Oil Issues

"The Sirens Shrill"
by Astrid Schneider

The International Energy Agency (IEA) gives the alarm: The world could run out of oil faster than expected - the danger of a supply shortage is rising

Hunger for energy vs. energy shortage: While the demand for oil is on the rise, the production is decreasing - shortages, escalating prices and inflation are looming. When talking to energy politician Astrid Schneider, Faith Biro, chief economist of the IEA demands a change in policy from the member countries. His motto: leave oil before it leaves us.

Astrid Schneider:
Mr. Birol, in your "World Energy Outlook" which was published in November 2007 the IEA has warned for the first time that there could be a slump in oil production and escalating prices in the time from now to 2015. The reason you give is that there has been to little investment in oil production.

Fatih Birol:
Indeed. There are three reasons why that is so. The first one is the increasing demand, mostly from China, India and the Middle Eastern countries themselves. These countries are the main reason for the increasing oil consumption. Even if there should be a recession in the USA, this would not slow those countries down much, because India and China have a strong internal economic growth, while high oil prices will help the economy in the Middle East. The demand for oil will therefore remain high.

Schneider:
The second reason ...?

Birol: ... is, that we see a sharp decline in production from the existing oil fields, especially in the North Sea, the USA and many non-OPEC countries. Even here money should be invested, to slow down that decline. The third reason why we expect a risk for overall production is, that we looked at all oil exploration projects around the world: 230 altogether, in Saudi-Arabia, Venezuela, the North-Sea, everywhere. Even if all those projects which are already funded will be implemented, the overall capacity they can bring for new oil production is too little.

Schneider:
How much is missing?

Birol:
Exactly 12.5 million barrel a day are still missing, about 15 % of the global oil demand (the current global oil consumption is 84 million barrel a day, note from the editor). This gap means that we could face a supply shortage and very high prices during the next years.

Schneider:
Is there still a way to avoid this?

Birol:
There are only three ways out of this dilemma: First of all we have to increase energy-efficiency drastically, we have to build more economical cars, trucks and airplanes, to slow down the incline in oil consumption. Secondly we have to use more alternative fuels in the traffic sector. If you take a look at how little governments are doing to help higher efficiency, though, I have little hope that there will be such a change of policy. The third thing is that we need many more oil production projects, especially in the key countries in the OPEC.

Schneider:
You write that 5.4 trillion dollar have to be invested to meet the global oil demand. In which countries should this money be invested?

Birol:
In the Middle Eastern countries with a large oil supply - but I am not sure
that those countries and their oil corporations will invest as much as would be necessary. They might think that it is not in their own interest to raise the production that much, to keep the oil prices up. A further part of the investments has to go to the OPEC countries, to the USA and to the North-Sea, to prevent the decline of the oil production there.

Schneider:
In the WEO 2007 it is mentioned that the rapid decline of oil production will be between 3.7 and 4.2 percent per year. Is that right?

Birol:
Exactly-

Schneider:
This decline is even steeper than the one predicted by the Energy Watch Group!

Birol:
I can already tell you that in our "World Energy Outlook 2008" which will be published in November we will deal in depth with the prospects of the oil and gas production. We will take a look at the 350 most important oil and gas fields and explore how much production rates are sinking and what that means.

Schneider:
What do you mean by that?

Birol:
As far as I know this will be the first profound public study in which we verify and revise our knowledge about how much oil and gas is going to the markets. Many people will come to new conclusions about this.

Schneider:
One of the statements of the WEO 2007 is that the complete additional oil production has to come from the OPEC countries and especially the Middle East. Salem el-Badri, the general secretary of the OPEC has announced on a conference regarding energy security in London last February, that the OPEC wants to invest 200 billion dollar until 2012 to create new production capacities of 5 million barrel (mb) a day. This is a sharp contrast to the WEO 2007 where you state that to the year 2020 we need 24 mb per day in new production capacity to satisfy the rising demand for oil. So de facto Salem el-Badri says that the OPEC will not be able to meet the expectations. Doesn't that mean that we will run into serious problems?

Birol:
Indeed. this is the reason that this year for the first time we announce a "supply crunch" situation. There is a gap between the global demand for oil and the amount which is or can be brought to the market from that region. We think that the oil producers have to increase their production output significantly, but we are not sure that they will do it or even can do it.

Schneider:
Because they don't want to?

Birol:
Let's look at the numbers: up to 2015 there will be a gap between what we expect and what the oil producers are willing or able to do to increase their capacity. This gap shows the real and serious picture of the oil market. It could mean a supply crunch and escalating prices.

Schneider:
So the things I see in the WEO are more - if I may say so - a wishlist?

Birol:
You could put it that way. I think we are entering a new world oil order. The new players, which decide how much oil is going to the markets, are mostly public oil companies. For many reasons things will not be as easy as they have been before.

Schneider:
The Energy Watch Group has pointed out in its studies that the oil reserves in the Middle East are likely estimated 50 % too high. When you ask the Middle East countries today to increase their production capacities, how good is your knowledge on their oil reserves and on the amount those countries could produce if they wanted to?

Birol:
We are talking about a very important issue here and the most important accomplishment I expect from the WEO 2008 is more transparency as far as the oil reserves of the national as well as the international oil corporations is concerned.

Schneider:
Who are you hinting at?

Birol:
Just remember that a very well known international oil company has recently run into trouble because it did not have enough transparency. Therefore the IEA would like to see more openness in accord to data about oil reserves - it might be the national good of the individual states, but the rest of the world, other economies, the common wellbeing of everyone are dependent on it. At the moment we are flying almost blindly and we desperately need more insight here.

Schneider:
Does transparency alone help?

Birol:
Even if the oil reserves of Saudi-Arabia should be estimated wrongly by 50 %, they could increase their production from 12 mb a day to 18 mb. But I don't think they will raise production that much in the next 25 years. So there are mainly three different problems: geology, investment and policy of the main oil producers. Those three aspects taken together make the future of oil very difficult.

Schneider:
If I look at all those countries, there are big problems with Russia and its restrictive policy against international and market oriented oil corporations like Yukos; Iran and Iraq are international crisis hot spots, Saudi-Arabia has a very reluctant policy and seems to be difficult to approach for western companies ...

Birol:
Indeed, but that is completely legitimate.

Schneider:
... and last but not least Venezuela which has just stopped its oil exports to the energy corporation Exxon Mobil. These countries together hold 60 % of the world's oil reserves. But de facto we have no access to them, neither politically nor economically.

Birol:
That causes great strain on everyone and on our economic systems. When I look at the future, I see three strategic challenges in the energy sector: The first is oil and gas security. Just recently Russia has lowered its gas delivery to the Ukraine by 25 %. The second is climate change. And the third, and one has to admit we don't much talk about this, is the connection between energy and poverty, for example in Africa. Today 1.6 billion people, that is 40 % of the global population, have no access to electric power.

Schneider:
Will we be able to meet all three challenges?

Birol:
If you look at the dimensions, I don't think that the markets alone can solve those problems. We cannot leave everything to them. The national governments as well as international institutions have to help to define the rules and follow them. The issue is too important.

Schneider:
You are not alone with your warnings about supply shortages - at the world economy summit in Davos Jeroen von der Veer, the Shell CEO, admitted for the first time that conventional oil and gas will not suffice to cover world demand from the year 2015 onwards. Will this not lead to a further decline in production?

Birol:
Several people now think that the global oil and gas production will get into troubled waters soon, but this is not only due to resource depletion. The lack of investments are another problem, as well as the fact that some countries don't want to increase production.

Schneider:
For which we cannot blame them, can we?

Birol:
No. Before I joined the IEA I worked for the OPEC in Vienna. And every oil person had the same thoughts: I don't use up all the oil that I have today, but leave some for my children and grandchildren, so they will be able to make money from it as well. And I understand that. In many oil producing countries, oil is the sole or at least most important source of income.

Schneider:
So what is your conclusion?

Birol:
I would be very surprised if the oil productions would effortlessly increase during the next 20 to 25 years to meet, lets say, 120 mb a day without any problems. Even if the potential should be there, we will not get this oil to the markets. The conclusion is that we have to be prepared to see very turbulent, tight and high prices oil markets - this will not be good for the economy.

Schneider:
Let's assume the prices escalate - who will be hit first?

Birol:
It will be about who can afford x dollar per barrel. Some will be able to, others won't. The OECD countries will be among the lucky ones, but the developing countries will ...

Schneider:
... be the losers ...

Birol:
Exactly!

Schneider:
If I understand you correctly, you say that the demand for oil could rise 3 % globally every year, while we have to expect a decrease of 4 % in oil production in the time from now until 2015. That would be 7 % each year which are missing.

Birol:
The demand might increase a little slower. But there could be a large gap between what should be there and what actually will be there, especially if we do not put massive efforts into improving the efficiency of cars or change to other transportation systems. If we don't take measures on the consumer side, the consumption will continue to grow. And if we have not invested enough into oil production, we will flounder.

Schneider:
But when you think of the life cycle of goods, of the long investment cycles of machines, power stations or air conditioning systems: do you think an adjustment of the consumer side to a lower supply path could be done that fast?

Birol:
No, but I don't think that prices will go up that rapidly. We can see a gradual incline and that will give the people some time to adapt. But on the long run it has to be clear: if oil will be gone by 2030, or in 2040 or 2050 does not change much.

Schneider:
You really say that?

Birol:
Yes, one day it will definitely end. And I think we should leave oil before it leaves us. That should be our motto. So we should prepare for that day - through research and development on alternatives to oil, on which living standards we want to keep and what alternative ways we can find.

Schneider:
How will the global economy react to a new oil crisis?

Birol:
If there is a great gap between supply and demand, the economies will be hit hard - yet with large differences worldwide. The German economy will suffer less than that of the Sahel Zone countries. Nevertheless we expect less economic growth, rising inflation and more unemployment for the OECD countries as well.

Schneider:
And the poor countries?

Birol:
In the poor countries, most of all in Black Africa, in India and similar countries, the effects will be much more devastating. We have calculated for example that the oil importing countries in Black Africa have lost three percent of their economic growth due to rising oil prices. We should not forget that half the people in those countries live below the poverty line of one dollar a day.

Schneider:
Do you see the danger of military conflicts between countries with high and low resources, caused by the tension on the world market?

Birol:
In my official mandate I don't often speak about wars and such. But what I can tell you is, that energy issues and geopolitics are interwoven too much. The energy supply is becoming less and less an economic enterprise, but instead an economic enterprise plus geopolitics! That's bad news, and I don't like that at all. We need a dialogue between the producers and consumers.

Schneider:
You mentioned that we are at the eve of a new world energy order. Who are the new players?

Birol:
On the consumer side clearly China and India. They used to be very small participants in the market and we did not see much of them in the energy game so far. They have been mere street players but now they are growing more and more into full sized protagonists.

Schneider:
And on the producers' side?

Birol:
There it is the major oil producing countries: Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Russia. All those countries have one thing in common: the oil production is regulated by public oil corporations instead of the free market. That changes the game setup. They are not only new players, but it is a completely new situation. The rich OECD countries become less and less relevant. They are still important, but they will play a lesser role when we look into the future.

Schneider:
So the whole world economy depends on a few oil producing countries - and those countries you mentioned are not very democratic.

Birol:
Every country has its own political system which it should have set for itself. What we would like to see, though, is the opening of the markets of those countries. The free flowing of capital will be very important, so that everyone is free to invest in what he wants. But in the end these countries are free. They can decide what energy policy and political system they want.

Schneider:
What does that mean for us?

Birol:
At least we have to realize, that our oil and gas will come from countries where public corporations decide about production in the future. That is different from the past when more market oriented corporations did supply us. That is an important change.

