A forest of issues
An innovative proposal recently emerged from the foliage that aims to keep fossil fuels in the ground while preserving some of South America's most startling biodiversity and securing the traditional territories of indigenous peoples.
About one-third of the Ecuadorian government's income now derives from oil.
And about one-fifth of its stocks lie in a field that extends under the Yasuni nature reserve, an Andean region that scientists regard as one of the most biodiverse on Earth, with 655 species of tree and plant recorded within a single hectare, not to mention exotic monkeys, frogs and so on.
The same oil field also underlies land traditionally trodden by the Tagaeri and Taromanane indigenous groups who live partially in the Yasuni reserve - groups that have elected to remain apart from modern society, a right granted under Ecuadorian law.
The Tagaeri may now number only about 30 individuals.
Extracting the oil would clearly have major implications for people and nature. Six interconnected drilling platforms would be required; the road network would inevitably lead to logging and increased contact between drillers and indigenous groups - contact that has literally proved lethal to one or other in the past.
Yet not extracting it would mean $7bn of revenue lost.
Two years ago, the government came up with a plan aimed at squaring this particular circle - the Yasuni-ITT Initiative.
The basic idea is that if Western countries are as concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and indigenous rights and biodiversity as they profess to be, they can and should pay Ecuador not to drill here.
The proposal is couched in terms of avoiding emissions from burning the oil. At about 400 million tonnes of CO2, the government estimates this is roughly equivalent to Ecuador's total emissions for 13 years.
(This doesn't factor in any added benefit of avoiding emissions by keeping the forest intact.)
The sum of $350m per year for 10 years - totalling about half of the oilfield's estimated value - was suggested as a reasonable price.
Although drilling is currently banned in the area, Ecuadorian law could allow it in future under a "national interest" clause.
Investing the money in trust fund with some degree of international oversight should ensure that future governments would gain more from perpetuating the fund than they would by ripping up the deal, paying the money back and drilling the oil.
(There's an interesting comparison to be made here, incidentally, to the attitude of governments towards UN negotiations on climate and other environmental matters, where it's assumed that labelling an agreement as "binding" will guarantee action from future regimes - even when one of the lessons of Kyoto is that it won't.
The UK goes further by calling its unilateral 2050 climate target "legally binding" without specifying who will be hung, drawn or quartered in the event of failure.
The Ecuadorian proposal, on the other hand, acknowledges that future governments may go against its wishes and seeks a way of keeping them on track.)
The scheme has gone through several iterations and the current idea for finance is a bit more convoluted, involving the issue of tradeable "Yasunı Guarantee Certificates"; but the basic concept remains the same.
The Yasuni-ITT concept has found favour with a number of governments, including those of Germany, Italy and Norway.
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa is in London this week to promote the initiative. And a paper just out in the journal Biotropica explores its potential and some of the issues it raises.
It's written by a group of conservationists and researchers including Matt Finer of Save America's Forests, who conclude that the Yasuni scheme is "a potentially precedent-setting advance towards avoiding oil and gas development in sensitive areas of megadiverse developing countries".
But as they acknowledge, it also raises a few difficulties and objections.
Firstly, if there is a thirst for fuel, it will be slaked; Ecuador would be rewarded for keeping its oil in the ground, but companies would obtain it from elsewhere, leading to zero net impact on carbon emissions.
An associated issue is that if finance comes through a global carbon market - should the forthcoming Copenhagen climate summit bring such an entity into existence - those who bought carbon credits for protecting the Yasuni reserve would buy the right to emit an equivalent amount of carbon themselves; that's what carbon trading is all about.
The researchers ask whether it's appropriate to spend such a large sum of money on protecting a relatively small region of the world - especially as some would argue that Ecuador has a simple duty to protect areas it has designated as reserves without the need for international aid.
They also ask how much money could guarantee the oil staying put; and one can imagine that if the starkest peak oil forecasts turn out to be true, within decades the price could escalate so much that the rewards of exploiting the field would dwarf income from any trust fund.
And there is a big logistical problem with the Yasuni idea. As yet, no fund, no mechanism exists that can financially reward countries for protecting biodiversity or indigenous peoples, let alone tying that to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite the progress of research analysing the economic worth of nature, an international mechanism to pay for its protection is years away.
On the climate side, the Kyoto Protocol doesn't allow for trading in carbon credits for what you might call "avoided extraction" of fossil fuels.
A Copenhagen treaty might - although currently it doesn't seem likely.
If it did permit payment for avoided extraction, what doors would that open?
For years, Saudi Arabia has sought financial compensation for the oil and gas it would have to delay selling, or not sell at all, in a carbon-constrained world. The request was made again at the recent round of UN climate negotiations in Bangkok.
If a mechanism were set up to encourage Ecuador to keep 850 million barrels of oil in the ground, how fast might Saudi Arabia sprint out of the blocks in pursuit of dollars relating to its 267 billion barrels?
Ecuador's answer is that funding should be reserved for developing countries in tropical, megadiverse regions.
But that's just Ecuador's view. What if newly autonomous Greenland, say, proposed keeping oil in the ground to preserve habitat for whales and polar bears and protect the traditional way of life of its indigenous Inuit communities?
Should that be barred on grounds of geography? Where does it stop?
Recent reports indicate that Germany is preparing to pledge regular money - $50-70m per year - for the Yasuni fund.
Given as a simple donation, this circumvents some of the issues surrounding the project - though clearly it's not nearly enough to fund the whole thing.
Looking across the entire environmental and social piece, you might conclude that the Yasuni initiative is exactly the kind of scheme needed in a world where species and ecosystems are disappearing at least 100 times the natural rate, where indigenous peoples are increasingly squeezed, and where there is so much apparent concern at the political top table about greenhouse warming.
But if that's the case, how can it best be funded so as to avoid all of the evident pitfalls?
Where do national responsibilities end and become the business of the global community?
Can the developed world afford to back Yasuni, and the other similar bids that will doubtless follow if it is successful?
