The Effect of Kyoto: Accelerated CO2 Emissions

[RegGuheert]

It seems that reducing CO2 emissions in only some countries has the overall effect of increasing worldwide CO2 emissions:

Climate Change: The Standard Fixes Don't Work

 

[LakeLeaf]

Conclusion - that the world's enlightened cultures should hoard all of the oil supply, thus forcing the rest of the world into heavy usage of wind and solar in order to meet their needs?

 

[Viktor]

Great article

 

[Smidge204]

Conclusion - that the world's enlightened cultures should hoard all of the oil supply, thus forcing the rest of the world into heavy usage of wind and solar in order to meet their needs?

Pretty much, yeah. If only the developing world would just be content to continue living with a 18th century agricultural economy things would have worked out! :roll:

I think the biggest failing is not providing developing economies with the incentives and support to go directly to cleaner energy sources. You need energy if you want to grow, so if you want to reduce carbon emissions globally you either have to prevent growth (e.g. apply carbon emissions restrictions on developing economies) or make sure non-carbon energy is at least on par with fossil fuels in terms of cost so they don't fall into the same trap.
=Smidge=

 

[evnow]

Conclusion - that the world's enlightened cultures should hoard all of the oil supply, thus forcing the rest of the world into heavy usage of wind and solar in order to meet their needs?

Pretty much, yeah. If only the developing world would just be content to continue living with a 18th century agricultural economy things would have worked out! :roll:

I think the biggest failing is not providing developing economies with the incentives and support to go directly to cleaner energy sources. You need energy if you want to grow, so if you want to reduce carbon emissions globally you either have to prevent growth (e.g. apply carbon emissions restrictions on developing economies) or make sure non-carbon energy is at least on par with fossil fuels in terms of cost so they don't fall into the same trap.
=Smidge=

+1

My experience has been that a lot of people in the developing world are already extremely energy efficient. They mostly use bikes instead of cars or small cars instead of large cars etc. Industries are a different story - but mostly because energy efficiency is very capital intensive.

BTW, in the last 2 decades EU & US have managed to export a lot of the carbon emission to China since so many manufacturing industries moved to China.

 

[GreenPowerDP]

Interesting read, but I found several problems with her arguments:

1. Oil production (does this mean extraction? It wasn't clear) has been very stable: yes but oil supply is controlled by the OPEC cartel. By maintaining reserves, they can (and do) manipulate the market - so I wasn't convinced that she fully explained all of the markets dynamics.

2. Adding substitutes adds to Carbon emissions: this one gave me the most heartburn. Her argument is that it takes coal and gas to manufacture the substitute fuel - thereby increasing net CO2. However, it also takes coal and gas (well electricity) to manufacture gasoline, so if substitutes emit less CO2 when burned, there is less net CO2 generation than if that same energy was used to produce gasoline. If a substitute fuel is cleaner and takes less electricity to produce - we have a winner.

3. Nature's Solution: the earth has been in equilibrium for 4 billion years - and it will adjust. At higher CO2 levels plants will become dominant. I loved this - actually, high CO2 makes the oceans acidic killing algae which is a huge carbon sink, and high CO2 kills plants as well.

4. Steps that might work to slow CO2 - have fewer kids and buy locally - really? Is that it?

I was somewhat disappointed that someone with her credentials didn't talk about a lower cost alternative to gasoline. I get that if the US cuts back on oil consumption, that frees up oil to go to another country where environmental laws are less restrictive - but what if we found a cheaper alternative that was cleaner? It would seem that economics would prompt a switch to the cheaper fuel.

 

[RegGuheert]

2. Adding substitutes adds to Carbon emissions: this one gave me the most heartburn. Her argument is that it takes coal and gas to manufacture the substitute fuel - thereby increasing net CO2. However, it also takes coal and gas (well electricity) to manufacture gasoline, so if substitutes emit less CO2 when burned, there is less net CO2 generation than if that same energy was used to produce gasoline. If a substitute fuel is cleaner and takes less electricity to produce - we have a winner.

I think the point here is that once you have provided energy from a new fuel source, this new source pollutes the environment and the old source STILL gets consumed and it ALSO pollutes the environment. This is a direct conclusion of the "Maximum Power Principle" she mentions in the article.

