ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS
Climate Change… Global Warming… Greenhouse Effect… Holes in the Ozone layer…
We depend on our cars to take us to work and get our children to school. We rely on our home heating
systems to keep us warm in the winter. We take it for granted that we can easily switch on our computer,
vacuum cleaner or oven.
Yet scientists say the sources of energy we need to power all these modern conveniences are running
dangerously low. We could run out of oil in as little as 40 years, and out of natural gas soon after that
[source: The Independent]. These fossil fuels have been percolating beneath the Earth for hundreds of
millions of years, and once they're gone, they're going to take millions more years to replenish. Not only
are we running out of fossil fuels, but they're adding to our environmental woes by releasing nasty
byproducts that increase pollution and contribute to global warming.
THE INDEPENDENT
World oil supplies are set to run out
faster than expected, warn scientists
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies will
start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves,
warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are
prepared to admit.
BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that
the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at
current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again
pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry.
However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that
global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a
steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and
the way that we live our lives.
According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our
discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves.
Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: "It's quite a simple theory and
one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the
faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."
Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors
including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of
regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005.
Even when you factor in the more difficult to extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves,
polar regions and liquid taken from gas, the peak will come as soon as 2011, he says.
This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has
dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.
"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint. When peak oil comes, it is
just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps because of climate change
policies as from production peaking."
In recent years the once-considerable gap between demand and supply has narrowed.
Last year that gap all but disappeared. The consequences of a shortfall would be
immense. If consumption begins to exceed production by even the smallest amount,
the price of oil could soar above $100 a barrel. A global recession would follow.
Jeremy Leggett, like Dr Campbell, is a geologist-turned conservationist whose book
Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis brought " peak oil" theory
to a wider audience. He compares industry and government reluctance to face up to
the impending end of oil, to climate change denial.
"It reminds me of the way no one would listen for years to scientists warning about
global warming," he says. "We were predicting things pretty much exactly as they
have played out. Then as now we were wondering what it would take to get people to
listen."
In 1999, Britain's oil reserves in the North Sea peaked, but for two years after this
became apparent, Mr Leggett claims, it was heresy for anyone in official circles to say
so. "Not meeting demand is not an option. In fact, it is an act of treason," he says.
One thing most oil analysts agree on is that depletion of oil fields follows a
predictable bell curve. This has not changed since the Shell geologist M King Hubbert
made a mathematical model in 1956 to predict what would happen to US petroleum
production. The Hubbert Curveshows that at the beginning production from any oil
field rises sharply, then reaches a plateau before falling into a terminal decline. His
prediction that US production would peak in 1969 was ridiculed by those who
claimed it could increase indefinitely. In the event it peaked in 1970 and has been in
decline ever since.
In the 1970s Chris Skrebowski was a long-term planner for BP. Today he edits the
Petroleum Review and is one of a growing number of industry insiders converting to
peak theory. "I was extremely sceptical to start with," he now admits. "We have
enough capacity coming online for the next two-and-a-half years. After that the
situation deteriorates."
What no one, not even BP, disagrees with is that demand is surging. The rapid growth
of China and India matched with the developed world's dependence on oil, mean that
a lot more oil will have to come from somewhere. BP's review shows that world
demand for oil has grown faster in the past five years than in the second half of the
1990s. Today we consume an average of 85 million barrels daily. According to the
most conservative estimates from the International Energy Agency that figure will
rise to 113 million barrels by 2030.
Two-thirds of the world's oil reserves lie in the Middle East and increasing demand
will have to be met with massive increases in supply from this region.
BP's Statistical Review is the most widely used estimate of world oil reserves but as
Dr Campbell points out it is only a summary of highly political estimates supplied by
governments and oil companies.
As Dr Campbell explains: "When I was the boss of an oil company I would never tell
the truth. It's not part of the game."
A survey of the four countries with the biggest reported reserves - Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Iraq and Kuwait - reveals major concerns. In Kuwait last year, a journalist found
documents suggesting the country's real reserves were half of what was reported. Iran
this year became the first major oil producer to introduce oil rationing - an indication
of the administration's view on which way oil reserves are going.