Or can the developed world afford not to back it?
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~36~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
From what you and others have been saying it would appear that keeping the oil in the ground and paying for that stance is better than the alternative and more destruction.
Complain about this comment
The logic in all this is a bit disconserting. The goals appear to be the maintenance of the status quo. Efforts should be focused on alternative fuels but the current power relationships between industries and governments want oil to used as long has profits can be had. I find advocacy for maintaining the current system counter to the goals of a cleaner enviornment. Some will argue that it would be best to drill it all and because of the limited reserves the sooner it is gone the sooner the powers in charge will be forced to seek alternatives. The tribe of 30 individuals, dying out like some no longer competitive forest mammal, have become unknowning hostages in a gobal game for profits. Transitions to alternatives are slowly taking place and as that movement continues, in Shanghai all new residences must have solar water heaters, the demand for carbon based fuels will drop. The strategy should be to foster alternative fuels in the underdeveloped countries. Wealth is still judged to be a reflection of national well-being, even when we know that this is a false indicator. The rich still dangle the poor in front of the world as if they cared to seek further riches.
Complain about this comment
Forest of issues is a good headline for this post
I'm in two minds on this.
On the one hand, i'd like to preserve as much as possible of the forest (not that i will ever get to see it myself, unfortunately), but on the other hand, i know that somewhere along the line, the oil will come out of the ground, whether it's know or in 10 years time.
Perhaps in 10 years time, we will have worked out how to get the oil out of the ground without tearing up the forest.
Complain about this comment
People interested in this may also be interested to read two other very related studies by Matt Finer which are both free to read in open access journals which were published in August:
Ecuador's Yasuní Biosphere Reserve: a brief modern history and conservation challenges
Published in Environmental Research Letters
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/3/034005/erl9_3_034005.html
and
Oil and Gas Projects in the Western Amazon: Threats to Wilderness, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Peoples
Published in PLoS ONE
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002932
Complain about this comment
Why not just tax them?
300% tax on Ecuadorian oil if they open this new field.
I thought the 'environmentalist' principle was to tax, tax, tax?
Complain about this comment
@Richard
I do applaud your efforts to save the rainforest. I would like to point out that there are a number of benefits to going forward with the extraction of the oil.
Firstly, it will mean billions in revenue for Equador - which badly needs the revenue.
Secondly, with today's technology - we are talking about 6 wells - as opposed to 60 or 600 that would have been required 20 years ago - the 6 platforms will require a few dozen hectares in a preserve which is 1.6 MILLION hectares in size, I also expect that most of the drill sites will be located within the buffer zones as opposed to the core portion of the reserve.
Thirdly, the presence of both the oil drillers and the government monitors, etc, will be bad for business for illegal poachers and loggers.
I just don't see spending billions to keep the oil in the ground when we are talking about minimal impact (recall 6 wells on 1.6 MILLION hectares) on this preserve. The badly needed monies and jobs for Equador will have an overall positive impact in my view - probably even allow for better enforcement in preserves and declaration of additional preserves.
If we were talking about razing the forest on a wholesale scale - my opinion would be much different; however, this project appears to be a win-win situation for those involved - even the indiginous tribes - please, they can certainly avoid contact if they wish in an area so large with a project which will have such a small footprint.
The biggest problem we have faced in the arena of forest preservation has been one of corruption in the third world. The reality is that the forest and rainforests are worth much more standing than they are when razed for short term profits or for farm or cattle land. Rainforest (even in areas which are flat as opposed to extremely hilly) makes horrible farmland. Managed properly with limited economic exploitation in certain areas, these forests can provide long term economic and environmental benefits for the people of countries like Equador. Eco-tourism will continue to be an expanding business - unless we ground all the airplanes - that will bring jobs, money and hope to both the peoples and environments in places such as this. Limited exploitation such as projects like this and sustainable logging in specified areas will also have both economic and ecological benefits.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Why is it that when oil is available the call is for jobs. Is there no other way to produce jobs? The development model that has been in fashion for some time, displaces populations, disrupts cultures, polutes the environment and is usally temporary. As we have seen with the financial crisis, countries would do well to establish an internal economy and be less reliant on the global economy. The individuals and companies that control the oil will receive wealth but there is little indication that populations in underdeveloped countries have the overall or lower income levels raised.
Complain about this comment
Taxing them is what Gordon Brown is doing to the N Sea. It now seems certain his policy on tax will soon mean huge job losses and lost revenue from the N Sea.
Complain about this comment
The Ecuador rain forest is very special and well worth preserving. However the world needs oil. Why is it not possible to drill for it without creating unacceptable damage? The Amazon basin is huge- even oil platforms and the odd pipeline should only take up a tiny part of it. Strict environmental conditions, including requirements to reinstate land already spoilt by development as a quid pro quo would cost a fraction of what is proposed as a payment to stop the drilling altogether.
I am very suspicious of cash incentives to deter drilling. A future Ecuadorian government could drill anyway, having pocketed payments for many years. As noted , oil not extracted in Ecuador will be taken from somewhere else.
The driver for this massively expensive and probably ineffective scheme is the panic over "carbon emission created warming". This needs keeping a careful eye on but contrary to the current political consensus the underlying science is by no means universally agreed. See the numerous authorities referred to in Christopher Booker's new book "The Real Global Warming Disaster". More careful research needs to be done before steps like this are taken, greatly damaging the world economy.
Complain about this comment
Some of those here may wish to connect the dots. One can only laugh when statemnts are made that CO2 reduction will "damage the world economy." The bankers have already done that and no one seems to question their science, computer modeling and forecasting, etc.and the same processes are still in use today as no reform has been instituted. When proposals are floated under the surface is always an economic motive. Who will really benefit?
Complain about this comment
If hydrogen is the future for fuel, and you need sunlight to get it out of sea water, could not a plant be built on the Ecuadorian seaside to save drilling for oil? A strange plan but it might work out cheaper than destroying the forest.
