On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:40:00 -0800, Eric Greenwell wrote:

delboy wrote:
5) Eventually the coal and oil reserves will run out, so we won't be
able burn any more anyway, which is the best case for conserving them
as much as possible.

"Eventually" is hundreds of years for coal, far beyond the current
danger timelines.

You may be surprised. A around 2006 back I wondered about that, dug up
the estimates for global coal reserves and estimates for the then current
rates of increase in coal use (250 years reserve at the 2006 burn rate,
2% annual increase). I plugged those into a standard compound interest
calculation, which predicts all coal will be gone in 85 years.

A recent review (New Scientist, vol 197, no 2639, 19 Jan 2008 page 38) of
coal reserves supports my simplistic analysis. It thinks the coal,
industry reserve figures are twice reality and that we'll pass peak coal
not more than a decade or two after peak oil. IOW coal is unlikely to
become an oil substitute. Peak oil, by some estimates was passed in 2005
or 2006.

6) Sooner or later, something such as nuclear war, a metorite strike,
famine, an untreatable disease, or another ice age will decimate or
wipe out the human population. I bet the big dinosaurs thought they had
it made!

And all of these will be easier to deal with if we aren't already in big
trouble with climate problems.

I couldn't agree more.

I've also been trying to find out who said that technological
civilisation is a one-shot deal - meaning that if our technically-based
civilisation collapses for any reason (climate change, big asteroid
strike, nuclear war, pick your favourite disaster) while we're still
reliant on non-renewable natural resources then its most unlikely that it
will ever be possible to rebuild its replacement.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |