Chris -thanks for putting this together. I'd not actually seen this yet, but I do remember that interview at the end of the conference being in between large pints of cold Guinness. I am curious how the video folks were able to superimpose Michael Moore's image with my voice...;-)

I think it would be a great format (if we had more resources, namely time) to have our authors give a 1 minute video summary of the posts at the top, for people to get the main gist - if they are interested and have more time then can read the entire article.

A cultural observation - why are Brits (in general, but yourself included), so consistently articulate??

I think Chris is wrong about peak oil mitigating climate change. If we burn even half our proven oil, natural gas and coal reserves, we pass the threshold that gives us 450ppm CO₂, commonly considered the point beyond which we're in the shit.

I suppose I should write an article on it... I talk about a related topic in asking if my personal goal of changing our personal emissions to a tonne each, if this will avoid any climate change at all. I say probably not.

Currently we emit a total of about 49Gt CO_2e annually, about 58% is from burning fossil fuels, and 8% is from fertiliser - ultimately natural gas. So 67%, two-thirds is from fossil fuels directly. That's quite a bit.

But note also that 17.3% or 8.5Gt CO_2e comes from deforestation, and in some parts of the world if fossil fuels become short, there's going to be a lot more deforestation. You've got to cook with something, after all. So absent fossil fuels, we can expect that 8.5Gt CO_2e to grow considerably. But let's be optimistic and assume that for every tree cut down, another is planted and cared for over a century or so, and that climate change doesn't affect the forests badly overall, and it all balances out nicely from tomorrow until 2100.

Apart from the forests, what will happen when the oil runs short? Well, if the market's allowed to decide, people will use more natural gas and coal. The Australian government for many years has offered subsidies to convert petrol-driven cars to LNG; expect this sort of thing to happen across the West as oil becomes more expensive.

So we can't look at just the oil, we have to consider coal and natural gas, too.

Already since 2000 we've put about 315Gt CO_2e into the atmosphere, and as I noted, we're putting another 49Gt CO_2e annually. Ultimately how much stuff can we burn and put out there? Well, let's take the optimistic but not insane reserves estimates you find here and there. Then let's combine them with the CO_2e emissions of each; for the sake of argument we'll assume perfect combustion (5-10% of all methane just leaks out of mines and pipelines).

Oil, 1,317Gbbl @ 450kg CO2e/bbl = 593Gt CO_2e
Coal, 998Gt @ 2,350kg CO2e/t = 2,854Gt CO_2e
Natural gas, 6,074 trillion cu ft @ 52.2kg CO2e/1,000 cu ft 316Gt CO_2e
So the total of burning all fossil fuels is 3,763Gt CO_2e

If we just burn the oil, the 315Gt existing emissions this century plus the 593Gt gives us 908Gt CO_2e.

Of course if we burn all the oil then people will burn all the natural gas and coal, too. So we hit the 3,763Gt.

The IPCC told us in 2004 that

on current understanding of climate carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest that to stabilise at 450 ppm carbon dioxide, could require that cumulative emissions over the 21st century be reduced from an average of approximately 670 [630 to 710] GtC (2460 [2310 to 2600] GtCO2) to approximately 490 [375 to 600] GtC (1800 [1370 to 2200] GtCO2). Similarly, to stabilise at 1000 ppm this feedback could require that cumulative emissions be reduced from a model average of approximately 1415 [1340 to 1490] GtC (5190 [4910 to 5460] GtCO2)

In other words, if we can keep 21st century total emissions to 1,800Gt CO_2e, we'll be in the shit but won't have a total catastrophe; if we head up to 5,190Gt CO_2e then we're really in trouble, past that forget about it.

Once we've burned all the oil and natural gas, we actually only have to burn 20% of the coal to pass that 1,800Gt threshold. Burning it all takes us to 4,078Gt. That's not far off the threshold that takes us eventually to 1,000ppm. Remember that 8.5Gt of deforestation we've got annually? That'd be 782Gt if taken to 2100, and if Chris is right about the Third World losing its electricity - well, Senegalese are going to burn their forests for cooking and light. That takes us well into 1,000ppm territory.