It should be looked into
Complain about this comment
Crazy thought here...instead of
LarryKealey makes a good point, extraction would give them money to develop (something they need) while giving the developed nations something they need. It is NOT anywhere near as bad as it used to be.
@barry-white: Hydrogen is far too dangerous to be the fuel of the future for anything but large-scale industry (and even there, its dangerous). Electricity is more the "fuel" of their future and is far more efficient in the long run. I know that sounds stupid saying electricity is a fuel but its as much a fuel as hydrogen (in that you need the energy FIRST before you can make hydrogen)
@ghostofsichuan: Not so much wealth but the industrial base is a good measure of the health of a society. Beyond a certain population density it is required or else the environment suffers MORE. Side effects are lower birth rate, longer life expectancy. Who among those without relative safety from the elements, food security and adequate medical care would not want...adequate medical care, adequate food, longer lives, more free time and a some measure of protection from mother nature?
Also ghost, at issue isn't the reduction of CO2. Reducing CO2 will not destroy the economy. Reducing CO2 by taxing, wealth redistribution (away from the nations that are generating that wealth) and using entirely unsuitable "alternatives" is what would destroy the economy. If you'll check the previous thread you'll see I've made it clear that I find some hybrid options completely viable for use right now...but good luck getting the green groups to embrace them.
Let's see here (ghost again), jobs in the developing world. Ironically people actually complain these days when we increase the standard of living in other countries by using their inexpensive labor. Yeah, forget the fact that it builds up local infrastructure and pays them many times what they'd normally be making in that country. About the most we could do for them outside of this is to just demand that the countries doing business not be blatant polluters (although ironically that puts their locally owned companies at a disadvantage)
Finally, Ghost...sort of in line with your views about this sort of enforcing the "status quo". In the 1940s the US started the American Tree Farm system. Skeptics are NOT delerious when they say there are more trees here now than when the europeans arrived. The system contains 24 million acres of forest (not just trees planted like a row of beans). I haven't looked much but ummm...is anyone ENCOURAGING nations with rain forests to start tree farm systems? They're not pristine ecosystem but they're not bad. They support pretty much all of the local wildlife and they are SUSTAINABLE.
Complain about this comment
Keeping oil in the ground these days, where every well is needed to keep the world going is very a silly proposal that does not help with any environmental concerns. And the "West paying countries" for such a silly move can only be the idea of people still living under the illusion of colonial hegemony.
Complain about this comment
when thinking of the situation where we have to stop taking oil and all other minerals and gases out of the earth, as well as stop polluting the waters, soils, and air;
The resolution to the situation is that people are in a state of fairness and support. All anyone needs to live is food, water, medicine, shelter, warmth, love, and clean air.
So we all just help each other to make sure that everyone has that. Of course we can all keep building our lives back up in an eco friendly way. So at first we won't have as much won't be able to get around as much etc, but over time we will have adjusted to being eco friendly and things will flow. As long as the basics are met that is what is the most important to get us out of this earth crisis. It can't be helped. We have to stop taking oil, gas, and all things from out of the earth and stop all pollution. We all want a future and that is the only way. We all have plenty of stuff to spread around to get by all over the planet while we all transition to eco friendly.
So hopefully, people will love each other, not be greedy, and be fair.
Complain about this comment
observermac #9.
"However the world needs oil. Why is it not possible to drill for it without creating unacceptable damage?"
markus_uk #13.
"..where every well is needed to keep the world going is very a silly proposal that does not help with any environmental concerns."
like this?
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/10/27/when-offshore-oil-goes-horribly-wrong/
Complain about this comment
@Astrocougarwoman: "the situation where we have to stop taking oil and all other minerals and gases out of the earth"
You're literally talking about a return to the stone age. Look around you...the average age if you're in an industrial nation is older than the life expectancy of the sort of society you're talking about. Love and good will simply don't cut it when it comes down to improving our basic living conditions. Obviously that is not a tolerable "solution".
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #6.
"I would like to point out that there are a number of benefits to going forward with the extraction of the oil.
Firstly, it will mean billions in revenue for Equador.."
"Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world"
(Abba)
Complain about this comment
To sensibleoldgrannie #1:
Thank you for your comment on this subject, and thank you for your birthday wishes for my son.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I think a payment to "avoid extraction" by the West would be a dangerous standard to set. Where would it stop? Would other countries then be able to do the same? Would Western countries be allowed to do the same? I fear it could become open to corruption and where is the money going to come from anyway?!!! Should we leave it to the nascent carbon trading markets (whose future is still pretty uncertain and certainly not uniform globally)?
I don't think a payment should be made. As an environmentalist I would love it if the oils stayed in the ground everywhere, but we obviously do need oil in the short term so it is hard to say definitely don't drill. Do I want to see forest and homelands destroyed? Crikey no... but I still think a 1-off call like this is hard for us to make at this stage in time with the frameworks that exist.
I would be in favour of a rigorous Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which would include a rigorous Social Impact Assessment (SIA), by an independant competent body. I feel currently that would be the best option. In the future I would love an oil free world where no trees get cut down, but we aren't there yet. I hope we get there... keep trying!
Complain about this comment
Poitsplace:
Industry has modeled the process of seeking cheap labor and after that labor understands that their pay is minimal related to profits and seek to "raise their standard of living" the industry will shut down and move or threaten to shut down and move. Although the practice of bribery of governmental officials does raise their standard of living. Recent events could be viewed as the failure of a system based on profit and driven by greed.
Infrastructure is related to the production and rarely benefits the local community and is not maintained when the industry moves to a place with even cheaper labor.
CO2 tax will be passed on to consumers, industries have no plan to take responsbilities for the problems they cause. In the US and other developed countries the landscapes are strewn with industrial waste sites abandoned by the owners and left for the public to pay for clean-up and any health impacts that may be associated with production.
