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.

This is not just a great concept but something I personally urge everyone try, this in a way is the democratic back channel process that not only predicts potential outcome, but also help those in policy making steer key legislation to make it favorable to the collective for a change.

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.

Here’s a link to a recent interview with the author of the paper Tom Wigley of National Center for Atmospheric Research on NPR.

NCAR is a National Science Foundation federally funded research and development center. Together with our partners at universities and research centers, we are dedicated to exploring and understanding our atmosphere and its interactions with the Sun, the oceans, the biosphere, and human society.

Photo Courtesy: NASA