Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
"Game over" for climate change. So opines NASA climatologist Jim Hansen when it comes to the development of the Canadian tar sands. And one big way to unleash the estimated 170 billion barrels of heavy oil stuck in Alberta's sands is to build a pipeline to the world's biggest oil consumer: the U.S.
That's what the Keystone XL pipeline represents, and a big reason that environmentalists want to stop its construction. But how big would the effect really be?
A new analysis by scientists at the University of Victoria in British Columbia suggests burning all those proven reserves would release enough CO2 to warm the climate by only one 20th of a degree Celsius. Global warming to date is 15 times that.
And if humanity figured out a way to burn all 1.8 trillion barrels of bitumen in the tar sands? That would warm things by 0.36 degrees Celsius.
Nevertheless, building the pipeline keeps us in the carbon habit, through which the U.S. burns roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day along with copious quantities of coal and natural gas. Ending our fossil fuel addiction is the only way to truly combat climate change.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add CommentThis doesn't really matter as the decision has been made to sell the oil to China which has no interest in climate issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is kind of a redundant article since warmists believe everything humans do is the cause of climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow the whole fossil fuel addition comment is also an amusing one. So far, based on the warmists and environmentalist record, they have introduced poisons like MTBE into our fuel, spread mercury in the form of CFL light bulbs, allowed Malaria to go from nearly extinct in 1969 to killing millions a year and the list goes on of their failures. Sure the environmentalists have caused good things to happen, such as reducing the use of rivers for sewage and waste. Here is the difference. With removing sewage from rivers or preventing sulfur from getting into the atmosphere to cause acid rain, there were legitimate alternatives available to actually achieve the goal. Plus those goals were actually real, provable and the cause well understood.
With the failures, such as malaria, there was no actual causal evidence to support the banning of DDT, resulting in millions dead over the decades. With anything involving the attempt to remove CO2 of the atmosphere or end the "addiction" to fossil fuels, we get a plethora of ridiculous laws and so called solutions that are causing more damage than good. There can be nothing good about spreading mercury every where. MTBE in the environment is bad, we are better off in both cases dealing with global warming if it really does exist and is caused by CO2. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that the so called warming effect of CO2 has no actual evidence that it happens. Maybe in combination with other factors, molecules and the fact that 7 billion people cause actual heat to be produced, CO2 might be a contributor.
Since there is no actual evidence of CO2 effects outside of statistical math and computer models both of which use half understood and incomplete data, we cant actually measure the real effect of any solution.
But none of the above is the likely outcome of the zealot like actions of the warmist. Based on the recent past failures of environmentalists, the replacements they back or invent to "stop" global warming by ending the fossil fuel addiction will likely be more damaging to the environment than CO2 ever will be and before you warmists claim how damaging CO2 is, to make that claim would be to deny the past where CO2 and temperature were significantly higher than your wildest predictions and life survived. Life will probably not survive your attempts to "fix" the atmosphere.
The last paragraph in the article should be pasted to every republican and republican politician's desk. "Fossil fuel addiction" is a Bush administration and General Motors fallacy. We are not addicted to oil. We can be away from all fossil fuel in less than ten years if the Obama administration recalled all the incentives that the Bush administration gave to oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear and direct it toward clean energy development like: electric cars, geothermal, wind, solar, wave, and hydro. For the price of one nuclear power plant, you can supply all of America with solar panels and super charge batteries (energy storage devices).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat pipe line can become so destructive to the environment and atmosphere that it should never be built; look at all the accidental oil spills and all the intentional oil spills. Can you actually say that that pipe line will never break, split, come loose, or be sabotaged and dump millions of barrels of oil like happened in the Gulf? Let Canada sell that disaster to China since either country seem not to give a damn about their environment, the well being of their people and only care more about their bottom line.
You are unbelievable; I mean, you are really unbelievable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, trolls' hyperbole, again. Not a big surprise, but in case any more open-minded students enjoy reading the comments, let's replace some hyperbolic arguments with reason:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore reasonably, the more difficult it is to get a product to market, the higher the price, the lower the consumption.