Schneider:
The IEA has the mandate to keep watch over the oil market and to warn the OECD countries when there could be problems or shortages on the global oil market. How loud are your alarm bells ringing by now?

Birol:
We are talking about two different functions here. The first is that we can put reserves to the market when there is physically not enough oil to meet the demand. We did that in 2005 for example when the hurricane Katrina hit the USA. The second task is, as you have mentioned, to "sound the alarm". That's what we have done last year.

Schneider:
You already did ring the bell? When?

Birol:
With the World Energy Outlook 2007. It was a clear signal to the governments of all our member countries. They take energy and oil security much more important than before, now. And when we present the WEO 2008 this November, I think it possible that the sirens will shrill even louder.

Schneider:
But don't you have a process to call together the heads of state or the ministers of economy to talk to them about an oil supply crisis?

Birol:
We do have processes like that for a supply crisis. We call this an emergency situation and we can exchange information with the governments of all member countries in only a few hours time if that happens. We did that when Katrina hit.

Schneider:
Don't you see a difference there? On the one hand a crisis which is caused by a natural catastrophe which destroys some oil platforms and on the other hand something like a "longtime emergency"?

Birol:
Yes - and that is the reason we asked our member countries to switch policies. Just recently the USA and Japan did pass new bench marks for cars to reduce the energy consumption. We desperately need new rules and standards here. Europe is trying to meet the same standards at the moment, but I know some countries will have their difficulties with them.

Schneider:
Like for example Germany.

Birol:
They are still reluctant to put them into effect. But I think we give them the clear message to do it. All these are examples on how we are ringing the alarm bells, and we are ringing them loudly. I can tell you that I am very pleased to see many ministers moving into the right direction now - but it is not enough. Especially if you set the new measures in perspective to the dimension of the problems we are facing.

Schneider:
But isn't it time to give a clear signal? Especially since a lot of money is wrongly invested by the OECD countries - for example for building new airports, even though there will not be enough oil to constantly increase air travel?

Birol:
We do not only tell that to our member countries, but also to Peking or New Delhi. We explained to our Chinese and Indian colleagues how higher energy efficiency can help them, how public transport can change their life and where infrastructure investments should be put. But in the end it is up to the governments, how seriously they take our statements and warnings.

Schneider:
In the face of the looming supply crisis, wouldn't it be the right time now to call in a government conference on energy issues?

Birol:
We are discussing and checking the situation regularly. The next important step will be the WEO 2008. In 2009 we will invite to a ministerial meeting and and I expect the energy security to be among the most important issues alongside climate change. But again: It is up to the governments to take actions now. We have warned them.

Schneider:
So far we only talked about oil because it has the largest share in the global energy mix. The Energy Watch Group states that we cannot just double the amount of coal or uranium once oil starts to run out. Aside from climate issues, those energy sources are not unlimited either. What does the IEA say about this?

Birol:
There is a difference between coal and uranium. Coal is a global resource, it can be found almost anywhere and we have large amounts. But the problem is - if we leave the climate change out of this for a moment - that it is becoming more and more difficult to transport the coal from the mines to the consumption centres. After having talked about oil prices already, let me tell you that the price for coal has more than doubled since the beginning of 2006. The coal prices, too, are rising because China has become an important importer while we don't see a major increase in production anywhere.

Schneider:
How do you judge the situation for uranium? Today only 60 % of the supply comes from the mines, the rest comes from storage reserves which will be used up soon.

Birol:
For the uranium reserves we see no problem for the time after 2015 to 2020, as long as there are exploration efforts in key regions like Kazakhstan, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere. I don't think the uranium supply is the main problem for the nuclear economy, it is more a question of public acceptance.

Schneider:
In the light of the shortage and problems with oil, coal and gas, the OECD, the IEA and the United Nations have called for the building of more nuclear power stations to fight climate change. However, we would need three to four times as many nuclear power plants to be able to contribute enough power to make a difference.

