Misunderstanding of Climate Change and Why it Matters: The Energy Price Spike
Misunderstanding of Climate Change and Why it Matters: The Energy Price Spike
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered a spike in oil and gas prices worldwide. A natural response is for countries with untapped reserves to expand production as quickly as possible, but doesn’t this contradict the pledges they have also made to combat climate change? This issue is covered at some length in a New York Times article today, and the entire discussion—the arguments used by government officials and energy experts and the assumptions of the journalists who quote them—is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how atmospheric carbon causes global warming.
The claims and counterclaims in the article are about whether short term increases in carbon emissions will make it easier or hard to reach a net zero target decades into the future. That would be the right question to ask if there is an on-off climate switch based on what happens in 2050 or some other year, but there isn’t.
The severity of climate impacts will be determined by the accumulation of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere; in economic terms, it’s a stock, not a flow, externality. The true test of our response to the climate crisis is whether we can keep this accumulation within a reasonable limit. That’s the physics and chemistry of the greenhouse effect, not a political opinion. If we emit more this year, no matter what the reason (like Ukraine), the budget constraint requires us to emit that much less in future years. Given that stringent policies are not in place anywhere on planet Earth, and it is unclear whether there is political capacity to bring them about, there is no question at all about the effect of increased fossil fuel production, this year or any other, on climate outcomes.
It’s amazing how removed current political and media chatter is from the basics of climate science.
Political creatures long term planning is for the next election. Longer time scales are not in their day planners.
All the extractable petroleum will be burned. Its the coal. The only hope is that we will find the will to make a portion of the coal off limits. I have my doubts.
SW,
Just because we burn all the carbon in the buried remains of Cambrian forests does not mean that the climate and forests of the Cambrian period will return. I fear a world far less hospitable than that for human life. All the heat sumps and radiators of the Cambrian period have traveled far distances on tectonic plates since then.
We already started squeezing oil out of rock far sooner than any of us expected. My fear is we will start getting gas out of coal at meaningful scale and it will be game over (if it isn’t already).
Yep.
i sort of expect it is.
Absent some transformative technologies in carbon capture and/or geoengineering, then yes, game over.
yep, if big science can’t save us, nothing can.
except for driving less and building rational buildings. but hell no, you can have my super car when you pry my cold dead fingers from the wheel.
Stop with all the talk about climate change.
Focus on clean air, water, and land.
Put the dinosaur poop, pee and farts advocates in the position of supporting dirty air.
Dave,
Yes, it is always better to make messaging relatable if one wants actual positive results. Global warming has been freezing my butt off this winter. If I had not learned the science well long ago, then even I might be a skeptic.
If we burn more US hydrocarbons because we can’t get Russian hydrocarbons, we are not increasing the US burn rate. The second order effect of having more oil on the market may be less than the effect of the price being higher.
As a proponent of using higher prices by taxing carbon to reduce demand, I would be remiss not to observe that the system effects are more complicated than most journalists understand. (Do the journalists understand but think their audience will not and so they dumb it down?)
Yep.
Just replace “climate science” with “science” or “factual knowledge”. Truth and politics have never been even close to compatible.
We have seen spikes before. Just once I would like to see gas taxes go up as the spike comes down. Keep the price high enough that alternatives are chosen. Just call it a sin tax if you have to.
Yep – yep.
this is the only climate story that matters:
February atmospheric CO2 was at 419.28 ppm vs 416.46 ppm in February a year ago..
that tells you how we’re really doing, all the “bla, bla, bla” hot air at ground level notwithstanding..
life as we know it evolved with the atmospheric CO2 concentration under 250 ppm;
i remember when we panicked after going over 350…
rjs,
Doesn’t the methane released by thawing of the permafrost matter too?
yes, and so does nitrous oxide and a few other greenhouse gases that are also rising…but i was trying to make a simple point succinctly, not expound on the entire science..
Yes sir.
the other point i should make, Ron, is the one that Peter is making; that atmospheric CO2 is a stock, not a flow; it will remain in the atmosphere a thousand years or more….that means even if we stop emissions completely today, that 419 parts per million will remain up there…there will be seasonal fluctuations, and some of it might be absorbed into the ocean over time (making the ocean more acidic), but the CO2 that’s already out there now won’t be going anywhere soon, no matter what we do…
Yep and that stock of CO2 et al will continue to add to the flow of methane from the melting permafrost which puts us in kwark territory.
