Why Peak Oil does not address the real problem

The Peak Oil concern, from the ASPO website is,..."there will not be enough oil left in the ground to permit a continuing increase in oil production." This statement indicates the belief that the hydrocarbon economy will not be sustained by cheaply extracted and processed crude oil. The concern therefore is,"shortages of these two fuels (oil and natural gas) will likely cause severe economic hardship."

The point of this observation, evidently, is that societies (particularly oil-dependent societies like the US) will need to derive their energy needs from some other source. The other source is not specified, and indeed, appears to be irrelevant, as long as it satisfies society's thirst for cheap energy. In the Peak Oil literature, it appears that the environmental effects of harvesting the new energy source should be considered. On the website,

"Prudent energy resource management must include conservation and efficiency, ecologically responsible energy production and consumption, and the development of alternative energy resources.

It is not clear how the leap is made from "we are running out of cheap energy" to "our new energy source must be ecologically responsible, etc."

There is no reason why the "no more cheap oil' argument prevents anyone who is inclined to seek energy sources such as nuclear or "deriviative" hydrocarbons, such as coal gasification, from exploiting the "crisis of cheap energy". The real problem is that burning fossil fuels is destroying the atmosphere. So we need to stop using fossil fuels not because "there is not enough oil left in the ground...", but because if we don't, the surface of the planet will be become uninhabitable.

Comments

[Zeno Swijtink]

Dave,

I agree with you that the need now to reduce GHGs provides a clearer vision for what we need to do. Moreover, there is likely too much oil to burn anyhow, so fuel availabilityy cannot be our guideline.

On the other hand, the price of various fossil fuels is an important consideration for a climate protection campaign when it works out a strategy to cut back on GHG emitting energy technologies. Also, many people will be more nervous about their wallet than about GCC, which they still perceive to be either distant or unstoppable. We need to play in on this wake-up call.