Birol:
To limit global warming to two degrees (Celsius I suspect, note from translator) we have to change our system of energy production. There are four ways to do that in a climate neutral way: Energy efficiency, renewable energies, CO2 deposition and nuclear energy. If you split the necessary CO2 reduction to those techniques evenly, we would have to build 30 new nuclear power plants worldwide every year. That is almost impossible. We are currently building 1.5 new nuclear power plants a year.

Schneider:
So a renaissance of nuclear energy is out of the question as well?

Birol:
Nuclear power should at least keep its current 15 % share of the energy mix. When people from my own country ask me, if they should build a nuclear power plant, I tell them about the advantages and disadvantages. But I also tell them that a nuclear reactor should not be built against the will of the people who have to live in its environment. It might be good for the global economy, good for energy security and good for climate protection, but when the local people have a problem with it, we should definitely consider that in the planning.

http://www.energybulletin.net/43604.html

From The Energy Bulletin
by Tom Whipple

With crude oil now above $120 a barrel and threatening to go higher, it is clear that our preferred and convenient means of going places, our car, the airplane and the rental car soon are going to be parked because they will be too expensive to operate.

Like it or not, most of us are going to be riding some form of mass transit or multiple passenger vehicle – trains, buses, trolleys, car pools, van pools etc.- while waiting for our cars to be replaced with electric or higher mileage vehicles. As there are currently about 220 million cars and light trucks registered in the U.S. and 700 million or so elsewhere, the replacement process is going to be lengthy one.

In America, our accustomed daily transportation needs are so diverse that it is difficult to foresee how new transportation methods and patterns will come about. For some simply accepting the inconvenience of taking public transit to work or joining a car pool will save enough gasoline each week that much higher prices, shortages and ultimately rationing can be accommodated without undue hardship.

For others whose livelihood depends on a large vehicle that moves frequently throughout the work day there is more of a problem for mass transit as currently configured is unlikely to be of much use. At some point driving around at 10 mpg to mow lawns will no longer be economically viable for customers will no longer be willing to pay the fuel surcharges. Someday there probably will be satisfactory electric or ultra high mileage vehicles, but it is likely to be a while before they filter down from better off organizations such UPS, FedEx and the grocery stores to local maintenance contractors.

One day soon, it will simply be too expensive for electricians, plumbers and a myriad of other household service providers to drive 50 or 60 miles in large, inefficient vehicles to perform some relatively minor maintenance task. The very nature of such services will have to change, be localized, and planned so that travel is minimized. Someday, your electrician may arrive on a city bus pulling his tools and parts behind.

The speed with which we have to transition from unlimited, cheap, personal travel to some form of public or at least multiple passenger transport will determine how transit works in the coming decades. If people are priced out of their cars relatively slowly over a period of many years then the transit industry and private entrepreneurs will have time to react. Bus schedules can be stepped up. More vehicles can be added to transit fleets and new routes can be added. Local governments might start or charter small local transit services that can move people and goods to and from their homes to longer-haul transit services.

There may be efficiencies in combining people transport and package delivery on the same vehicle. An empty bus winding around a subdivision all day long might be unaffordable, but if that vehicle were delivering the groceries as well as providing the last leg of package deliveries, the economics even with very high gasoline prices might make sense. The internet and cell phone are likely to be of great value in coordinating efficient use of local transport.

Five dollar gasoline may be enough to force some people to give up steady use of their personal cars and seek other solutions. For others, the quitting price may be ten or twenty dollars per gallon and for the very wealthy even $100 a gallon gasoline ($80 or $100 thousand a year) would be an acceptable price to pay for the convenience of the private car.

In the case of slowly increasing gasoline prices the problem is one of forming a critical mass that will make economic sense for greatly expanded mass transit. Such a critical mass is likely to come for long distance travel first, for as soon as discretionary air travel becomes unaffordable, the demand for better train and bus service will increase rapidly. Long distance automobile travel may fill some of this gap especially for moving multiple passengers or if cars become significantly more efficient, but for the lone traveler, a long distance car trip could become very expensive.

