Climate change and global warming has become part of our everyday life, and central to this debate is the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The fossil fuels that we use contain carbon and hydrocarbons, and in the combustion of these fuels, carbon dioxide is released along with energy.
In the present climate debate, however, the amount of available fossil fuels does not appear to be an issue. The problem, as usually perceived, is that we will use excessive amounts in the years ahead. It is not even on the map that the amount of fossil fuels required in order to bring about the feared climate changes may in fact not be available.
[Link: Kjell Aleklett - Original article translation from EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse]
Now here is a classic good news/bad news situation. The shorter version: we may not be destroyed by climate change because we may not have enough fossil fuels to do full damage to the climate. It looks like a race to the bottom doesn't it. Will we destroy our climate or our civilization first. Of course, that is a simplification. If he is right, we will be fighting what climate change there is with a much reduced tool kit so it will be a mix of both.
This should not be a surprise, because climate change and fossil fuel usage are joined at the hip. The climate is a function of how much carbon is in the atmosphere. By returning all of the carbon that was locked up in the earths crust to the atmosphere we have fiddled with that carbon balance. We are getting exactly what we bargained for. Take your pick, livable climate or 100 years of free and easy energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment