next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Dear All, Dec 14, 2015
While it is welcome to hear that 55 countries representing 55% of world
greenhouse gas emissions have reached an agreement to combat excessive
carbon dioxide emissions some aspects of this agreement resemble an
ocean-going ship with a water-soluble hull.
Two passages in May's report set off my alarm bells; these being-- "can
we avoid the worst of the climate crisis ?...To do so requires transitioning
off fossil fuels." And; "It clearly means the world has accepted that most
known reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the ground."
Perhaps the science has now changed but I think it has been commonly
accepted that the rate of carbon emission is critical, not the cumulative
amount of carbon emitted. Assuming this still holds and the current rate of
fossil fuel use must be decreased, the relevant questions then become how
rapidly and to what level must this decrease be undertaken ?
Any attempt to unilaterally snuff out the fossil fuel industries would
be met with furious resistance by the industries and the entire agreement
would be reduced to futile posturing. And all those with infrastructure
geared to fossil fuels (just about everyone) would resist a transition away
from fossil fuels which was unrealistically rapid.
To take just one extreme example; the current cost of producing oil in
Russia is US$4 per barrel; 16 US quarters. If the fear were to arise there
that none of their oil could be pumped after say 2030 and they flooded the
market at just double their cost of production then the economic
consequences around the world would be horrendous. The current flooding of
the market by OPEC may be driven to some degree by fears of one day owning
an unmarketable resource. And even this modest reduction to $40 has had
severe consequences.
I expect most of the participants reached Paris by air, by far the most
carbon-intensive way to travel, when the meetings could have been held by
video link at a fraction of the carbon cost. And when industry has their
back to the wall you may be sure that they will take full advantage of that
soft underbelly.
Yours truly, Dave Webster, Kentville
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects