Can "peak oil" and "climate crisis" be solved together?

Question

Some people suggests that higher oil costs may result in more coal fired plants and wood burning.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-barrel/2008/04/02/peak-oil-may-worsen-the-climate-crisis.html

Answer 1

Absolutely.

Both will respond well to a reasonably straightforward strategy.

Build alternative energy plants; nuclear, solar, wind.   Build vehicles that run on either electricity or hydrogen made at those plants.

Yeah, there's some engineering to be done, infrastructure to be built, and work to be done.  The US used to be good at that.  As a bonus, the technologies we develop can be sold to other countries.

Win-win doesn't even begin to describe it.  And it works regardless of whether your priority is oil or global warming, so a coalition can be built.

All it takes is some long term thinking, instead of the short term foolishness we're currently guilty of.

Answer 2

Of course it makes sense.  Some have said we have a 1000 year supply of coal, but a 40 year supply of petroleum.  So, the conservation of petroleum is in direct conflict with global warming goals.  So are the smog control devices on cars since they use precious petroleum to operate.

I agree with Tuba ITRP that battery technology is the way to go, and I think progress is being made.

Answer 3

It has been shown repeatedly that electric cars running on electricity produced by coal produces far less pollution that millions of individual petroleum burning cars, at a far lower cost to the consumer (well below $1.00)  It is also far easier to control pollution coming out of a few smokestacks compared to millions of tailpipes.  There are better sources than coal, and we can migrate to them in time.  Coal is available right now, and we know how to manage it.

GM and Chevron effectively squelched the NIMH battery which was briefly available during the 1990's.  Those batteries dealt with all the usual litany of objections about batteries.  I'm confident we could do even better if that was where we put our focus.

We are destroying ourselves as a Nation by hanging onto obsolete petroleum technology.  If we do that much longer we will lose the ability to affect our own situation, politically or economically.  Control will rest in other hands.

Answer 4

I think the oil and coal demand will only grow until supplies are limited. Even if the developed nations cut their emissions, the demand in China and India will continue to grow. If the developed nations could somehow convince the Chinese to convert their numerous coal generators to clean coal technologies, the emissions might decrease.

Answer 5

We have no choice.  We have to solve them together, or our food supply will be seriously challenged (as we're already starting to see signs of):

Climate Change Food News

http://www.climatechangenews.org/nFood.h...

If we don't cut oils usage soon, here's one view of how things might look:

Life After the Oil Crash

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Of course oil companies such as ExxonMobil want us to use it up as fast as possible, so they can dramatically raise prices and make more money for far less work.  that's why thy're doing everything they can to delay understanding and action on climate change:

Exxposing ExxonMobil's Agenda: Manipulating Politics and the Public

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/dailyf...

Boycott Exxon and Mobil stations.

Answer 6

They can and they should be.  But moving from oil to coal, will only deal with one of the problems (i.e. higher oil costs).  We need to move toward an energy system based on clean renewable sources (e.g. solar, wind, tidal, geothermal), not from one carbon based greenhouse gas emitting to another.

Answer 7

I think people will not take clean energy seriously until they face serious economic pressure, which at that point will make renewables more affordable and attractive alternative to fossil fuels.

Wind power is the best possible solution for renewable energy right now. They require fewer raw materials and upkeep compared to power plants. It is cheaper than solar power and there are more places to harness the energy.

There is also fusion power which, if successful, can provide energy for many thousands of years to come. But the technology to make it efficient, with net gains of energy, is still a ways off. We might not see the first fusion power plant for decades.

Answer 8

In so much as neither exist, I don't see why we should care.

Answer 9

I burn wood and am proud of it.   There is a net carbon release of 0.0 when burning wood.   Can you say the same about whatever you use to heat your house?   Even hydro power created electricity used to heat a house could have been used somewhere else that is using electricity created by a coal powered facility.    I must add that I cut my wood on my own land using an ax and hand saw only and haul it by hand or in a wheelbarrow.    They are from dead trees killed by acid rain and insect infestation too.

Answer 10

No - Higher oil prices will impact people with lower incomes to a dangerous position of striving to pay enough just for life survival.

When weather turns cold they may not be able to heat their homes and many will perish.  

Environmentalists will fight against:

Oil Drilling

New Refineries

Nuclear Power Plants

Wind Farms - It'll kill birds

     http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...

Solar Farms - It'll disturb deserts

+ They want to Rip Out Hydroelectric Dams - Fish are more important.

Friends of the Earth are Enemies of Humanity! = They want us DEAD!

You might learn about "Peak Oil"?? Maybe?

THE PEAK OIL MYTH

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/st...

Abiotic Oil

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theo...

Ignore the Racism in the following web page = the facts are Yukos Oil (largest oil producer in the world) is extracting oil from 7+ miles deep - well below the possibility of Fossil Fuels!

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/p...

Answer 11

That doesn't make sense.