We have just been exposed to the dangers of a "growth based" economic system. Sustainable economic models are needed. The "growth model" has proven to be the forstering of bigger government, greater influence of industry over the needs of citizens, unfair tax structures where citiens insure the risk based behaviors of corporations and political corruption.
I don't think a new generation of cell phones will fix the problems.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan #20.
"Recent events could be viewed as the failure of a system based on profit and driven by greed."
and drug misuse!?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/59f94172-c332-11de-8eca-00144feab49a.html
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@eddhind #19
Cheers for that - I have been starting to think that I was the only "old environmentalist" left who is grounded in reality. Thanks for that, right on.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 - #15
regarding when deep sea drilling goes wrong...
You may not be old enough to remember, but in 79, a well blew out in the bay of Campeche (between mainland mexico and yucatan peninsula). If i recall correctly, it took 10 months to cap the well and bring it under control. Oil washed up on the beach as far north as Galveston Island, Texas. the ecological damage was significant; however, the recovery was pretty swift. A year later, you could not find evidence of the spill unless you dug into the sand (about a foot at that time) - you would find a small layer of tar marking the spill. You can probably find evidence by digging down about three or four feet today.
The point is that while rare, these accidents do happen and will happen, but they are recoverable. Go to Prudoe Bay (sp?) in Alaska, site of the worst spill in history (Exxon Valdez) or Normandy (Amaco Cadiz) and you will find little or no evidence of the spills which occured there.
Overfishing, pumping sewage into the ocean and dump tourists walking on coral are all much larger environmental issues and ones which can be dealt with much more easily.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Am I missing something?
Most of the world's surface, nature reserves and forests included, has been destroyed, without extracting any oil at all, by uncontrolled farming, logging and general overpopulation. Oil extraction should be an activity of relatively low direct impact. And the revenues could be put to good use for the environment.
Paying to keep the oil in the ground sounds like promoting the sort of bribery and corruption that, in the end, destroys both society and the environment.
Oil is an attractive source of energy because, apart from long-term environmental consequeces of producing CO2, it is cheap, safe and convenient. To reduce its consumption, we need, as well as improving our energy effiency, to make something else competitive on cost, safety and convenience.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be extreme views here. Those of you who want the oil and those of you who want the pristine natural environment. What are the views of the indigenous people? Perhaps the money should be paid to lawyers to speak for these people so that everything is done fairly and without lies and false claims.
Most land exploited for oil or other substances is damaged beyond repair. The indigenous people have to continue living in their environment whatever happens to it. The benefits that might come their way may only be equivalent to the cheap beads and mirrors offered as 'payment' to other groups of people in the past.
If the payments were genuinely given to the people in the form of long term mainstream education trusts and environmental education trusts, with material as well as educational help, the trade off might work. If the indigenous people were recognised as full members of society, playing a genuine role in the maintenance of forests and looked to for advice about how to continue and develop the forests for future generations, it all might work.
The problems I foresee are that the government and local officials will reap the benefits but not the people, they will reap the negative consequences like disease, alcohol, western unhealthy food, naff western clothing, cigarettes etc. They will become dependent on trading with the invaders and will become poor again once the oil people have gone.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 # 21
Interesting report but in the best fashion of the financial class they prefer the more expensive powder form over the cheap "rocks" on the street. Drugs don't make people unethical but unethical people can be drug abusers. I believe that bonuses and derivatives were much more addictive, and as both stay in play today the problem will only continue. There is much more prostitution in government than on the streets...but of course the pay is better and the drugs are legal.
Complain about this comment
I agree with grannie - we've done enough damage already and we have to start stopping somewhere. Yasuni seems as good a place as any.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan #27.
"Drugs don't make people unethical but unethical people can be drug abusers."
agree.
"I believe that bonuses and derivatives were much more addictive.."
again, agree; I think my concern is more about the effects of the drug, ie. the "boost" to the ego, the (sociopathic) self-centeredness of users, the mania...
Complain about this comment
oops, pressed wrong button..
LarryKealey #24.
thanks Larry, good and valid points.
to add though, there was a recent documentary on the aftermath of Exxon Valdez and it was very depressing to hear how the 'big oil' did everything their expensive lawyers could think of to delay and reduce payouts to the affected fishing community.
Complain about this comment
jr4412:
I don't think bankers and financial services CEO's and Board Chairs need anything to "boost" the ego. If you had been able to swindle millions from peoples retirement accounts, set up a derivative insurance scheme, buy off politicians so they would not interfer and in the end when it all collapsed, be still in charge and have the taxpayer cover your losses, even though they (the banks)didn't lose anything, others did, you would feel pretty good about yourself.
Bonuses and dirivatives were the fuel for the fire....and still in place. No riots in the streets, no change. Digital money is just easier to steal. Amazing, how passive the public is even when lied too by their elected representatives and stolen from by financial institutions. The Western governments has decided to operate like China. We know as much about the complicity of the government in the financial crisis as the Chinese know about the governments decisions leading to the events at Tiananmen Square.
Complain about this comment
Ha ha ha - "barbecue summer" Met Office crew skewered - again.
The decline in Arctic summer sea ice (by the UK's Met Office)
The extent of Arctic sea ice has been decreasing since the late 1970s. In 2007 it decreased dramatically in a single year, reaching an all-time low.
The arctic ice has been measured in this way since 1979. This is what they mean by "all time". At the Met Office time began in 1979.
Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events...
Wrong. Modelling shows ... models. Measurements and observations show things - modelling shows nothing.
...and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust.
Note to readers: in climanetics the word "robust" has a special meaning - it applies retrospectively to past observations as in "last years football scores were robust".
Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns
This is blasphemy. Are they really saying that random natural events can be of similar size to ... mankind ?
The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend.
So - it's all over the place - and you cannot pin it on greenhouse gases - but there is a human signal. What is a human signal ? A voice ? Morse code ? Some writing ? These people are supposed to be scientists and they are talking about "human signals". What are they on about - jungle drums at the North Pole ?
