It’s rare that an opinion is expressed so contrary to one’s own received wisdom by someone of such authority that you just can’t ignore it. So when James Hansen, Director and lead climate scientist of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science says that the remaining oil and gas can be burnt whilst limiting atmospheric CO2 to ~450ppm and incremental temperature increase to only 1°C, it stopped me in my tracks. Hansen famously accused the Bush administration of trying to silence him after calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in 2005 and stated last year, in the context of reporting the results of NASA studies on arctic sea ice loss, ““We have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change – no longer than decade at most” Chris Vernon reported on a lecture Hansen gave at Bristol University on 17th November last year, where he gave support to the controversial view expressed by ASPO researchers Anders Sivertsson, Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell of Uppsala University published in New Scientist (Oct 2003) that IPCC projections of potential CO2 levels caused by fossil fuels were unrealistic given their analysis suggests that oil and gas reserves combined amount to the equivalent of about 3500 billion barrels of oil, against the IPCC average forecast of about 8000 billion barrels (5000 billion in their most ‘optimistic’ scenarios).  This view has been roundly condemned as dangerous thinking by many environmentalists, such as Jeremy Leggett, Greenpeace’s Chief Scientific Officer - himself a proponent of an early peakist position.

According to Vernon, “Hansen [is] suggesting it is feasible to contain CO2 emissions, chiefly because the reservoirs of oil and gas are limited…This, coupled with the decay of CO2 emissions means that the combustion of remaining oil and gas aren’t critical to climate change. The problem lies squarely with Coal. Hansen’s plan for dealing with coal?

* Sequester CO2 at new coal power plants after 2012/2022 in developed/developing countries
* Bulldoze Coal Power Plants without sequestration during 2025-2050
* Stretch oil/gas via slowly increasing carbon tax, avoiding use of non-conventional fossil fuels, permitting time to develop non-CO2 technologies”

And this even with a model showing a 2030 peak!

Vernon coninues: “What Hansen is saying is that the remaining oil and gas can be burnt whilst limiting atmospheric CO2 to ~450ppm and incremental temperature increase to only 1°C, which really should be the limit unless we want to live on a very different planet. The challenge is that the oil and gas combustion use most of the 450ppm limit, the key therefore is CO2 sequestration or abstinence from coal and unconventional fossil fuels.

This was confirmed in the Q&A session. I asked Hansen his opinion on oil peak within a decade and impacts of peak oil on climate change. He replied that he expects to see oil peak within 20 years as we would have passed the 50% point by then adding, in that case we can probably live with the CO2 emissions from oil without hitting 450ppm. However he did stress the point that we have to start emphasising conservation and efficiency by taxing emissions otherwise we will start squeezing oil/gas from unconventional sources such as shale oil and tar sands. That is something we absolutely can not afford to do.

Someone else asked about aviation growth to which Hansen again replied the climate could probably afford a few more decades of aviation growth, given we address power plants and vehicles. […]
Climate change scientists consider the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and forecast the climatic results. Based on officially stated fossil fuel resources and global economic growth forecasts from national and international organisations, the emissions paint a dire picture. Activists pick up the dire predictions and advocate proactive measures to curtail our emissions.

The “depletionists”, those subscribing to imminent peaks in the availability of oil and gas (some predisposed to environmental issues and some with little concern, even perhaps doubting the arguments for anthropogenic climate change mechanisms) instead point out that the officially stated fossil fuel resources are exaggerated and as a result the global economic growth forecasts and resulting emissions are also exaggerated. Activists focus on the ramifications of shortage and advocate proactive measures to curtail our reliance on a resource soon to be troublesomely scarce.

I’m squarely with the depletionists on this one. The IPCC business as usual projections are as preposterous as the CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates) oil forecasts [The Oil Drum]. The science is good but the assumed inputs are off. Garbage in, garbage out. The concept of global oil/gas peaks within a decade is incompatible with the anthropogenic emission driven ~900ppm CO2, >+4°C from 1990 by 2100 IPCC forecast.

I’m also deeply sceptical of any efforts to proactively reduce oil/gas consumption below that described by the depletion curve – it’s just too useful. To suggest we can choose a level of oil/gas consumption below the depletion curve is to say that the reductions imposed by, and the impacts of peak oil, are so trivial we would actually choose greater reduction i.e. lesser consumption? No way. I am pessimistic about choosing a lower consumption and have no faith at all in choice/reform “beating” the depletion curve down.