Also say both Household A and Household B like pizza. If you refuse to deliver to Household A because you say the cost of delivery is too high and you want to keep your prices low, it doesn't mean that Household B will order twice as much pizza, just somewhere in between what they used to order and twice.
If we lowered the price of gasoline here by a factor of 4, Americans wouldn't drive 4 times as much. Hyperbolic arguments assume perfect elasticity in all markets.
Thus, if we don't buy Keystone XL oil, it doesn't mean that Chinese will buy all that we would have had we built it. The pipeline through BC obviously will cost more, since they didn't choose that way first, therefore the price of delivery will be higher and the consumption will be lower.
As much a teacher as I would like to be, I don't know where to begin with crazier hyperbole such as "spreading mercury everywhere" or the implications that photovoltaics will harm the atmosphere more than fossil fuels. What is the point of writing things that don't make sense?
Right, JD, I might have thought of the word unbelievable for p's hyperbole, but thanks for getting there first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd on fossil fuel use reduction, like all things let's assume change would be incremental, with bursts not too grand, so let's not say zero in 10 years—how about halving our fossil fuel use per ten years or some other more natural downward curve? If we make unrealistic claims, we'll deserve the crazy counterclaims that environmentalists want to ruin the economy.
I understand what you are saying "InquiringConstructivist". I was basing that zero in ten years on if we started mass producing all clean energy resources like electric cars and the conversion kits that converts ICE cars to electric. And supplying all America with solar panels for the price of building one nuclear plant, if, and they do, the plant cost from start to production $50 to $80 billion dollars each. There are 400+ million people in America; divide 400 million into $50 billion and you get how much money can be directed to each person in America so they can buy solar panels and an energy storage device (battery). It is quite feasible that we can be away from fossil fuel in less than ten years if we all worked at it and turned the American energy production around. This would also create millions of jobs and save billions in health care.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Gavin Schmidt says in his book "Climate Change: Picturing the Science", any analysis of the CO2 intensiveness of an activity must be undertaken from a life-cycle perspective. For myself, it is this life-cycle perspective--the fact that the XL Pipeline requires such an energy intensive process for extraction, processing and distribution, that is most troublesome. Since our generation is so rapidly decimating the remaining oil reserves on this planet, we'll end up depriving future generations (think 100 years) of this extraordinarily useful product. Why don't we designate the Canadian tar sands site an "Energy Conservation Area"? After all, there's nothing inherently evil about petroleum...it's simply that we've been burning it at a pace that far exceeds the ability of the Earth system to absorb the CO2 waste while still maintaining natural climate equilibrium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust who is this "we" that should the Canadian Tar Sands a conservation area? If you're not Canadian, and an Albertan to boot, you have nothing to say about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe American policy has for decades been to use as little of the US reserves of oil, which are HUGE!, as possible while buying or stealing oil from other nations to meet their exorbitant needs. The reason is obvious. When the supply of fossil fuels is pretty much depleted elsewhere, the US will be "the last man standing", and own the world's last reserves. They'll need it too. Their huge military machine runs on oil, as has been said by others before me. And the only way to keep their shores inviolate will be with that huge military machine.
You don't really think the US government is going to let unconscionable pollution of the planet, or even of its own nation, stand in the way of world dominance do you?
Everyone can shout and take sides, but the reality is that globalization means that more and more underdeveloped countries are developing, and they are going to use fossil fuels. We can go on a diet but they will make up for it. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, it has to do with I need to drive to work and I am going to drive to work. I don't want to pay $5/gal for gas to make a living and feed my family, and neither do you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm all for cleaner fuel, but I'm also for not funding Moslem countries that spread jihadism, whether through rhetoric or actual terror. But we're not there yet where we have the clean fuels, and we're nowhere near there, and in the meantime I don't want to be squeezed because we refuse to use a resource in our own backyard.