A totally different situation will exist if gasoline prices increase rapidly and permanent shortages develop leading to the imposition of rationing. Such an increase looks likely at the minute, demand simply getting so far ahead of the supply that the U.S. is no longer able to import its accustomed 12 million barrels per day. It would only take a five percent shortfall in supply to cause turmoil.

Large organizations should have the resources to look after their employees in a transportation emergency – be it assistance in forming carpools, company supplied vans, flexible hours, telecommuting or whatever works. It is the self-employed or employees of small firms that currently are dependent on motor vehicles for their living that will be in deep trouble almost immediately. Independent truckers are already complaining mightily about diesel prices and many have been forced out of business. Their used trucks, by the way, are being sold to the Russians in increasing numbers. The Russians will still have cheap diesel for a while and they love the reliability and comfort of big American 18 wheelers that are being sold off at bargain prices.

Local governments are going to have to deal with the transportation problem or be faced with massive social issues as people become isolated from places of employment. A large decline in personal mobility is likely to result in considerable economic hardship and job losses as much discretionary travel will simply stop due to excessive costs or the inconvenience of other arrangements.

An Article by James Hansen - 10 April 2008

When I was young, Yankee Stadium had ~70,000 seats. It seldom sold out, and almost any kid could afford the cheap seats. Capacity was reduced to ~57,000 when the stadium was remodeled in the 1970s. Most games sell out now, and prices have gone up.

The new stadium, opening next year, will reduce seating further, to ~51,800. This intentional contraction is aimed at guaranteeing sellouts, increasing demand, allowing the owners, in pretty short order, to hike prices to double, triple, and more. The owners know that scarcity will fatten their wallets, even though it reduces the number of sales. This is more than a bit distasteful, as it discriminates against the lower middle class. Nevertheless, it should be a great stadium and as long as the owner is footing the bill without public subsidies for the stadium itself, we may have little grounds for complaint.

The reason that I draw your attention to this practice is that fossil fuel moguls are intent on hoodwinking the entire planet with an analogous scheme. The basic trick is this: fossil fuel reserves are overstated. Government “energy information” departments parrot industry. Partly because of this disinformation, the major efforts needed to develop energies “beyond fossil fuels” have not been made. The reality of limited supply forces prices higher. Eventually, sales volume will begin to decline, but fossil fuel moguls will make more money than ever. They will continue to assert that there is plenty more to be found, aiming to keep the suckers (that’s us) on the hook. Indeed, they could find somewhat more in the deep ocean, under national parks, in polar regions, offshore, and in other environmentally sensitive areas. They don’t need much to keep the suckers paying higher and higher prices.

Oil “reserves” suddenly doubled when OPEC decided that production quotas would be proportional to official reserves. These higher reserves are, at least in part, phantom. Coal “reserves” are based on estimates made many decades ago. Closer study shows that extractable coal reserves are vastly overstated, which is consistent with present production difficulties and rising prices. The presumed “200 year” supply of coal in the United States is a myth, but it serves industry moguls well.

Conventional fossil fuel supplies are limited, even if we tear up the Earth to extract every last drop of oil and shard of coal. Tearing up the Earth to get at those last drops, even though Exxon/Mobil proudly advertises that they are drilling to the depths of the ocean and going to the most extreme pristine environments, is, for us, as insane as the smoker who trudged four miles through a raging storm to buy a pack of Camels to feed his nicotine addiction.

It would be possible to find more fossil fuels, and extend our addiction and pollution of the environment, should we be so foolish as to take the path of extracting unconventional fossil
fuels such as tar shale and tar sands on a large scale. That choice cannot be left to the discretion of industry moguls. The planet does not belong to them.

Basic fossil fuel facts (about reserves) must be combined with basic climate facts described in the paper “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”. That paper
has been submitted to Science and is available in arXiv, the permanent archive for physics preprints.