The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.
Well it's just a pity that they did not publish this trend and this variability beforehand - like normal predictions.
It gets better:
About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years.
So their own model - or models - show the ice recovering. But about half the models show the opposite. Are they wrong ?
The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists.
They have observed a recovery. Not a temporary recovery. The results for 2010 are not in - yet. Not until ...next year. Too early to say if it's temporary or not. This is junk.
They really saved the best until last - nobody knows if there is a tipping point. Are they hedging ?
This is cargo-cult stuff. It's not science.
Complain about this comment
This is a downright interesting discussion!
It seems to me Richard Black hit the nail on the head with his question:
"Where do national responsibilities end and become the business of the global community?"
------------------
This is a place to answer this question, and it is obviously in the purvue of the United Nations, or perhaps, of a 'jr4412' reformed United Nations.
This is an issue for the global commons, is it not?
Rather than think too hard, may I speak from the heart?
Leave the oil in the ground.
- We need to reduce CO2 emmissions (Planetary Boundary already crossed)
- This is apparently a very biodiversity-rich area (Biodiversity Planetary Boundary already crossed)
- There is already in place a United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let's use it for these indigenous people.
- The United Nations can already declare an area a special place - a "World Heritage Site"
- There isn't yet, but there could be a United Nations "International Court for the Environment." This issue is obviously complex. An international court of the environment could best handle this on behalf of the 'peoples of the world.'
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #33.
"Where do national responsibilities end and become the business of the global community?"
"This is an issue for the global commons, is it not?"
you'd think so, but a depressingly high percentage of contributors here, ie. BBC blogs, and in the general population appear unable to think beyond "national interest".
Complain about this comment
@Jack
Can we pleeeeeeeeeease have a 1 blog break from hardcore CO2 arguments, lol! Don't we all need that?
This blog is more about the ethics of habitat destruction and the rights of local people. Granted the fact that it is oil makes it a climate issue too (although not to you of course) but save your ammunition for Richard's next Copenhagen blog.
;o) - Of course if you want to talk CO2 I can't stop you, but the moderators can ;o) ;o) nudge nudge
I think this one is one for the stakeholders. We are minor stakeholders in this compared to the local people and the wider population of Ecuador. Unless a global ban is put on oil use I think it is for them to decide alongside EIAs and SIAs (which would obviously involve the local stakeholders).
Complain about this comment
@eddhind - good point. Why not leave it up to the Ecuadoreans ?
And is this a general point ? I would be more than happy for the AGWers to put a sock in it and just talk about specific conservation measures in specific parts of the world.
We would find that we agree on a lot of things - I have done a lot of conservation work over the years and I am very interested in nature. I could go on a walk in the woods with anyone on this blog and name as many plants and animals as anyone on here. More than most.
Complain about this comment
A bit on protecting the environment v/s helping ourselves
Show of hands...how many of you think that oxygen is toxic to all known life? No? Well it used to be and it turns out that long ago another form of life released so much of this toxic gas that now (thanks to their descendants) a large portion of the atmosphere is composed of oxygen and most life actually DEPENDS on it.
Every single life form on this planet modifies its environment either inadvertently or intentionally to suit its own needs. While they have adapted over time to better fit within the constraints of their local environments it is not all that unusual for a local population of a species species to suffer a catastrophic resource collapse resulting in a huge portion of their population dying off or the population having to move. Certainly we should be responsible and take care to not utterly destroy our environment but make no mistake...it is those of you that suggest we try to have NO impact that are suggesting something "unnatural"
While biodiversity is nice, the super-specialized forms of life only found in some small grove or crater are NOT a treasure of the earth. These forms of life are the last to adapt (after one of earth's countless "oops" moments) and the first to go when nature says "oops" again. The generalists are the earth's true treasure. They often seem nearly indestructible. They invade our cities and on the whole, survive all of man's attempts to shoot, trap, poison and infect them.
The world was thrown into chaos by the initial forms of life, by photosynthetic bacteria, animals, by colonial bacteria, multicellular life, creatures with shells, exoskeletons, backbones, land plants, larger land plants, insects, amphibians, hard-shelled egg layers, trees, grass, placental animals, flowering plants, social animals, and now intelligent animals. Each and every instance either completely unbalanced the ecosystem or laid waste to it. Such is LIFE.
So please understand that when I say we should be REALLY careful but still acquire resources if we need them...we're already doing the rest of the world's life forms a favor. We're the first life form that has EVER tried to be careful.
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll take a few minutes to go outside and enjoy some of that toxic oxygen our predecessors polluted the planet with.
Complain about this comment
Yep, agreed on the moratorium about hardcore CO2 debate. I believe we can all agree that SOME amount of oil is going to be burned even if the world suddenly did an about face and started switching to renewables.
This is really more about balancing the "responsibility" we should have to ourselves vs the environment. This set of comments (and a bunch of the last set) were actually verging on being...PRODUCTIVE. *feels like he helped*.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Ecuador is a good example and some sound points made here. The legally binding bit is interesting. Depends on how responsible we all wish to be, I guess.
In a time of all sorts of radical (and sensible) "ideas", from experts in their fields, "fruit-cakes" and politicans, sometimes these ideas need to be explored further.
Hopefully Copenhagen will be something tangible and sensible and not just opportunities for politicians to grandstand, grab the limelight (eco-light) and raise taxes to preserve and protect their existence, over and above protecting the environment!
As for some crazy ideas, I have wondered when the idea of drilling for oil and gas will be curtailed because of "sinking land mass" shrinking the earth's diameter by minute amounts, perceptible over millenia on the earths days and seasons?
I guess we all know(?)climate change is one minute part of the whole earth cycle, from its periodic solar orbital declination changes, through its precession of the Poles, leading parts of the Poles favouring the Sun over thousands of years, to minute changes in rotation due to lunar and solar gravitational influences, cooling, earth disturbances, oceanic temperature fluctuations and changes such as the 'atlantic conveyor' ocean currents, let alone 'co2 blankets', 'ozone depleted areas of the atmosphere' and sun-spot cycles, solar atmospheric winds etc.