I was somewhat disappointed that someone with her credentials didn't talk about a lower cost alternative to gasoline. I get that if the US cuts back on oil consumption, that frees up oil to go to another country where environmental laws are less restrictive - but what if we found a cheaper alternative that was cleaner? It would seem that economics would prompt a switch to the cheaper fuel.

Again, the "Maximum Power Principle" says the old fuel will still get used for something because it is available. It would be nice to think we would leave the oil in the ground or use it only to make plastics, but would we?

This "Maximum Power Principle" is a new concept to me, but I have difficulty finding evidence that contradicts it. Rather, I find that we do some pretty appalling things to our environment to get at the energy available. Sometimes I feel as if I live on Easter Island and we are trying to build our bigger (energy) heads!

 

[GreenPowerDP]

Good points. My main counter is that if the alternative is cleaner and less expensive then we will reduce greenhouse emissions.

RE: Maximum Power Principle:

"Again, the "Maximum Power Principle" says the old fuel will still get used for something because it is available."

The idea that if we don't use the oil, someone else will is only valid if they don't have a cheaper alternative. Oil wells are shut down when the extraction/bbl cost falls below some market value - not when they run dry. We pump oil only if it is profitable.

If the market goes up or some new lower cost extraction technology comes along (i.e. frakking) they start back up.

 

[RegGuheert]

The idea that if we don't use the oil, someone else will is only valid if they don't have a cheaper alternative. Oil wells are shut down when the extraction/bbl cost falls below some market value - not when they run dry. We pump oil only if it is profitable.

Sure, but your assertion also makes two significant assumptions:

1) The cheaper alternative is cheaper for ALL applications of the incumbent energy source.
2) The cheaper alternative is available in the quantities sufficient to fully replace the incumbent source.

If either or both of these assumptions are false, then the oil will still have economic value and will be pumped out of the ground and burned. You can't simply flip a switch and have have all the infrastructure for the newcomer appear. It takes time to ramp up all that is needed for the new technologies.

As GRA and I have discussed at some length recently in another thread, it does not seem possible to arrive at such a point within about 30 years or so. Simply put, we use a MASSIVE amount of energy today.

I will also point out that many of these technologies which are cheaper and less polluting (such as PV or EVs) require most of their economic and energy investment up-front and they also do most of their polluting up-front. This makes a massive, rapid transition much more challenging.

 

[LakeLeaf]

The idea that if we don't use the oil, someone else will is only valid if they don't have a cheaper alternative. Oil wells are shut down when the extraction/bbl cost falls below some market value - not when they run dry. We pump oil only if it is profitable.

Sure, but your assertion also makes two significant assumptions:

1) The cheaper alternative is cheaper for ALL applications of the incumbent energy source.
2) The cheaper alternative is available in the quantities sufficient to fully replace the incumbent source.

What is meant by cheaper? Ultimately in this context it's the price to the consumer. However when it comes to oil based products, the cost to consumers is pretty much the amount that everyone in the supply chain has decided to charge to maximize profits. It is far far above the cost to actually produce. If there were a significant alternative, you'd see the price of oil products drop and drop and drop to assure that consumers still view it as the best value. Finding an alternative to oil that the oil industry can't undersell and is attractive to consumers is a tall task. It's part of what is attractive about EV's - vasts amounts of the distribution network are already in place, yet still the missing pieces are significant in terms of resistance to adoption.

 

[GreenPowerDP]

Sure, but your assertion also makes two significant assumptions:

1) The cheaper alternative is cheaper for ALL applications of the incumbent energy source.
2) The cheaper alternative is available in the quantities sufficient to fully replace the incumbent source.

If either or both of these assumptions are false, then the oil will still have economic value and will be pumped out of the ground and burned. You can't simply flip a switch and have have all the infrastructure for the newcomer appear. It takes time to ramp up all that is needed for the new technologies.

Agreed. Infrastructure, processing and delivery is part of the cost.

I did a bit of reading up on the Maximum Power Principal and it was very interesting:

The maximum power principle can be stated: During self-organization, system designs develop and prevail that maximize power intake, energy transformation, and those uses that reinforce production and efficiency. (H.T.Odum 1995, p.311)

wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle

I believe that Ms. Tverberg may have taken some liberty by loosely describing the Maximum Power Principal - maximum intake and efficiency are the key points - not consumption of all available energy. On the other hand, the Maximum Power Principal does support economic theory, ecology, biology and thermodynamics - so it is a valid framework for the discussion.