The main paper is at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 and the Supporting Material is at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135

Our conclusion is that, if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, CO2 must be reduced from its
present 385 ppm to, at most, 350 ppm. We find that peak CO2 can be kept to ~425 ppm, even with generous (large) estimates for oil and gas reserves, if coal use is phased out by 2030 (except where CO2 is captured and sequestered) and unconventional fossil fuels are not tapped substantially. Peak CO2 can be kept close to 400 ppm, if actual reserves are closer to those
estimated by “peakists” (people who believe that we are already at peak global oil production, having extracted about half of readily extractable oil resources). This lower 400 ppm peak can be ensured (assuming phase-out of coal emissions by 2030) if a practical limit on reserves is achieved by means of actions that prevent fossil fuel extraction from public lands, off-shore regions under government control, environmentally pristine regions, and extreme environments. The concerned public can influence this matter and it is important to do so now – time is short, the industry voice is strong, and climate effects have not yet become so obvious to the public as to overwhelm the disinformation of industry moguls.

A near-term moratorium on coal-fired power plants and constraints on oil extraction in extreme environments are important, because once CO2 is emitted to the air much of it will remain there for centuries. Our paper describes ways in which improved agricultural and forestry practices, mostly reforestation, could draw down atmospheric CO2 about 50 ppm by the end of the century. But a greater drawdown by such more-or-less natural methods does not seem practical, making a long-term overshoot of the 350 ppm level, with potentially disastrous
consequences, a near certainty if we stay on a business-as-usual course for several more years.

If we choose a different path, which permits the possibility of getting back to 350 ppm CO2 or lower this century, we will minimize the chance of passing tipping points that spiral out
of control, such as disintegration of ice sheets, rapid sea level rise, and extermination of countless species. At the same time we will solve problems that had begun to seem intractable,
such as acidification of the ocean with consequent loss of coral reefs.

A fundamental point is that, in any event, we must move beyond fossil fuels reasonably soon. The underlying reason is that a large fraction of CO2 emissions remains in the air for many
centuries. Thus the upshot: we must move to zero fossil fuel emissions. This is a fact, a certainty, a lead pipe cinch. So why not do it a bit sooner, in time to avert climate crises? At the
same time, we halt other pollution that comes from fossil fuels, including mercury pollution, conventional air pollution, problems stemming from mountain-top removal, etc.
Breaking an addiction is not easy. But we may now be at a point analogous to that of the smoker who told me about trudging four miles through rain to get a pack of Camels – when he
got back to his motel he threw the pack of Camels away and never smoked again.

Fossil fuel addiction is much more difficult -- an epiphany to one person cannot solve the problem. This problem requires global cooperation. We must be on a new path within the next
several years, or, our paper shows, it becomes implausible to reduce CO2 below the dangerous level this century. Developed countries, as the cause of most of the excess CO2 in the air today, must lead in the steps needed to develop clean energy and halt CO2 emissions. Yet it is hardly a sacrifice: ‘green’ jobs will be an economic stimulus and a boon to worker well-being.
A major fight is brewing – it may be called war. On the one side, we find the short-term financial interests of the fossil fuel industry. On the other side: young people and other beings
who will inherit the planet. It seems to be an uneven fight. The fossil fuel industry is launching a disinformation campaign and they have powerful influence in capitals around the world.
Young people seem pretty puny in comparison to industry moguls. Animals are not much help (don’t talk, don’t vote). The battle may start with local and regional skirmishes, one coal plant or
other issue at a time, but it will need to build rapidly – we are running out of time.

P.S.: Do not fall for the moguls’ dirtiest trick – ‘green’ messages spewed to the public. That is propaganda, intended to leave the impression they are moving in the right direction.
Meanwhile they hire scientific has-beens to dispute evidence and confuse the public. How will you be able to tell if they ever “get it”? When they begin to invest massively in renewable
energies, when they become truly energy companies aimed toward zero-carbon emissions.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080410_YankeeTicketPrices.pdf