Man too plays his part in 'consuming resources' and 'producing waste' (including Co2) yet also has a desire to preserve some parts of its surface 'as is' and some, as 'landfill'.
So isn't man's part in the bigger picture, a bit like playing King Canute?
Though well meaning, we can do so little to influence bigger changes that in (larger) timescales will affect us all.
We can, like the example of Ecuador, tidy up our own behaviour.
Although not imminent any time soon, its time we changed our attitude to there only being the one planet Earth and make the political decisions to move onward and outward in the solar system and galaxies that make up the vast reaches of space.
Space doesn't currently belong to anyone, other than those that populate it - just as Richard's examples of Ecuadorean tribes have rights on their lands -so what are we waiting for?
The resources are out there, in addition to new discoveries, we just need to start the process and over time, we could reasonably expect Earth's population to stabilise, maybe even decline, reducing demand on its own depleting resources, whilst exploiting what is there in front of us for free.
I guess we all have a long way to go before we scratch the real surfaces of Climate Change, man-made or natural and make a real change.
Complain about this comment
Could this forest verses oil conflict become a test case for the future?
Our future ultimately will be beyond this planet, that is if we survive the barrage of diseases and physical processes that naturally occur on this water world. Eventually we may find a planet with material resources or land that we wish to exploit.
On this hypothetical planet there may be a sentient species. Do we have the right to exploit what is in reality does not belong to us? Who decides what belongs to whom?
It appears to boil down to a horrible fact about humans. Those who have accumulated material wealth treat others with less material wealth as lesser mortals. The description 'indigenous population' is in fact derogatory. It is a euphemistic term used to label those without the power to defend themselves against invasive exploitation.
If you find my argument difficult to accept, consider this. How would you feel if a an invading sentient species took over your 'castle' and your back yard with the intention of exploiting the land or the mineral resources below it? How would you feel if you were given inadequate compensation or worse, no consultation and no consideration for your future?
Some of you may have experienced something similar to this with the collapse of the global economy. Some of you may have lost money that you had faithfully put away for your future and found it gone without compensation. Some of you may have lost work as a direct impact of the global recession and found yourself in difficulties. You as an individual in this greed-made disaster have also become exploited.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I actually believe this is one field in which the EU may be leading the way for once (and it isn't often I get to say that when I spend a lot of time working with fisheries science).
I am not 100%, but I am pretty sure the latest EU regulations on Environemntal Impact Assessment (EIA) denote that all EIAs must involve a Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Sorry to throw jargon out there to those of you not familiar with it. Essentially an EIA is a survey that must now be carried out before any major development (e.g. construction of housing, your new sports centre, a sewage plant and you guessed it, oil drilling platforms). That survey must produce a report detailing EVERY potential environmental impact, no matter how minor. So for instance in this case the most major impact would be the immediate habitat destruction in the forest one would think. Another major impact would be potential contamination from oil or related chemical spills. Amongst the medium impacts would be things such as noise of the oil well machinery and the impacts of heavy vehicle traffic to and from the site (if any new roads were needed this may be a major impact). Another medium impact would probably be the CO2 emissions from use of the oil (see - impacts do not have to on or near site). A more minor impact would maybe the dust produced during construction of the drilling platform. Lists can be extensive and for a project like this could have between 10 and 100 items.
Adding an SIA means exactly the same sort of list is created (again with the impacts ranked major, medium, minor) except this time they look at social and economic impacts. I guess here the major impacts would be affects on local livelihoods and income derived from selling the oil. Minor impacts would include a slight drop in global oil price as capacity was increased. You get the idea. In a good SIA the consultants or academics producing the report would talk to all stakeholders in the project - although they may make assumptions for minor stakeholders such as the end consumers of the oil.
So fair play to the EU for including SIA in EIA if that is the case. I believe very comprehensive reports can be produced this way on which good informed decisions can be made.
p.s. @poitsplace
I personally don't agree with man vs. the environment arguments. We are part of the environment and in my opinion must live within it... not above it. But thanks for encouraging the temporary moratorium on CO2 debate. What we need now is a moratorium on the exploitation of bluefin tuna!
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie #40.
"If you find my argument difficult to accept, consider this. How would you feel if a an invading sentient species took over your 'castle' and your back yard with the intention of exploiting the land or the mineral resources below it? How would you feel if you were given inadequate compensation or worse, no consultation and no consideration for your future?"
my #41 gave a concrete, present day example of a people who can answer these questions from experience but all references (and even allusions) to this stain on modern human history is, evidently, taboo on the BBC.
Complain about this comment
#42
Hi eddhind!
I agree with you that EIA should include "social impact assessment", but I wonder if you are confusing SIA with SEA - ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment’?
There are two environmental assessments in the EU – EIA and SEA, and these are covered by different Directives. In principle, where environmental assessment is undertaken for individual projects such as a dam, motorway, airport or factory, etc, it is an EIA ('Environmental Impact Assessment') that is done; where the environment assessment is for plans, programmes and policies it is the broader SEA ('Strategic Environmental Assessment') which is required.
To return to your main point, however, I would consider that for many projects a "social impact assessment" would need to be an integral part of an assessment in order for this to satisfactorily comply with the requirements of either the EIA or SEA Directives.
For an introduction to the EU requirements (and links to various documents about them), see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm
Complain about this comment
Jack Hughes,
"The arctic ice has been measured in this way since 1979. This is what they mean by "all time". At the Met Office time began in 1979."
No - 1979 was the first full year of operation of the Nimbus 7 satellite. This satellite carried the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer, which was one of the first satellite instruments designed specifically to map sea ice (and which could distinguish single-year ice from multi-year ice, a new technological development). The Met Office, like many other meteorological organisations, uses data from this and its successors.
