' with 'Scandinavian'. You will see that the raw temperature measurement graphs show no warming.
@warpigsinfin 'Relocalize food production and the rest of the changes we need will follow.'
This is a myth. Energy used in transport is a minor part of all of the energy needed to grow food. It is more efficient to grow some fruits in South America and ship them to North America than to grow them locally.
The only problem is that in the world of economical growth conservation of 50% means you can produce twice as much at higher profit. Google about Jevons paradox. The only way to have true conservation is by reduced growth. But yes you are right that there are a zillion ways humans can conserve energy, dont travel so much, dont each so much, do not have so many children. Question is, are people willing to give it away before they are forced to? We need sustainable alternatives to market economy.
I couldn't help but think when that Chomsky might be projecting when he talked about institutional traps and inevitability. Universities generally have a stake in public views about global warming. The more concern the public has, the more funding they will get for research. It is political anathema to be skeptical about AGW in an academic environment because, well, "that's my funding you are talking about brother!" Also, death knell for humans? That might be hyperbole. Just saying.
You underestimate exponential growth. "Someday" is sooner than you think. As demand grows each year if inevitably doubles. Each doubling occurs faster than the last doubling. If we've taken 1/2 of the oil out of the ground (1 of an estimated 2 trillion bbl), then the next half is the next doubling. That next doubling due to the nature of the increasing cost of extraction will destroy the global economy and the wars you see are the anticipatory response to the "energy starvation" that's coming.
@Paladiea For some reason I can't post links. Let us try this again. Cut this and paste it in your browser and you will see both the raw and 'adjusted' trend for the US.
climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc18834010535ef5d49970b-800wi
Yeah you're right there's no problem. Everything's fine. Can't you tell?
@Paladiea "Isn't Alaska folded in with the US? Moot. What about the 75% of planet that are represented by the oceans?"
Alaska is folded into the US but it also represents the Arctic environment. And as I pointed out, the ARGO system, which went operational in 2003 shows no accumulation of heat in the oceans. By doing so it falsifies the CO2 emission driven radiative imbalance claims made by the warmers.
@SuperNolimetangere You obviously have not been paying attention to the news.
At current growth of consumption, we only have like 50 years before everything is used up, so won't that solve global warming? when we stop producing and burning anything?
i work in the oilpatch and recently all the development is in directional drilling and fracing of old wells and the increase of oil production is incredible . some old wells that have basically quit producing are fraced and start producing 600 cubes a day . instead of hitting a zone of 8 feet directional drilling follows the zone and really produces big .
in the past we have only been scratching the surface and now we are starting to produce in big quanties never before seen .peak oil ? NOT
That's good news for us, Geof, but even with all that increased capacity, it's still a finite resource that will be burned up eventually. What about our great great grandchildren, and beyond? Oil is a super precious gift that has enabled our technological society. If we continue to squander it with no regard for our distant offspring, then they'll be back to hand-powered work and horse-powered mobility. We all assume that technology will find another energy source to sustain us as far as we can imagine into the future, but rather than assume it, shouldn't we ensure it by having a PLAN to get there? Sadly, it's not in our nature.
@@madmux5334 Sorry amigo but your comment lacks knowledge of the situation . There is enough oil for a thousand years ..literally there is enough coal for two hundred years . And much much more other energy as well.
But not to worry ..i think the elites are going to depopulate the planet and the energy use will drop dramatically . You and I have a very good chance of being depopped .
@@throwerofturds I hear people say that, and if true, then swell, 'cause I love fast cars! But I have my doubts about 1000 years of cheaply obtainable oil, and even if it's 1000 years, it's still finite. Oil is not all, remember rare earth metals, other resources necessary for technology. Truthfully, sad to say but, pending some breakthrough like cold fusion or similar, a significant depop is really the only answer to ensure a terrestrial resource base that will support a continual upslope of technological advancement past a couple hundred years. Just MHO, which counts for very nearly zero.
@@madmux5334
Did you know that about one in 5000 properties makes a mine ? The rest don't cut it for alot of diferent reasons . It is quite normal to go after the low hanging fruit first . And it is not normal to worry forever over every little thing.