Yeah, we steal oil everywhere. Like the Iraq
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...like the Iraq war which we've just left without a drop of oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispriddseren: Yes, almost everything humans do contribute to global climate change and destruction of our biosphere. The reason: Our numbers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMercury in our environment is the result of coal fired power plants, not CFL light bulbs. Malaria is absolutely necessary to control our population, especially the rapid breeding ones, who are encouraged to breed some more by religious charities intent on increasing their flocks and other ignorant do-gooders who want to save the child at any cost, even the 28th child of a fatigued mother, incapable of sustaining the kid. Remember statistics for the 18th century tell us that the riches people in the most advance parts of Europe lost 75% of their children before age 6. If you believe in god, that is the way the idiot wanted it to be.
The environmentalists have done the wrong thing reducing pollution of rivers from sewage and waste. We need these pollutants to keep our numbers down.
I fully support your idea that DDT should be reintroduces as should mercury amalgams to fill cavities in teeth, leaded fuel to keep rev-heads happy, and Thalidomide as a sedative.
CO2 is blamed for climate change, but the loss of forests and species by 7G humans plundering the biosphere is the prime cause. If you don't believe CO@ causes warming, do your own experiment in a fish-tank. I have detailed the procedure in earlier posts. Why does CO2 cause warming, think like an idiot: It is a white opaque gas, light cannot get through and is absorbed, now that energy converts to heat. By the way Savante Arrhenius (1859-1927) proved the warming effect of CO2 in 1896. He also thought it was a good thing. http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm
By the way nothing is going to stop the 6th extinction now in progress. Extinction awaits our stupid ignorant species and then this planet will bloom again - No Humans necessary.
Oh, ok, JD, your numbers do add up. There's only one problem, and it's still an economical one. Once you move demand, you change the price of something, unless supply moves in perfect accord. Since there are physical limits to the increase in production of, say PV modules, there will be limits to increase in supply, and if demand exceeds those limits, the price will rise and the resulting timeline will stretch. In other words, today's prices you used are marginal prices, not absolute, just like stock prices. Buying or selling significantly different volumes will move those marginal prices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince EROE of wind and solar is so high, we can move very quickly, I admit, but still along exponential curves, not giant steps.
While fully aware of the pessimisim concomitant with such economics thinking, I've purchased renewable electricity for my household and spent more on insulating than I hope to regain directly, knowing pessimistically that our reduced demand will lower prices for people who care less, but optimistically not low enough that they'll increase consumption as much as I have decreased. [Sorry, run on sentence.]
The electric utilities are riding a middle road, hedging their bets like any wise megacorporation. They'd be elated to nix fossil fuels from their portfolios. In fact, they'd be perfectly happy if we didn't use any electricity at all, just as long as we still sent them a bit more money than what they spend just to be a corporation.
Maybe that's an angle for educating the rabid ones like p above who think us reasonable citizens are rabid anti-civilizationists:Learn that the economy runs simply on trade, not necessarily trade of pollutants or their by-products.
So exactly what "catastrophic climate change" occurs if the earth warms 0.36 degree centigrade? Do tell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the many corporate shills are trying to still bluster their way through, still spouting the BS to make us think the tar sands pipeline is something we should welcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, let's state the obvious. When it comes to continuing climate change and the nuclear industry (weapons or power plants) the downside is that they all could quickly be "game over" for everyone--forever. That's quite the bet we are making just to give the rich who run the offending industries a few more dollars until the inevitable happens--either we survive long enough change to less dangerous and polluting energies or we finally die (due to the greed of a few) before we get there.
Exactly. The economy runs on economic activity, not "burning fossil fuel", that's just one sort of activity and can be replaced by others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a question of costs. I think the problem is that we started out with huge externalized costs for fossil fuel. That was no big deal when our environmental capital was huge. In the 19th century for the most part this activity had relatively negligible impacts and was at a relatively low level, so externalizing the costs, while not economically rational in the long run, was at least rational beyond the planning horizons of human beings.
At this point our environmental capital has been severely drawn down to the point where it is quite arguable that the IMMEDIATE repercussions of burning a ton of coal are so costly that the net result for society is negative value. The problem is the continued externalization coupled with sunk costs and 'system costs' which have already been paid or are still being paid down.
Thus, for instance, an oil company could invest returns in renewable energy (actually many of them do now) but say assuming we could convert most electricity generation to non-carbon sources over the next 20 years there are vast capital assets which, even if not receiving further investment, would have to be written off at that point. The effect on these firms books would be devastating. Furthermore they're worried that other firms will simply fill the void and continue to take advantage of the externalities.