Sadad al-Huseini knows more about Saudi Arabia's oil reserves than perhaps anyone
else. He retired as chief executive of the kingdom's oil corporation two years ago, and
his view on how much Saudi production can be increased is sobering. "The problem is
that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002 to 84.5 million in 2004. You're
leaping by two to three million [barrels a day]" each year, he told The New York
Times. "That's like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years. It can't be done
indefinitely."
The importance of black gold
* A reduction of as little as 10 to 15 per cent could cripple oil-dependent industrial
economies. In the 1970s, a reduction of just 5 per cent caused a price increase of more
than 400 per cent.
* Most farming equipment is either built in oil-powered plants or uses diesel as fuel.
Nearly all pesticides and many fertilisers are made from oil.
* Most plastics, used in everything from computers and mobile phones to pipelines,
clothing and carpets, are made from oil-based substances.
* Manufacturing requires huge amounts of fossil fuels. The construction of a single
car in the US requires, on average, at least 20 barrels of oil.
* Most renewable energy equipment requires large amounts of oil to produce.
* Metal production - particularly aluminium - cosmetics, hair dye, ink and many
common painkillers all rely on oil.
Alternative sources of power
Coal
There are still an estimated 909 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide,
enough to last at least 155 years. But coal is a fossil fuel and a dirty energy source that
will only add to global warming.
Natural gas
The natural gas fields in Siberia, Alaska and the Middle East should last 20 years
longer than the world's oil reserves but, although cleaner than oil, natural gas is still a
fossil fuel that emits pollutants. It is also expensive to extract and transport as it has to
be liquefied.
Hydrogen fuel cells
Hydrogen fuel cells would provide us with a permanent, renewable, clean energy
source as they combine hydrogen and oxygen chemically to produce electricity, water
and heat. The difficulty, however, is that there isn't enough hydrogen to go round and
the few clean ways of producing it are expensive.
Biofuels
Ethanol from corn and maize has become a popular alternative to oil. However,
studies suggest ethanol production has a negative effect on energy investment and the
environment because of the space required to grow what we need.
Renewable energy
Oil-dependent nations are turning to renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric,
solar and wind power to provide an alternative to oil but the likelihood of renewable
sources providing enough energy is slim.
Nuclear
Fears of the world's uranium supply running out have been allayed by improved
reactors and the possibility of using thorium as a nuclear fuel. But an increase in the
number of reactors across the globe would increase the chance of a disaster and the
risk of dangerous substances getting into the hands of terrorists.
ARE CLIMATE SKEPTICS RIGHT?
Conventional wisdom agrees that industrial pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and an increased use of
fossil fuels are directly contributing to a global warming trend. You've heard about it at school, at work,
on the news -- even in sitcoms. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore won an Academy Award and a
Nobel Prize for his documentary on climate change, "An Inconvenient Truth." This warming trend is
expected to result in glacial melting, rising sea levels, droughts, increased severe weather events like
tornadoes and hurricanes, species extinctions, and a harder life in general for humanity.
Global Warming Image Gallery
NOAA via Getty Images
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that,
by 2100, weather events like hurricanes will increase in
intensity. See more global warming images.
Some people feel that the harsh effect of climate change on humankind is poetic punishment for crimes
against the Earth. After all, everybody knows that climate change is humanity's fault. Right? Global
warming proponents and skeptics are deeply divided, angrily attacking each other as crackpots who
dismiss the obvious effects of global warming or sheep-like followers who have bought into
environmental chicanery.
The United Nations founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 as a
think tank for thousands of scientists covering a wide array of specialties, all working together to
examine global warming and what can be done to circumvent it. Over two decades, the panel became
the leading authority on climate change and its study, producing reports that form the definitive source of
information on global warming. Climate skeptics single out the work of this body in their search for
logical flaws.
But finding flaws works both ways. The environmental organization Greenpeace discredited many
climate skeptic groups by exposing companies with a vested interest in disavowing global warming -like oil conglomerate Exxon-Mobil -- as major sources of funding for these groups. Greenpeace claims
its efforts -- like the ExxonSecrets project -- had the effect of Exxon cutting off funding to some of
these groups [source: ExxonSecrets].
Everyday people on both sides of the debate are also doing more to follow their beliefs. On the extreme
end, at least two women underwent sterilization procedures because they believe that having children
will only serve to worsen the population growth problems facing the Earth [source: Fox News].
