Comments on: Is the IEA World Energy Outlook Politically Distorted? http://www.getreallist.com/is-the-iea-world-energy-outlook-politically-distorted.html Deal With Reality or It Will Deal With You Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:09:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bill Reiswig http://www.getreallist.com/is-the-iea-world-energy-outlook-politically-distorted.html/comment-page-1#comment-1785 Bill Reiswig Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:31:19 +0000 http://www.getreallist.com/?p=1420#comment-1785 Chris... I can't say I have paid close attention to your writings the last months, but has the new technology to tap into Shale (tight) gas (Marcellus, Barnett shales, ect.) changed your perceptions of the validity of Kjell Akeklett assertions/paper that we do not have the fossil fuels available to get the atmosphere to 450ppm? It seems to me that the quantities being suggested in these shales offer up alot of energy and carbon that could be used the next 20-30 years. Actually, as someone with a great concern for both climate change and peak oil, I find Kjell Akeletts paper simultaneously both disturbing and uplifting. It often seems that the world really will find it almost impossible to wean itself off fossil fuels in time to avert climate catastrophe... it seems only that Jevons paradox would apply. As some OECD countries start to ween their economies off of fossil fuels, other countries or people would move in to utilize the fossil fuel. The only solution seems that either renewable energy become cheaper in all cases than fossil fuels, or that mother nature wean us off by running out of them in time. In any case, Kjell Aleklett has used his paper to recently make some pretty disparaging things about the upcoming work in Copenhagen, and I somewhat agree with an article by Sharon Astyk that took him to task over his comments. Your second half of your entry reminded me a bit of that an I hope you have read or will read what she wrote here: http://energybulletin.net/node/50726 Chris…

I can’t say I have paid close attention to your writings the last months, but has the new technology to tap into Shale (tight) gas (Marcellus, Barnett shales, ect.) changed your perceptions of the validity of Kjell Akeklett assertions/paper that we do not have the fossil fuels available to get the atmosphere to 450ppm? It seems to me that the quantities being suggested in these shales offer up alot of energy and carbon that could be used the next 20-30 years.

Actually, as someone with a great concern for both climate change and peak oil, I find Kjell Akeletts paper simultaneously both disturbing and uplifting. It often seems that the world really will find it almost impossible to wean itself off fossil fuels in time to avert climate catastrophe… it seems only that Jevons paradox would apply. As some OECD countries start to ween their economies off of fossil fuels, other countries or people would move in to utilize the fossil fuel. The only solution seems that either renewable energy become cheaper in all cases than fossil fuels, or that mother nature wean us off by running out of them in time.

In any case, Kjell Aleklett has used his paper to recently make some pretty disparaging things about the upcoming work in Copenhagen, and I somewhat agree with an article by Sharon Astyk that took him to task over his comments. Your second half of your entry reminded me a bit of that an I hope you have read or will read what she wrote here: http://energybulletin.net/node/50726

]]> By: Christopher Mims http://www.getreallist.com/is-the-iea-world-energy-outlook-politically-distorted.html/comment-page-1#comment-1735 Christopher Mims Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:05:25 +0000 http://www.getreallist.com/?p=1420#comment-1735 One very minor quibble. I have interviewed Kjell and even read early drafts of the papers you allude to in this piece. There is nothing in them that indicate that there are too few fossil fuels in the ground to get us well past 450ppm of atmospheric CO2. In fact his conclusion – I have the interview transcript to prove it – is that we can stay under the climate guardrails *only if* the U.S. and Russia mutually agree not to burn at least 50% of their remaining coal reserves. (Because peak coal is not as well studied as peak oil, it's also possible that Kjell has underestimated the amount of coal in the ground, but this is in no way a precondition for the other statements I'm making here.) If Kjell told you that we won't get to 450ppm, it's because he thinks an economic collapse will finish us. Or, in a fit of instrumentalism, he is frustrated and wants to draw attention to the impending food crisis that will result from peak oil, which as you know is his primary concern. In absolute terms, there is more than enough carbon in the ground to take us past the point of climate catastrophe – if you include coal. I know of only one academic who seriously contests this point, and he isn't Kjell (and I don't believe his rather superficial analysis). This is precisely why James Hansen is currently devoting all of his activism to stopping coal-fired power plants: because he *agrees* with Kjell! Just because they have a different set of priorities than economics doesn't mean that the academics who study climate change aren't paying attention. One very minor quibble. I have interviewed Kjell and even read early drafts of the papers you allude to in this piece. There is nothing in them that indicate that there are too few fossil fuels in the ground to get us well past 450ppm of atmospheric CO2. In fact his conclusion – I have the interview transcript to prove it – is that we can stay under the climate guardrails *only if* the U.S. and Russia mutually agree not to burn at least 50% of their remaining coal reserves.

(Because peak coal is not as well studied as peak oil, it’s also possible that Kjell has underestimated the amount of coal in the ground, but this is in no way a precondition for the other statements I’m making here.)

If Kjell told you that we won’t get to 450ppm, it’s because he thinks an economic collapse will finish us. Or, in a fit of instrumentalism, he is frustrated and wants to draw attention to the impending food crisis that will result from peak oil, which as you know is his primary concern.

In absolute terms, there is more than enough carbon in the ground to take us past the point of climate catastrophe – if you include coal. I know of only one academic who seriously contests this point, and he isn’t Kjell (and I don’t believe his rather superficial analysis).

This is precisely why James Hansen is currently devoting all of his activism to stopping coal-fired power plants: because he *agrees* with Kjell!

Just because they have a different set of priorities than economics doesn’t mean that the academics who study climate change aren’t paying attention.

]]>