Fossil Fuel theory.

dewsbury

Just wondering....

The world has a limited amount of oil & coal etc.

The general view would seem to be that we will begin to run out of oil/coal in the next few decades.

So WHY do environmentalists try to reduce fossil consumption when it will all be used up sooner or later???

mukki

lol,



good point

Húrin

dewsbury wrote: »

Just wondering....

The world has a limited amount of oil & coal etc.

The general view would seem to be that we will begin to run out of oil/coal in the next few decades.

So WHY do environmentalists try to reduce fossil consumption when it will all be used up sooner or later???

Because fossil fuels cause greenhouse gas emissions. The world has til 2015 to peak these emissions. We are at the time of peak oil now. That means that we are extracting more than we ever have before. It will take a couple of decades for oil to become so scarce that we aren't burning it anymore.

Gas production will probably not peak until late in this century.

Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels and unfortunately the most plentiful. It will probably not peak until the late 22nd century.

Thus is is imperative to reduce the burning of these fuels as soon as possible. This will not only give the atmosphere a chance, but will ensure a soft landing from peak oil.

dewsbury

Thanks Hurin,

...just for arguments sake..

You indicate that there is a couple of decades left of oil.

It would seem futile to try to persuade this oil obsessed world to reduce consumption when all the oil will be gone in 20 years anyway??

Is it realistic to expect the USA and indeed many other countries to reverse the oil consumption in this time frame?

(I accept that coal may be a different matter).

Jack Sheehan

Simplified, when people run out of oil and gas, they will use coal, when they run out of coal they will use tar sands, shale etc. Each of these is dirtier than the last and burning them all will do irreperable damage to the world.

Capt'n Midnight

Most oil wells don't run dry they just run out of easily accessible oil. Up to 2/3rd's is left in the ground. If the price of oil goes up or someone figures a way to get it out of the ground they will extract more of it.

Also the Chinese/Indians will want the same as us. We have to lead by example. If only we coud do something about the yanks.

Spyral

what about all the oil under canada.. there's more oil about than you think.

stick-dan

Why does everyone refuse to accept renewable resources of energy. Nowadays they are not m uch cheaper. Cars can be run on other resources now.Imagine all the world's motors running of renewable energy. That would give us an extra 50 years to the timeline of destruction of the planet.

silverharp

from a GW perspective coal should be targeted for planned reduction in consumption. If we are going to pay carbon taxes then one option would be to buy out coal reserves and put them off limits, this would cause coal prices to increase and would affect consumption in China.
As for oil, its not running out but in 20 years there will probably be only half the current consumption. it would be wise for society to reduce consumption regardless of GW arguments.

Glowing

I dread to think whats going to happen when we only have one oil reserve left and it's controlled by one country.

Húrin

dewsbury wrote: »

Thanks Hurin,

...just for arguments sake..

You indicate that there is a couple of decades left of oil.

It would seem futile to try to persuade this oil obsessed world to reduce consumption when all the oil will be gone in 20 years anyway??

Is it realistic to expect the USA and indeed many other countries to reverse the oil consumption in this time frame?

To get off oil entirely? No. To reduce consumption drastically? Certainly; even Bush wants to break America's addiction to oil.

If oil is running out it means that prices are becoming ever higher for everyone, especially considering that demand is increasing. It would be financially stupid not to stop using it.

Then there is the climate change argument.

bonkey

So WHY do environmentalists try to reduce fossil consumption when it will all be used up sooner or later???

Lets say you were given the following choices....which would you pick?

0) have a 50g weight dropped on your head, from a height of 1cm, once a day every day, for 10000 days
1) have a 500g weight dropped on your head, from a height of 1cm, once a day every day, for 1000 days
2) have a 5kg weight dropped on your head, from a height of 1cm, once a day, every day, for 100 days
3) have a 50kg weight dropped on your head, from a height of 1cm, once a day, every day, for 10 days
4) have a 500kg weight dropped on your head, from a height of 1cm, once.

In each case, your head will have the same total weight dropped on it. Does that mean that there's no difference between the various options, and the damage they will do?

If you agree that there might just be a difference, then apply the same logic to the impact of fossil-fuel consumption on the environment, and you should have the core of the answer to your question.