On the other side, two Russian solar physicists made a $10,000 bet with a British climatologist that the
Earth will actually cool in the next decade. These physicists believe that we are merely experiencing a
temporary climate shift based on solar fluctuations, which will return to normal in the next few years.
They're basing their bet on comparisons between global surface temperatures taken between 1998 and
2003 with ones that will be taken from 2012 to 2017 [source: Adam].
It's evident the debate over climate change is a heated one. Are skeptics clouding the public judgment
for money? Are climate-change believers merely alarmists who risk the present for the future? It's wise
to remember that for each argument one side makes, the other has a counterargument and can dismiss
the other every step of the way.
While the public is well-versed in arguments for human-induced climate change, let's examine what
some skeptics believe.
Global Warming Skeptics'
Arguments
Since global warming became a major issue, climatology has become a hot-button scientific field.
Weather stations throughout the world collect data to help scientists create computer models that help
them track global climate change.
Peter Essick/Aurora/Getty Images
Weather stations, like this one, collect information throughout
the world. But are some more reliable than others?
These models form the basis of much of the IPCC's reports, which warn of global climate change. But
climate skeptics take issue with this process.
Some people simply don't believe that the Earth is undergoing a global warming trend or climate change.
Others believe in global warming and climate change, but don't believe that people are responsible. The
skeptics who don't believe in global warming at all are the ones who most vehemently attack weather
data, the analysis of the climatologists and the predictions of the models.
Anti-global warming skeptics say the placement of some weather stations in urban areas may produce
inaccurate measurements. According to them, the data are being corrupted by the urban heat island,
an effect produced by cities' transportation, large amounts of heat-absorbing asphalt, and high
concentrations of carbon dioxide coming from the many homes and businesses in high-population areas.
Global warming skeptics also believe the models used to predict Earth's future under global warming
are unreliable. They feel that while the sun, clouds, gases, glaciers and oceans are responsible for
weather, so, too, are other factors, including some we don't currently understand. According to global
warming skeptics, computer models are merely a guess at what will happen on Earth in the future -something climatologists don't deny -- and an arguably poor guess at that. After all, if we can't
accurately predict the weather a week from now, how can we predict the global climate in 100 years?
Others don't believe we're experiencing a global warming trend at all. The annual temperature between
1998 and 2007 actually decreased, despite the 4 percent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
during that same period. They also point out that, while the Northern Hemisphere has warmed, the
Southern Hemisphere has actually cooled. "Global warming was supposed to actually be global, not
hemispheric," says skeptic -- and Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project -Tom Harris [source: Canada Free Press].
These same skeptics find fault in the historical data used to graph things like glacial loss and hurricane
frequency. Although weather data, like temperature, have been actively collected since 1850, it wasn't
until the relatively recent access to detailed weather satellite photography that scientists were able to
see changes in the Greenland ice shelf that global warming believers say is in such danger. Skeptics
ask: How can we know how long it's been receding?
Perhaps the meteorological event most often used by global warming skeptics as a counterargument is
the Medieval Warm Period. Around the 9th to 14th centuries, regions around the world experienced an
increase in temperatures, similar to what we see today [source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration]. Following this period, the Earth experienced a Little Ice Age where global temperatures
cooled. It is conceivable that the Earth is currently experiencing something similar to this, skeptics say.
Their point is, we simply don't know enough about long-term weather systems to say for certain one way
or the other.
The skeptics of human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming don't dismiss global warming outright,
they just don't believe that human activity is responsible.
Anthropogenic Skeptics
A 2003 research paper published in the journal Science discussed the analysis of three ice core
samples taken from Antarctica. The ice was around 240,000 years old, from the third Termination
period, a climactic shift which ends each ice age. The findings showed that carbon dioxide
concentrations rose between 600 to 1000 years before temperatures did, and before the Antarctic
glaciers began to melt. The paper's authors suggested that carbon dioxide may not be the cause of
global warming, but that it contributes to the process: Rising temperatures release carbon dioxide
trapped in glacial ice and elsewhere, causing global temperature to rise even further.
Vin Morgan/AFP/Getty Images
Ice core samples, like this one collected in Antarctica in 1993,
are used to support and disprove theories about climate
change.
