His argument below:

It is mathematically impossible that peak oil will solve climate change.

Although oil is the biggest single source of energy-related greenhouse gases, coal and gas combined are bigger still, and the expected growth in their emissions would overwhelm any reduction from oil.

As I demonstrate in The Last Oil Shock using the International Energy Agency’s “business-as-usual” forecast, even if oil production peaks in 2010 and immediately starts to fall at 3% a year, total emissions would still rise by 25%, reaching 32 billion tonnes in 2030.

Yet by that time, we need to be well on the way to at least a 60% cut in emissions.

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.

One common sense solution left out of his equation is the use of electricity, which is not all the time, generated using coal or Uranium. Solar, wind and tidal conversion if implemented can and should be able to generate the required capacity to power our planet. If only we are able to overcome our resistance to change and the relentless pursuit of bigger and more polluting lifestyle.

When a gallon of gas was at $3, viable alternatives was the buzz word, from Venture Capitalists to wannabe inventors, everyone wanted a piece of the fuel pie. Technologies that are long been ignored got some well-deserved attention, not anymore though. Gas it at $2 a gallon and sounds like a bargain to those painfully paid over $50 to fill their tanks.

So how does it make the oil companies winners, for one, they made record profits this past year. And by simply dropping the price of gasoline to a point where consumer feel more comfortable filling up, they have managed to curb much needed research funding to investigate alternative fuels.

If this sounds like a note from a conspiracy theory channel, here are some facts.

1) The increase in price although unreasonable can not be considered illegal as it happened in a non-emergency situation (post-Katrina)

2) Here’s the cost profile for the past year and half:

• A barrel of crude was around $24 prior to Kartina, a gallon of gas cost around $1.60.
• A barrel of crude post-Katrina soared up to $70, and cost per gallon shot up to $3.07. Although the big oil blamed this squarely on OPEC, it does not explain the supply-demand aspects completely. The OPEC claims that China and India are burdening the demands, which in the ideal world would result in less than normal available gasoline (supply), supply being inversely proportional to demand, which is the one of two reason why gasoline could cost more. Americans consumed the same or more gasoline this year as compared to the same period last year, meaning, there was no short supply. Alternatively, the demand was met with increased production, in which case the cost of per-barrel is explained, but not point 3 below.
• Now a barrel of crude costs around $60, and gasoline costs around $2/gallon. So either the production of gasoline has gone up (in which case the cost should drop significantly, bringing the costs below pre-Katrina levels) or the demand has dropped (in spite of approaching what is to be a cold winter)

And of course,

3) Exxon Mobil recorded $340 billion with a “B” profits this past year, Chevron made $190 billion, ConocoPhillips $166 billion.

If $3 is the price we pay to pave the path for a cleaner and more sustainable energy source, we should embrace it and as you fill up realize that your money might be fattening the pockets of big oil, at the same time opening up doors for cash inflow to alternative technologies. Ah, I miss the $3 gas.

The Nairobi-based UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said on Tuesday “In the worst-case scenario, and if all the oil contained in the bombed power plant at Jiyyeh leaked into the Mediterranean Sea, the Lebanese oil spill could well rival the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989.”

An Italian environmental agency that monitors the Mediterranean said the “spill posed a heightened risk of cancer, and is a high-risk toxic cocktail made up of substances which cause cancer and damage to the endocrine system. It is not oil that has flowed but fuel for power stations. This contains substances such as benzene, categorized as a Class 1 carcinogen.”

Aside from the aforementioned, the MOE website lists numerous other environmental effects of the war that Lebanon has to deal with. For the time being, the war seems to have ended, but the battle to combat collateral damage is just getting started. There is no doubt in my mind that the destruction brought up by the conflict will resonate for years, if not decades and will substantiation the notion that “in a war, there are no winners.”

Tags: Non-profit, Middle East, Geography, War, Israel, pollution, EPA, Environment, Sustainability, Lebanon, Activism, Oil Spill, Fuel Spill, Ocean

The act of restoring our environment usually involves a “good deed” and a lot of money. More often, the clean up “cost” comes out of consumers’ pockets who are neither directly responsible for the problem nor in any way direct beneficiaries of the clean up. I say “direct(ly)” because individuals are not capable of creating global scale environmental damage (although we collectively do) and we seldom ‘plan’ to tackle issues that may surface past our life time.

With that said, I want to draw your attention to a recent incident in Alaska, which, might substantiate my earlier statements.

Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska shutdown following the discovery of spills in the oil transit lines. Environmental groups and the US EPA went after BP, the operators of the pipeline. BP, quaintly admitted negligence and decided to shut the line. This disrupted oil supplies, sending the crude oil market up, resulting in increased gasoline prices, possibly for the next few years.

Alaska generates over 90 percent of its income from oil. Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski announced a statewide hiring freeze today until BP starts resumes supply in full capacity. Until then Alaska will lose $6.5 million a day.

Consequently, Alaskans will lose revenue, livelihood and have a contaminated eco-system. Consumers like you and I will indirectly pay for the clean up at the gas pump in the form of high gasoline prices. BP however, will pay a fine, clean the mess at our cost and still generate profits.

So when environmentalists win, our economy suffers, see.

Tags: News, Oil Spill, EPA, Oil, Activism, Conserve, Sustainability, Environment, Alaska

To make matters worse, the DOE research team also determined that the computer dashboard readings for fuel economy – which most drivers use to base their judgment rather than manually calculating the actual mpg -inflates mileage numbers by somewhere between 10 to 20 percent.

On the brighter side, the testing dispelled a persistent myth that the rechargeable batteries need to be frequently replaced.

Hybrids, once thought out to be “the solution” to lessen the pollution burden of gasoline hungry Americans just might be a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. My contention, “a market squarely focused on Hybrid is limited and lacks technology diversification. We need to develop small cars with small engines, reducing the weight of vehicles by using more plastic, and stopping marketing SUVs as safer vehicles.” Hybrids, well, if that is how Diaz and DiCaprio feel connected to planet Earth, let em pass.

Originally posted at environment.thoughtmechanics.com

Source: Hybridcars.com

 

Tags: Oil, Hybrid, DOE, Engineered, Activism, Engineer, Sustainability, Environment, Energy, Technology

America is facing what could possibly become one of the hottest summers in recorded history. Ironically, the very industry responsible for this debacle is also the one raking in profits from the recent heat wave sweeping our nation. Confused? Allow me to indulge you in a little industry secret, but before we go, let’s first refresh our memory on the relationship between gasoline and global warming.

Scientific consensus is that greenhouse gases (especially CO2), are responsible for accelerating climate change. Carbon dioxide, a combustion byproduct of gasoline use is attributed as the leading cause of global warming. The heat wave has further intensified use of air conditioners and fans, stressing electric supply.

We all know who profits from gasoline, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Conoco Phillips, but electricity? You would imagine with the soaring demand, utilities would make a killing, but apparently not. While most utilities across America are running on all cylinders, they are not really doing it effectively enough to cash in. Reasons, many power plants produce electricity by burning natural gas, and natural gas prices are up, way up. Also, operating more generators, for longer times result in excess gas use, meaning less efficiency of the process and low cost recovery per throughput.

However, the natural gas market is reaping in colossal profits, and the leading producers of natural gas are…you got it, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Conoco Phillips. So no matter what, big oil wins.

Photo Courtesy: NASA

Originally posted on environment.thoughtmechanics.com

 

Tags: Global Warming, Oil, Activism, Carbon, weather, Environment, greenhouse, Exxon, Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Chevron, Gasoline, Gas, Natural Gas

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. — Dwight David Eisenhower

The conflict in the Middle East has resulted in a massive spill where over 35,000 tonnes of oil have been spilled into the sea off Lebanon and the continuing violence is hindering the clean-up operation. To makes matters worse, the Lebanese coast has been made even worse by oil leaking from an Israeli warship hit by a Hezbollah missile. A 80km stretch of coastline has so far been contaminated by the spill, affecting beaches as well as ports and marinas. The cost of clean up is expected to be in the region of $40-50 million USD.

Source: edie.net

Originally posted at Headsetoptions.org

Photo Courtesy: edie.net

Tags: Oil Spill, Oil, Activism, Sustainability, Environment, War, Mediterranean, Lebanon

Price of oil is sky rocketing, the fed are raising interest rates, and people are feeling the pinch everywhere, not just at the gas stations, making it even harder to fight the looming recession.

One good thing out of all this might be that people will use less gasoline, and that would render our environment cleaner.

So bring it on.

Photo courtesy: CNN.

Tags: Non-profit, Oil, US, Cars, corporation, pollution, EPA, Environment, Sustainability, GETM, D.C. Watch