Okay, you say, peak oil is all about that we won't be able to get it all out. Of course, that doesn't apply to "proven" reserves over 92 years, those are all coming out, it's more for these "unproven", ie stupidly expensive reserves.

But let's be optimistic - over the next 92 years, we mine just half of it. We still get 1,881Gt, plus the existing 315Gt makes it 2,196Gt CO_2e. That's past the threshold.

Assuming a free market, peak oil will not in any way mitigate climate change. To avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to stop using fossil fuels long before we're forced to by circumstance.

You can play with the numbers a bit, assume declining carbon sinks and so on, but it doesn't really change the overall picture: we have to choose to stop using fossil fuels before we're forced to, if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Hey, good job Nate & Chris! And I like the dark background... you could insert images over their shoulders (naked women, 700 slaves, oil fires, etc).

Really a nice presentation for what it is, and it hints at just how effective really scripted pieces could be. If you want to move the masses, video tweaks their knobs like text never will.

Two directions for this would be short 'viral' videos with a jarring or compelling 'hook' of some kind, and more conventional targeted productions. These are easily done these days; in fact so easily that most doing it fail to invest the time to make the pacing, wording, and emotional arc perfect.

Then there's the question of whether or not to create a celebrity or two for it; there are pros and cons to that.

Perhaps there could be a "TOD: Short Attention Span" section for summary videos.

Just do it!

Chris and Nate;
Well done! I think it's great to see faces, hear voices in conjunction with TOD. I would like to see a TOD page with a prominent link at the top of the Main Page that works like a video FAQ, maybe a dozen short-topics with basic PO premises presented like these. There should be a Thumbnail frame with an appropriate face or Image, and a Short HEADER Title to draw people quickly to an issue they want to hear about.

"Are the GAS STATIONS just Robbing Us, or is it the Oil Co's?"

"Why do people Oppose Ethanol?"

"What about those TAR SANDS and SHALE OIL?"

etc, etc,... and then avoid having a superabundance of links, but maybe a single pointer to "More on TAR SANDS", including a few articles and a few TOD Discussions that 'got into it', relevant charts.. But initially, to make a quick-grab page for some slightly elaborated Bullet-points.

I linked to the 'Robert Newman's History of Oil' (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8957268309327954402) during Luis's video thread, last week, as an example of one I found very watchable, but it's a big bellyful timewise for the web. He's a talented comedian, of course, who've we got?.. but maybe he'd be interested, too.

Finally, even those 8 to 15 minutes were too long for the kind of Hook pieces I'm thinking of.. I'd say 2minutes tops, then maybe you can opt to watch more or read from further links.

I think that web-video IS a great information tool, but it's more like a 'Speed-chess' medium than a place for a lot of extensive detail and nuance. Get in with a good hook-line, make your point with a couple good examples, and get out. The rest can be done in the follow-ups.

It's power with impressionism is just as important, but I'll leave it for another time.

Bob Fiske

(edited)

The problem is that on mass people cannot agree on anyting. We are indeed in the shit!
Read the oil drum, you get the impression most contributers are fairly bright people, yet there are opposing views all the time (me included). an example is the "cat and dog" argument renewables vs nuclear ( this is not restricted to the Oil Drum). I have just read an article in the IET journal 1ssue 4, 8-21 March 2008 "Feed Back" section page 24. The article was posted by Dr. Will Powell and is "Pleading" for a hydrogen economy.
I don't know if Euan Mearns will read this post, but if (you) do and can get hold of a copy of the magazine you will get my point. Like (you) Euan (my impression from reading his comments) I am not convinced the physics of a hydrogen economy make sense, yet on paper this guy has credentials that many would envy. If members of the public (including us), or a politician for that matter, were to read the opinions of these highly qualified people, one could be forgiven for not really understanding what the problem is and how to solve it. (sorry for all the brackets).

very well said from both of you, keep up the important work