This paper shows that the carbon dioxide increases may follow rising temperatures, not the other way
around. What's more, the ice samples suggest this is a natural process. This observation is just one of
the factors that, in the eyes of anthropogenic global warming skeptics, lets humans off the hook for
global warming. Although they are satisfied with findings that the Earth is in a major warming trend,
anthropogenic global warming skeptics believe that science places the blame on humanity without
enough scientific proof to back it up.
Skeptics of anthropogenic climate change claim that reports compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change are the result of diplomatic negotiations, rather than unbiased science. For example,
a representative from an oil-producing state may object to including analysis which is particularly harsh
toward use of fossil fuels in a report. If all of the science isn't present in the reports released by the IPCC,
skeptics reason, what else is missing?
For example, in 2001, the IPCC used a graph nicknamed the "hockey stick," produced by climatologist
Michael Mann, in its Third Assessment Report. The graph clearly shows the effects of human activity on
climate change, with a spike upwards around the advent of the Industrial Revolution, when humanity's
carbon dioxide emissions began in earnest. This graph is a dramatic representation of humankind's
interference with nature and appears to be irrefutable proof of anthropogenic climate change.
But skeptics investigating Mann's methods believe that he had misused some data, specifically data
from tree rings which indicated a response to carbon dioxide rather than temperature, to make his graph
show the results he wanted. Mann vehemently defends his methodology.
Regardless of who or what is to blame, if anthropogenic climate change skeptics believe in global
warming, then where's the rub?
Mitigation and Adaptation
In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns of the
dire future the Earth will face if global warming continues at the predicted rate. As many as 70 percent of
extant species may become extinct if temperatures increase by more than 3 degrees Celsius per year.
Millions of people may die from floods, droughts, blizzards and other weird weather patterns. Currently
arable land will become arid desert, and water resources will become strained.
Thomas Mukoya/AFP/Getty Images
Water resources are already scarce in some regions (like
Somalia, shown above), and the IPCC warns that under global
warming, water resources will only become more strained.
To combat these dire consequences, the IPCC advises people to take a two-pronged approach toward
dealing with global warming: mitigation and adaptation. Rather than serving as a uniting force -- a
rallying point for believers in climate change to meet -- this approach created a schism between climate
change factions.
Mitigation supposes that people can have an impact on reversing climate change. It also implies that
human activity is at least in part responsible for global warming. Anthropogenic skeptics find this claim to
be false and opt instead to support adaptation measures.
Adaptation efforts aim to help humanity thrive as a species under the future conditions of climate change.
These include relocating settlements in areas projected to become arid land or under water in the next
century. Or encouraging the reuse of gray water. Or learning how to farm on mountaintops, where much
of the precipitation is projected to occur by 2100. Or keeping an eye on diseases which thrive in hotter
climes, like malaria.
Anthropogenic warming skeptics believe adaptation is the key to surviving what they consider an
irreversible tide. They believe mitigation, on the other hand, could spell disaster. If enforced, they say,
mitigation could actually prevent adaptation.
Mitigation relies on regulation. The IPCC's mitigation measures include, first and foremost, a reduction
in the emission of carbon dioxide. Skeptics claim that government-mandated reductions could damage
economies by forcing developing countries to utilize expensive alternatives to fossil fuels for their
budding industries. If regulations are enforced, and if mitigation isn't enough, these nations won't have
the finances to fund adaptation procedures when they're most needed.
Skeptics also criticize the effects biofuel could have on the global food supply. Arable land is valuable
throughout the world, and if farmers opt to grow switchgrass for use in ethanol fuel production, food
supplies could become strained as prices rose. And those in developing countries eating grain-based
diets wouldn't be the only ones to suffer. Livestock requires grain, and an increase in grain prices could
also lead to reductions in meat production, affecting richer countries as well.
Then again, livestock requires water -- about 1,000 times more per ton than it takes to produce a ton of
grain. So if future climate change reduces global water supply, people won't have livestock anyway. Not
to mention the myriad other problems that will come along with global warming, if the IPCC is correct.
And here we reach the reason for the urgency -- and the passion -- behind the arguments on both sides
of the climate change debate. Inaction risks future catastrophe. Hasty action may cause present
calamity