Take heart ...running out of anything is a long slow event. ..generations . As something becomes rarer it becomes more expensive . The more expensive it becomes the less it is used . Etc etc
@@madmux5334
Lol you and your grandkids will be dead and gone and oil will still be cheap . Right now their fighting wars over who can sell oil to who .
Given up driving?
I'm not so sure that a handful of journalists, radio hosts, bloggers, and washed up linguists really count as "experts" on peak oil--an economic issue--or climate change--a scientific issue. These are professional secondhand dealers in ideas, and nothing more.
@MrEnergyCzar We can't have a continually rising GDP in a reality constrained world.
You are quite right, and very well put. There is a great deal of easy oil to be had for probably hundreds of years. You can be sure that the environmentalists will change their arguments as they have from " global warming" to " climate change ". We should actually all be very happy that peak oil was a myth, because a shortage of energy would be a disaster for mankind. I hope the peak oil myth will be a good lesson to anyone thinking of signing up to the environmentalists' cult.
@Paladiea "Let's just say that I warned you about conflating global temperatures with US temperatures."
And as I wrote, most of the raw data shows no material warming since the 1930s. The warming comes from the signal that is added to the actual measurements by computer algorithms that have not been made available for independent assessment. Without replication it is not science, no matter how many UN bureaucrats say otherwise.
lol so how about that peak oil
2016
inventing new tech is what man
is all bout son
sure we can, through energy efficiency we can have rising GDP
@villel80 You might ask yourself," where will the oil come from to build these technologies? Do you think that the oil needed for the plastics, composites, etc., the energy needed to extract, transport, manufacture, then distribute such techno salvation will be cheap, available, and not destined to heat homes, drive folks to work, farm the land to feed the people? Think carefully. How will technology save the millions who feel they are owed the "good life"?
It’s my ideas, when the business man becomes the Leading, the first thing is for advantages especially in sanctuary whereas Oil’s was the aiming. I don’t see or heard the political in reality for the people, but propaganda. By leaving Paris agreement of climate change , INF and Tariffs are theses the ways of America’s great again? It’s impossible. How’s to protect oil tanks fire firsthand at Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦, please advise, thank you 😊.
@Paladiea "What about the arctic? Canada? Northern Europe?"
The Scandinavian data shows no material warming since the 1930s. Neither do the isolated stations in Greenland or Alaska.
Go into Google Images and search for "Alaska temperatures". You see the big rise in the 1930s then a decline until the PDO went positive in the mid 1970s. Since then temperatures rose but to previous levels. And note the 'hot' readings last year were imputed, not measured by any instrument.
Or, government can raise prices on oil which causes the free market to find a new means of production.
It's not global warming its Geo engineering.
"where is our tumbling where is our sacred cowboy now
Where is the Indian on the hill, There is no Indians left to kill"
Bruce Dickinson
I believe oil is the clay feet talked about in the bible
And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
@MrTadblack This is the bitter truth & there is little evidence to support any other outcome. Thak you.
So we leave it to our grandchildren? Maybe Great Grandchildren?
Let's be the society in history that did something BEFORE there was a problem.
Like War is a response to a threat, just think of what could be avoided by being proactive.
Chomsky hits the nail on the head, as usual, and the goobers get all aslobber over it.
LOL another simple answer, this time LFTR, good one, i didn't heard this one before ;)
Where are LFTRs ?
How many is opereting right now ?
How much percentage of energy we get from LFTRs now?
How long it to take to build ONE - LFTR ?
How much oil and other fossil fuels you need to build LFTR ?
This is just another techno-utopia.
Something like we will fly in cosmos for more fuel or we will have solar panels able to power cars not calcs ;)
Decent video, however i think Noam Chomsky is attempting to fly...
@VangelVe no one denies that there are other factors affecting climate. But contrary to your belief, there is no massive conspiracy to peddle climate change.
Regardless, you can't reason with the unreasonable. The global avg temperature is rising. This is an undisputed fact. You can try and cut it down piecemeal but it's dodging the point.
@VangelVe you have no evidence to back that claim up, you have a small section of a few countries (and as I pointed out isn't even a significant portion of the planet) and conjecture.