And given our collective track record I’m depressingly certain that we are very unlikely to do anything but continue to talk and wring our hands until there really are no options left. If we aren’t already there that is.
Yep. I found it frustrating forty years ago when fellow environmental activists conflated CFCs with GHGs and were more adamant about nuclear power and NIMBY-ism than climate change, which at that time was poorly discussed in terms of global warming, which while technically correct would not explain what many people were seeing in their own local weather trend changes.
It reminded me of how we screwed the pooch over race and economic equality twenty years earlier. Lower income white people didn’t get it and became Republicans. Meanwhile financialization and globalization hollowed out the middle class, all predictably on the path that had been set while boomers were in grade school. What chance did we have with an issue that did not even land on kitchen tables? Who would trust us after we dumped on their kitchen table?
Just to point out the obvious:
1. If oil consumption goes down because of the sanctions on Russia, that benefits the climate to the extent it moderates the buildup of CO2. If the US increases production to plug that hole, the benefit is erased. It’s all about the arithmetic of mounting carbon accumulation.
2. In the absence of countervailing measures, restrictions on fossil energy supply, such as those stemming from sanctions against Russia, increase the price, with the proceeds going to the sellers. One of the key secondary purposes of rational carbon policy is to restrict supply in a way that captures the price hike (I favor auctioned permits) so the money can be returned to the public. That would make a big difference. People have every right to get angry about price increases that just make energy billionaires and petrostates that much richer.
Peter:
I guess the US (us) is more than likely the biggest issue in the creation of CO2 which hangs around a lot longer than our other pollutants.
is well taken.
Arne is correct in his observations also.
However, this is the perfect time to initiate conservation efforts to reduce the amounts of gasoline we use especially with the too big, too often, too fast pick-me-up vehicles which never see a speck of dirt or work refuse in the truck box. The ones pushing the “my-liberties” and let the market decide will do little until it is too late.
We see similar with healthcare and the costs, much of it being fictitious, are eating up more and more of GDP. “Value Added” terminology is being used to justify increased costs resulting in marked-up prices of 10, 15, etc. percent for care, pharma, and procedures. Collect your costs and then lower pricing to a reasonable amount.
Time and time again, the argument is liberty without the examination of how their liberty impinges upon the liberty of other individuals and society as a whole. Better to conserve now and lessen the probability of a crisis later.
It occurs to me that the reptile hearted beings from outer space are just getting even with us furry creatures for what we did to their cousins 60 million years ago.
They are terraforming the place to bring it back to their own comfort zone. The True South shall rise again!
Coberly,
Made me smile although the only evidence that I have seen of it is an uptick in our local blue-tailed skink population.
The fact that you can’t see them is what proves they are there: if they had nothing to hide they wouldn’t be hiding, you see.
As for the blue tailed skunks, I think you are referring to the Senator from West Virginia, the acting President of the United States. Just remember that it only takes one skunk to ruin a party.
This morning you made me laugh.
ron
nothing like the way the Senate makes me laugh.
permanent daylight saving time. so the kids can go to school in the dark and go to bed when it’s still light. just becuse the senators can’t stand the truth, even the clocks have to lie.
coberly,
Permanent daylight saving time is driving my wife crazy too. I think it may just be one of those things that people talk about when stuff is going bad and they have no idea what to do. If we change the clock, then operators change their schedules accordingly. Maximum nothing-burger, maximum misdirection, maximum deflection adds up to perfect politics in a time of great trepidation.
Ron
that’s all true enough, but i think it’s a symptom of brain disease at the higher levels of government: they really cnnot face any kind of truth whatsoever. comes from lying sas a way of life.
and people will not change their schedules accordingly. too much trouble. it would not be much trouble to change their schedules to fit their own personal or business needs, but going against a society wide mindless change in everybody’s schedules would indeed become a major distraction. but then, what in the hell are we doing about those things they want to distract us from?
This means that seniors who naturally wake up and go to bed early may not be able to adjust to the darker mornings and brighter evenings of a permanent Daylight Saving Time. It could be especially problematic for older people in the Northernmost states, where the sun would not come up much earlier than 9 a.m. during the winter.
In addition to the health risks of seniors’ being physically out of sync with Daylight Savings Time, there are safety considerations, too. Seniors who venture out for groceries, medical appointments, and other priorities early in the morning before the sun rises may be more likely to injure themselves.
not to mention morning rush hour in the dark.
if changing the clock twice a year is such a drag, why not just go bsck to standrd time. remember when noon was at 12 o’clock high?