However, as the NSIDC says:
"...considerable data exist for earlier years. One good source has been compiled by the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Their analysis, based primarily on ship reports and aircraft reconnaissance, takes the record back to the turn of the 20th century. Although the data quality prior to the early 1950s is debatable, no year in this century-long record comes close to matching what we have seen in 2007. This record also points to a significant persistent downward trend in summer sea ice extent over at least the past fifty years. September 2007 sea ice extent is nearly 50% lower than during the 1950s and 1960s."
Complain about this comment
#37 poitsplace
i entirely agree with what you've said here, but the major issue is timescale. the planet has coped with very large fluctuations (but clearly bounded by some process(es) - hence the gaia hypothesis) in the past but what we are doing now is unprecedented.
i believe we are are releasing very roughly 1 million years worth of co2 accumulation (during very productive periods like the carboniferous....which ironically probably tipped us into a big freeze by taking out too much co2!) every year. that's a lot of co2.
so although the earth has adapted in the past, the process is often unpleasant and given the rate of change today i dare say what we're facing now is going to be unpleasant. i'm a pragmatist and understand oil will continue to be burnt (wasted!) for some time but unless we force a dramatic change soon, business as usual will cause catastrophic changes........and imho not that far in the future.
wrt the biodiversity point, again we can't save every species in every volcanic crater around the world. but the current scale of biodiversity loss is (again imho) appalling and must be slowed dramatically.
Complain about this comment
#40 sensibleoldgrannie
i don't believe our future is out there. the challenges we face are stark and immediate and the nearest planet (outside our solar system) is an unbelievable distance away, far, far exceeding any technology we have today.
i think it's best to hope that human empathy will prevail and we see the global threat as a chance to create a global community with much more equality than has been generated by the economics and politics of the 20th century. difficult i admit, but the payback from achieving this would be enormous.....well it may just be a planet i'd be happy to leave to my children.
Complain about this comment
@simonS
Hi Simon. It is my understanding (from a few meetings I attended in 2008 at about this time of year) that the EU environmental representatives were looking to approve a new set of guidlines for EIA that would include a much more rigerous SIA than curretnly required. This new EIA would replace the old standard EU EIA. Unfortunately I am struggling to find reference to it on the interweb, so I don't know if it was approved or is still waiting to be (I guess it is kind of a boring thing to report on from a news point of view). I think the reformed guidlines to be considered were produced by the consultancy ERM. I will try and chase it up, but I guess it isn't that important to the debate... more the principle.
So far global EIA guidlines have impressed me as they seem to remove bias (and even corruption) at least from the consultancy process and thus the reports are usually pretty fair. In my eyes an EIA team would include environmental, social and economic specialists. Inter-disciplinary cooperation is the only way to go... as I keep trying to tell my colleagues! Aaarggghhhh!
Complain about this comment
#35 eddhind
i agree would be nice to leave the co2 debate out of at least 1 post....but this one actually is about co2. that is the main reason for leaving the oil in the ground (no country would commit the money mentioned just for biodiversity....although i think they should) with a nice side effect that biodiversity and probably social impacts would be reduced. it is one of africa's ironies that generally the fewer resources you have the more stable your economy/politics.
maybe co2 could be taboo for the next post :o)
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
I catch your drift and agree, but maybe the main issue here is not whether CO2 is harmful, but if it is harmful to what extents should we go to reduce it's emissions. Maybe we should debate this blog then on the assumption that the oil drilled will emitt CO2. For me this is still a either a bigger issue of should we drill oil full stop? Or a local issue of is it ok to compromise habitats for oil drilling. Although you say this is about the CO2 when it comes to the blog debate, I can assure you for an EIA team on the ground the major issue would be habitat loss. CO2 emissions would certainly be similar to this. So without Western payments a project like this is more likely to be prevented by any damage it may cause to habitat. Hence when people protested about the bypass in Newbury (is that the right one) it was snails that had the final say and not CO2 emissions. This perahps is one problem with the EIA system. In it CO2 emissions would never really be seen as primary impact, even if CO2 emissions are the greatest environmental challenge of our time!!! Even in building a coal power plant I would guess that the EIA team would put habitat loss equalish to emissions.
Complain about this comment
eddhind at 48,
What, what, what happened, accidently stapled your tongue or did you step on a drawing pin? ;o)
rossglory at 47
Comforting to know that there is no quick exit from this planet it keeps us all in the same boat.
Empathy is usually learned through similar human experience.
Complain about this comment
#50 eddhind
it looks as if you have experience writing eia's. it must be tricky quantitively comparing environmental impact when they could vary as much as protecting a rare snail and damaging the water table.
adding co2 into the mix would make it even more difficult, its impact is (as many of the bloggers will tell you here) not known to a great deal of accuracy. and would the co2 from burning oil in our cars/planes be more/less than infrastructure improvements in somewhere like ecuador (i'm guessing they'd spend some of the cash on roads and airports for themselves)?
no easy answers here i guess.
do you know if the eia system is likely to change to include co2 emissions?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#51 sensibleoldgrannie
at one level all of our individual experiences must be similar (food, water, shelter, safety, absence of stress/pain, raising children etc).
i don't think cultural difference changes that a lot unless you add extreme ideology/religion. these only thrive when they can convince us to see others as somehow different (or even less human).
on a slightly different tack, i think a lot of this stuff can be put in perspective by the humanist idea that you should, before acting, consider what would happen if everyone did the same (of course the old gag is that if everyone else was doing it i'd be stupid not to myself!!).
not much of our western lifestyle passes that test imo.
Complain about this comment
Which bit broke house rules? Everything in the comment was benign and helpful to those researching and attempting to understand.
Complain about this comment
hmmmm
To get a broader perspective of this issue try google searches for:
land sales for oil extraction
land sales for food production
rainforests
IPSnews
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter Barber and welcome to this blog.
Looks like you've been doing some extra research and found some records going back 100 years. Does this now count as all time ?
