Texoma Land
01-04-2007, 15:22
This is an interesting article. Seems peak oil may actually be bad for the environment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6505127.stm
"In fact peak oil could even make emissions worse if it drives us to exploit the wrong kinds of fuel.
Burning rainforest and peatlands to create palm oil plantations for biofuels releases vast amounts of CO2, and has already made Indonesia, according to some ways of calculating it, the world's third biggest emitter after the US and China.
Synthetic transport fuels made from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process emit even more carbon on a well-to-wheels basis than conventional crude; and when the feedstock is coal, the emissions double.
None of these alternatives are likely to fill the gap left by conventional crude - at least, not in time.
But because they are so much more carbon intensive, it is quite easy to conjure scenarios in which we still suffer fuel shortages while emitting even more CO2 than in the current business-as-usual forecast - the worst of all possible worlds. "
And
"Soaring crude prices could tip the world into a depression deeper than that of the 1930s, and collapsing stock markets cripple our ability to finance the expensive clean energy infrastructure we need.
As the unemployment lines grow, the political will to tackle climate change may be sapped by the need to keep the lights burning as cheaply as possible."
It is certainly another wrinkle in both the peak oil and global warming debates. Any thoughts?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6505127.stm
"In fact peak oil could even make emissions worse if it drives us to exploit the wrong kinds of fuel.
Burning rainforest and peatlands to create palm oil plantations for biofuels releases vast amounts of CO2, and has already made Indonesia, according to some ways of calculating it, the world's third biggest emitter after the US and China.
Synthetic transport fuels made from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process emit even more carbon on a well-to-wheels basis than conventional crude; and when the feedstock is coal, the emissions double.
None of these alternatives are likely to fill the gap left by conventional crude - at least, not in time.
But because they are so much more carbon intensive, it is quite easy to conjure scenarios in which we still suffer fuel shortages while emitting even more CO2 than in the current business-as-usual forecast - the worst of all possible worlds. "
And
"Soaring crude prices could tip the world into a depression deeper than that of the 1930s, and collapsing stock markets cripple our ability to finance the expensive clean energy infrastructure we need.
As the unemployment lines grow, the political will to tackle climate change may be sapped by the need to keep the lights burning as cheaply as possible."
It is certainly another wrinkle in both the peak oil and global warming debates. Any thoughts?