@mwillw46 I cant wait :)
It literally will run out, there is literally a finite supply....
Look at the more recent videos and articles about "Peak Oil"
Right now, more and more highly regarded skeptics are now agreeing. Simply put, we are running out of cheap oil. We could drill all day but even still, we will use 2 barrels of oil to find and create just 1 barrel. Eventually any reserve will run dry.
Google "peak oil"
Educate yourself.
Let's think "sustainability". Let's be active in our free market society and create more competition for oil.
Let's think about generations.
@Paladiea "Ok so he was incorrect in his predictions. So? How does that disprove climate change in general? Again, the US is not the world."
The point is that the best data shows no material warming in many places of the world. The reported warming comes from adjusting the data by methods that have not been allowed to be independently evaluated. That is a huge problem for the integrity of the movement because cherry picking and lack of transparency are not science.
@MrEnergyCzar What do you propose? Do you simply deny that peak oil arguments are correct? I find that to be a rather panglossian assessment. (Read Candide to understand who Pangloss is.) Do we need to find a way to get energy from other sources, or do we need to find a way to increase GDP with less energy, or do we need to learn how to live without increasing GDP. Denying evidence is not an argument.
@VangelVe everything you just said was an untruth. Any temperature graph will show otherwise. OOPS!
@glomoore1 The scientic commuty does plenty, however you can lead a horse to water....
I think they will change this subventions of cheap gasoline, as Iran did, they reduced the amount. But the fact that countrys like Saudi-Arabia waste over 2.1 million bbl with 27-28 mio population (even more worse than american waste) but libya got higher per capita consumption than western europe too.If the oil will get short they would/will stop this, like americans will consume less if they pay european prices. Today up to 8,1$/gal, and it will increase as rising oil price shows.
alot of people think that peak oil is nonsense. not sure myself.
THIS is the danger. I think Opec got more than 66% of the worlds reserves, especially if you include venezuelas unconv. reserves. Except Russia maybe other countries will join OPEC (Kazakhstan?Azerbaijan?). Brazil already told it wants into OPEC if the deep-sea-fields go into production (that will boost brazils reserves to at least 30, maybe 50 or more billion bbl). There could be wars for the last easy-to-produce-fields in OPEC-Countries if the OPEC does not cooperate with "us".
@Paladiea "The US is not the world. When people say there's warming they mean GLOBAL average temperature. Hence the term global warming...."
I agree that the US is not the world. But as I pointed out, data from Australia, New Zealand, Greenland, and the Scandinavian countries shows no warming. All of the warming comes from the 'adjusted' value-added sets that cannot be replicated independently because the code, metadata AND raw data have not been made available.
Industrialisation is based on division. It divided thinking, production to such a point that nobody can understand or know the impact of his own input. This is not a market problem. In the soviet times irresponsibility and ignorance was paramount. Industrialisation is here to suppress intelligence and thinking because it feeds on automation and create authority. Social positions (CEO, professors) are based on this principle and can be questionned. If we do not use our hand we use oil or slaves.
noam chomsky's plants look horrible.
Just like him
@Paladiea "Great and none of the papers you reference dispute AGW in any way..."
You don't read well. The papers do not claim that we have not warmed since the last ice age termination or since the LIA 150 ended years ago. They refute the ANTHROPOGENIC part of AGW. We expect temperatures to go up once the Little Ice Age ended. Otherwise we would still be in the LIA. The warming from the depths of the LIA began more than 300 years ago, before atmospheric CO2 levels began to go up.
Peak oil was 2006.
@VangelVe Ok so he was incorrect in his predictions. So? How does that disprove climate change in general? Again, the US is not the world.
@KilonBerlin When will the earth be unable to offset the CO2 rise & the temperature will be intolerable & the oceans unable to sustain fish as we know it ? Do you really think that we can burn it all ? WHEN ?
@VangelVe
I did, and all the graphs show an increase. Lying again I see. Care to provide a link to a graph that doesn't show an increase?
How about if you try to make an effective counter point using facts and figures without the personal insults and ad hominem remarks. Just give it a try as a mental exercise.