What we rationally need to do is internalize the costs of fossil fuels (carbon tax would be the best way). One way out of all the issues involved would be to use the proceeds of the carbon tax to write off existing infrastructure on an accelerated depreciation schedule. This would remove the economic argument, but not the competitive one if other countries don't follow suite. That issue will require deeper and larger scale fixes, though I think it is at least possible that most of the world might follow suit. They can see the handwriting on the wall as well as we can.
I don't dispute global warming, the earth goes through cold and warm cycles...that's the nature of the world. I just doubt our use of fossil fuels makes any sort of affect on the climate and even if it did we can't make the whole world stop using it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only way for us, the US, to deal with the issue is to make gas as cheap as possible so if something actually does happen because of it our economy will be strong enough to deal with it and in a decade or two we'll have found a better energy source.
Note: to the brainwashed Chicken Little's, the sky isn't falling. Global warming is generally a positive thing, on average, for the human race. For example, China, with vast areas now to cold, world benefit greatly with a little warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUp until the general slowdown in the would economy, China was adding something like one new coal fired plant every six mouths. China will continue and not with the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) that we would use (given an unlikely US energy expansion of significance). The same sort of sloppy lack of real concern over air pollutants extends to how China will burn the Canadian heavy oil. Wake up and smell the crude, the Canadian oil WILL BE BURNED in a more polluting way by China! And, as to spills, without a doubt, moving those kinds of volumes by boat is nuts and more risky then the proven safest way - a pipeline! In case you didn't know, even at current levels of China air pollution production, we on the west coast are getting some of it. Anyone who isn't a complete brainwashed Chicken Little should realize that the cleanest way to deal with burning oil will only be undertaken by the USA!
Therefore turning that job over to a semi-third world giant, that is also a dictatorship bent on world domination will only make your exaggerated CO2 issue worse (not to mention a 100 other issues)!
Richard Carlson
Just so you have a broader perspective, gas prices in the Netherlands are at just over $9 per gallon right now, based on 1,79 euro per liter and the current euro-to-dollar exchange rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd even though this is an historic high, gas prices over here haven't dipped below $6 per gallon for years. It seems hard to believe that the US can keep up keeping gas prices at the pump artificially low (which it has been for years).
Barring the fact of whether or not this would change peoples oil usage, this would help get us off of the arab oil that makes the markets go up and down like a yo-yo. This would also help ensure the good paying jobs in the refining industry, as the pipeline is intended to go to the large refineries in Texas. Why is it better to bring the oil from Saudi Arabia- by ship- with all of the chances for environmental problems, than pump it in a pipeline from Canada?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Canadians are going to sell that oil, doesn't matter what the USA thinks, why not buy it from a country that has shown itself to be our best ally? Let the Chinese and Europeans deal with the nut jobs in the middle east, time for us to leave that cesspool of discontent and cut and run.
Just my opinion of course..........
I just can't read a comment that starts out with someone using an apostrophe to pluralize Chicken Little, especially if it seems they're frothing-mouth-mad about something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJD, Ever hear of valves? A leaky pipeline is easily shutdown from many locations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, we're running the gamut on this one folks. All the way from completely ignoring Mankind's impact on the environment(keep that oil pumpin') to throwing off all fossil fuel usage in favor of a nebulous collection of semi-developed energy generation schemes(wind, solar, tide, geothermal, etc.) to a draw-down of human industrial activity to have us all attempt a lifestyle as enlightened Luddites with economic compensation all the way around to lessen the impact. We even have one poster whom has given up completely and seems to look forward to the coming extinction of the human race so the bunnies will finally be able to frolic in idyllic fields, free of fear from That Evil That Is Mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFun times, eh people?
