climate change vs. peak oil

There's a great article on The Oil Drum today (gosh, I love that site) on the problem of addressing climate change solely from a demand perspective. Chris Vernon argues that the oft-cited assurance that personal conservation helps reduce CO2 emissions is unrealistic. Sure, if I choose to take the train instead of flying, my personal CO2 use will be reduced, but will it make any difference to Delta's total carbon emissions? Probably not--the plane will fly without me. Even if enough people choose the train to cause one flight to be cancelled--and here's the crux of Vernon's argument--that oil is still going to be burned. If Delta doesn't use it, Exxon will, or British Airways. If the oil is available, it will be used. That's the reality of the market.

Therefore, Vernon believes that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is by reducing supply instead of demand. Instead of getting all countries to sign agreements promising to use fewer fossil fuels, why not get the oil- and coal-producing countries (a mere fraction of the demand nations, in terms of numbers) to sign agreements promising to cap their fossil fuel output? That would be a promise to actually leave fossil fuels in the ground, which is the only way of assuring that the carbon won't get released into the atmosphere.

There are a host of problems with this, many of which addressed in the comments below the article. One of the biggest is how to compensate for the financial loss that countries will suffer by not selling the oil they could have taken out of the ground. Another problem is the inequality that would be difficult to avoid among demand countries as supplies decrease: developing countries would get priced out of the market, preventing their economic growth.

Ultimately, I think the problem needs to be addressed from both sides. Until now, climate change activists--myself included--have focused almost exclusively on the demand side, and we do need to correct the balance. Part of the reason for that focus, I think, is that most people who are concerned about climate change live in demand countries rather than supply countries. There aren't many climate change activists in Saudi Arabia. But it's true that, in the long run, Saudi Arabia has a lot more power to impact oil-driven climate change than the U.S. does. (We might have more power over coal-driven climate change.)

But I think the whole question addresses a larger problem that really needs to be talked about in the environmental community: the relationship between climate change and peak oil. I heard recently (can't remember where) about a climate change conference that refused to allow a peak oil speaker for fear that people would get more concerned about peak oil than climate change. This is ridiculous. You can't address climate change effectively without also recognizing the reality of peak oil. Until we understand that there will be less oil available on the market, no matter what changes we make on the demand side, we won't be able to lower our carbon usage. And we'll be much more likely to experience global economic collapse if we try to address the problems without understanding all of the factors involved.

Trouble is, there don't seem to be any easy solutions. I grew up in a culture where right and wrong were very black and white. It was never a question of what the right thing is to do, only of whether you were going to do it. But reality is rarely that simple. And in the case of the environmental problems of the industrial world, I sometimes feel like there is no right answer. As a Christian, I want to be motivated by compassion. But still there are no right answers. Reducing oil supply will affect poverty in countries that can little afford it. Reducing demand will do the same for countries on the verge of developing a better life for many of their citizens. But climate change will impact the poor the most, making food more difficult to grow and maybe even turning island nations into Atlantis. And peak oil might mean that it's better for developing nations to not develop, because at least they won't create fossil-fuel-based infrastructures that will soon become obsolete. Sometimes, it's easier to think about the problems from a personal perspective, from the small changes that I personally can make, because it seems like that's all I can do.

My husband was talking last night about how he feels telling people about peak oil: like everyone we know is in a car speeding toward a broken bridge, and he's standing on the side of the road waving desperately for them to stop. And they just swerve around him and keep going. I know what he means; sometimes it does feel like people are incredibly unwilling to think about these issues. But at the same time, I can understand a little of how they feel. When it seems like there are no right answers and no good news, it's a lot easier to just hide your head in the sand.