The climate doesn’t care how we emit what we emit but just what the emissions are. It is hard to believe the oil/gas originated emissions will be anything other than solely determined by the depletion curve.

Absolutely it would be better if we chose to reduce consumption/emissions rather than be forced by shortage, the more action by choice/reform the better. But I see that as a peak oil issue, trying to maximise energy services as resources deplete, not a climate change issue.

Climate change activism should be about total CO2 emissions (and sinks) – I just don’t see how activism targeted at oil/gas can impact the CO2 emissions.

Peak oil activism should be about minimising the hardship created by reduced oil/gas availability.

So I’m left in the position that all the oil and gas will be burnt as fast as possible. We can’t do anything about that. However, luckily, that alone won’t spell the climate disaster the activists warn us of.

The only potential to cause climate disaster is from burning all the coal – this is very hypothetical though as whilst there is enough carbon contained in the coal reserves do we have the logistical ability and economic demand (given peak oil/gas) to exploit it? I’m doubtful.

My doubt isn’t due to the magnitude of oil/gas physically used for coal mining – that’s tiny. It’s more to do with demand. I think peak oil/gas will destroy demand. Think about the Chinese example of building a new coal power station every 5 days – the only reason they are doing that is to run the factories manufacturing stuff for the West and to fuel the increasing Chinese “quality of life”. Both these sources of demand are directly funded by Western economic growth. If you subscribe to peak oil/gas resulting in economic depression then energy demand (including electricity and coal) will fall. Coal use is a function of global GDP, if peak oil/gas causes global GDP to fall then coal demand will fall too.

I don’t think it’s possible to maintain growth by replacing depleting oil/gas with coal to liquids and electrification. That’s the only scenario that would see increased coal burn in the face of peak oil.

So, to be intellectually honest I would like to see climate change activists ignore the emissions from oil/gas – ignore cheap flights, airport expansion and SUVs and instead focus primarily on coal burn. That is electricity consumption and low/zero CO2 generation of electricity. This is an easy battle to fight as there is massive scope for reducing electricity consumption and massive potential for low/zero CO2 electricity generation. The climate change activist should also focus on land use (deforestation etc.) and be mindful of the depletionists’ points and theoretical threat of non-conventional fossil fuels.

The depletionists on the other hand should primarily focus on energy security, that is, minimising the loss of energy services as oil and gas availability decreases. This involves reducing the oil/gas intensity of what we do and where the anti-SUV, pro-light rail, reduced “economic reliance” on flying etc arguments should be made. Whilst supply side solutions based on non-conventional fossil fuels are likely to be considered, the depletionist should remain mindful of the CO2 intensity of such solutions – in any event non-conventional fossil fuels are unlikely to prove viable or amount to anything significant.

There is perhaps a difference between being an intellectually honest activist and being an effective activist though! As the general public and politicians now accept CO2 as “bad” and as increasing aviation for example is recognised as being a significant source of increasing emissions, the depletionist campaigning for reduced economic reliance on flying could cite CO2 emissions to add weight to their argument. Effective as this may be I don’t see it as totally intellectually honest.
Conclusion
My thesis is that all the oil and gas will be burnt as fast as possible, however imminent peaks in production constrain emissions within a Hubbert-style envelope. Oil and gas consumption doesn’t represent a degree of freedom for impacting emissions so time, energy and political capital should not be spent attempting to reduce oil and gas consumption in the name of reducing total CO2 emissions. Efforts are likely to be futile.

Instead, the degree of freedom we do have available to address emissions is coal – through reducing electricity demand and increasing low/zero CO2 electricity generation. This is where effort should be focused.

That isn’t to say reduced oil/gas reliance shouldn’t be pursued aggressively through efficiency and behavioural change, it should but not under the illusion that it will deliver reduced total CO2 emissions. Pursue reduced oil/gas reliance in the name of imminent peaks, to mitigate some of the negative impacts of imminent shortage.

Unfortunately wide acceptance of imminently peaking oil and gas supplies is not yet with us, severely limiting the effectiveness of the peak oil arguments. Although not strictly intellectually honest, arguing for reduced oil and gas reliance in the name of reducing total CO2 emissions is likely to be more effective.”

Chris Vernon’s full text, charts and discussion at The Oildrum.