I would love to see the cost on that analysis of 'clean energy' because it is going to kill the economy. The consumer is going to have to sholder the burden of the more expensive energy and also the subsidies are also a cost to the consumer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a fact that we will have to eventually move off of hydrocarbons for transpoortation but there is no way that it could be done in 10 years. There is simply no way to replace the fossil fuel based electric generation capacity with anything else on that short of a time frame. Also, the renewables are hampered by base load concerns that have to be met. That means that we have to have 100% backup in either nuclear or fossil fueled capacity which doesn't seem to pass economic muster. We could legislate it to be but then there is the problem of cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like everyone to sit back for a second and think about how transportation, using fossil fuels, impacts their lives and then think about reasonable alternatives. Trucking and rail shipping are very intensive users of diesel fuel and there is not a readily usable alternative available now or even in the next 10 years. Just to switch to natural gas (CNG) we are talking about a huge change in fuel distribution and usage as well as safety concerns. I do not know about you but pressurized natural gas refueling stations put me on edge when I think about the 'normal' person using them and then driving around with a pressurized natural gas tank in their car.
And what happens when the sun is not shining?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps a quick fact-check is in order. transporting oilsands goo "across the Rockies" {Gateway project) enroute to China will NOT cost more than sending it south. Gateway [including marine tran-shipment facilities] bears a $5.5(Cdn)billion price-tag; Keystone XL is currently priced at $7 billion. And guess who's been buying up Alberta tar-pits plays like mad the past 15 months. (hint: not USA)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Assistants' or 'assistance'? Truth is, I'm a schoolteacher, not a Ms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInvestments are only a boondoggle if the capital is squandered, for example emphasizing dividends over capital reinvestment, or spending capital on idle equipment. There are reasonable, appropriate investments in non-fossil-fuel energies, and no amount of unfounded hyperbole like "hare-brained green fantasies" or "green gofer holes" is going to convince us otherwise. Of course there are boondoggles in solar/wind, just as there have been in oil/gas.
Proper spelling and reasoned statements will get you much further than wild exaggeration and all-caps.
Hats off to the Canadians for cleaning up the most massive environmental disaster of an oil spill the world has ever known.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it happened millions of years ago, but those neat freak Canucks are still willing to take on the challenge and clean it all up.
Maybe Greenpeace, the WWF and Sierra Club should roll up their sleeves, pitch in and help with the mess?
I'm so happy that the Obama administration has cleverly shielded itself from blame for today's (and tommorrow's) higher energy prices, by blaming the Republicans for attempting to rush the decision on Keystone alternate routes. Oil is bad, no matter where it comes from or how its routed, and Obama knows this. Unfortunately, he can't come right out and say that Keystone was rejected for this reason, because most of the US population consists of stupid people who cannot tolerate a few more dollars added to the price of a gallon of gasoline. These short-sighted cretins would vote for Obama's opponent in November, should they know the real reason for killing Keystone. We cannot allow this to happen, so perhaps we all should tone down our anti-oil rhetoric. Allow our leader to win in November first, then we all can work together at gathering the ignorant masses together, forcibly removing them, if need be, from the far-flung suburbs in which they reside, and put them to work in or very near dense urban areas. Let's tear up and eliminate most highways, except for those critical for military use - we'll need them for population control. Once we have consolidated our control over the ignorant proletariat, we can complete their re-education, stripping them of their religion and guns - according to the wishes of our Dear Leader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess I'm out. Crossed some line?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Carlson
If everything is run from electricity in ten years then everything _will_ be run from electricity. That means every firetruck, ambulance, snowplow, tractor, commercial truck, train, boat and ship, crane, bulldozer, airplane, car, motorcycle, fuel powered backup generator ... everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when a region is hit by a widespread power interruption due to some misadventure _everything_ will grind to a halt for as long as it takes to fix the problem.
As long as it takes. If that means weeks then that's what it means. And if that means that all the equipment that would normally be used to cope with the problem causing the loss of power is also disabled, because now they run off the power grid too, then that's also what it means.
Be careful what you wish for.
On the contrary, there is far greater resilience to localized disaster with an electric smart grid. As an immediate response volunteers can feed energy from their electric car batteries or home solar systems into the grid. In minutes energy can be rerouted from some other section of the nation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if there are still shortages, home and community run solar, wind, and geothermal can feed in. So, instead of a community being reliant on just a few nearby power plants, there are tens of thousands of sources distributed widely.