The Met Office get paid to write these reports and they claim to be scientists. Not sure if a scientist would count 100 years as "all time".
Complain about this comment
There is a certain arrogance in the Western world about what is "quality of life." The acquisition of things and appliances seem to be the standard. We tend to discuss others in less developed lands as somehow missing something by not having what the developed lands have. I am reminded of the small tribe in the Pacific that is protected from modern tourist and when the tsumani devastated that region and killed over 200,00 people, they had retreated to the hills prior to its arrival. When asked how they knew it was coming they replied that they had been told what natural conditions to observe by their ancesters. When you look at the state of the developed world and the social and ethical corruption one must wonder where is the example we are proposing. Our medicine may prolong life, but does not prevent death, our socieities are full of crime, our leaders are corrupt and our personal security is dependent on the risky behaviors of bankers and throw in the on-going engagement in various types of wars and terrorism and the refrigerator seems like a small reward. So we discuss the fate of others because we have decided to build an economy with oil. The Japanese who were most recently one of the healthist people now have the medical conditions of the West with the introduction of fast foods and high fat diets. We know how to make things, but not much more. We have a history of learning from mistakes but we always made the mistakes first. The Confucian idea that everyone should sweep in front of their own home and the world would be clean may still have a place. He also thought that leadership should model ethical behavior....that may be a little more difficult to obtain.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Weren't you (I think I have the right person - apologies if I am wrong) at an Imperial College climate seminar all yesterday afternoon? If so are you going to blog about it? (Or is it 'an inconvenient truth'!)
Complain about this comment
John, John, John... (#59) - do you sense a conspiracy? Or is it bias? Or a cover-up? Do tell... and while you're at it, could you read my mind and explain why I spent the entire afternoon there if I wasn't going to write it up?
Complain about this comment
#60 Richard,
M'thinks you see conspiracies where there are none. Do you walk around a room with your back to the wall? Now as I am sure that it was in fact you, and not some namesake, I look forward to reading your take on the seminar.
My take: It was quite fun even though some of the contributors quite obviously had their own agendas and seemed not to acknowledge or understand the nature of paradigm change and the time it takes to propagate ideas and gain acceptance of the 'facts' - almost as though it had never occurred to them that these things take time!
(The Member for East Antrim attended to present a view of the man in the street - at least he bothered to come!)
I enjoyed it, partly because I met old friends as one does, and partly because of the actual science and reason. At least I now 'know' the weather forecast for the next thirty years and in consequence where to spend my retirement. (Sorry if you weren't there at all, or not to the end, this will be just - confusing!)
Complain about this comment
An Idea!
Since we are 37 ppmv over the tentative Planetary Boundary for CO2, and since the only real reason for going after this rain forest oil is the seven billion dollar revenue stream, why not do some creative accounting?
How much would it cost to bring the Earth's atmospheric CO2 level back down to 350 ppmv, using available and under development technology? (direct extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere, with chemicals)
That should yield an 'expense' for one ppmv of CO2, or alternatively, a cost per tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere.
We can calculate how much CO2 (in tonnes) will be released into the atmosphere if the rain forest reserve is extracted. (400 million tonnes I believe was mentioned in the article)
Which number is greater, the seven billion dollar revenue, or the cost of removing 400 miilion tonnes from the atmosphere?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@sensibleG
Ha ha... no... just tired of explaining to colleagues that we don't have to have numbers and graphs to do stuff! Especially as we will never have them :o)
@ross re52
I agree. It certainly is hard adding CO2 into the EIA mix... but it is certainly there now. One of the trickier aspects I think is distinguishing between direct use... e.g. building a coal power station and indirect use such as in this example provided by Richard. After all... we don't even know how this oil will be used!
In terms of real world examples carbon considerations are really in place and various restrictions mean they won't even need to appear in EIA reports necessarily. New factories and buildings for instance must meet certain energy efficiency regulations. There will still be energy used, but it becomes less important to the EIA. Then we have examples where CO2 emissions would be very significant. I heard of one EIA in Bahrain where they wanted to build an indoor ski slope on a small offshore island in a glass pyramid. the idea was skiers could be on snow and look back across the sea into the desert!!! As you can imagine this would have needed a lot of power, infact it actually needed a whole oil burning power station for itself! The EIA recommended that if it were to be built then the glass pyramid were to be built, much of the glass should be solar panels. I heard the architect said it would spoil his vision!!!! I am not sure if it ever did get built... maybe worth searching the internet to find out.
Yeh it is tricky ground, especially as EIA guidelines are not standard. The EU has its own standard and after that it varies a lot between countries. Most of the guidelines are pretty good, but it doesn't mean they are uniform.
Regarding lanes etc... maybe we will be asked to EIA our holidays in the future! Who knows... I think that may be a bit too nanny state right? I guess it can't be ruled out though.
Complain about this comment
#63, eddhind, about EIA in the EU
I agree with the ideas you are suggesting, but I have a couple of comments about details and an additional suggestion.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but it is a little misleading to talk about an EU 'standard' EIA. As far as I understand it, each EU Member State is required to incorporate the EIA directives into national legislation and the way in which they do so varies considerably. An EIA conducted in Sweden may look very different to one conducted in Greece, an Irish one may look very different to one in Slovakia, and so on.
As to the specific question posed by rossglory, my understanding is there is no fundamental barrier to an EU Member State incorporating CO2 or other GHG into a formal EIA process under national law should they wish to do so.
My suggestion is that assessments conducted pursuant to the SEA directives (Strategic Environmental Assessment) would actually give more scope for addressing future CO2 and other GHG emissions, than an EIA. This is because the SEA process is much broader (the environment assessment under SEA is at the level of plans, programmes and policies) and - if properly done - also entails the consideration of fundamentally different alternatives. (The assessments pursuant to the EIA directives are at the level of specific projects - e.g. the emissions from this particular installation).
Complain about this comment
Is science a religion?
I ask this question because much of the discussion on Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming) sounds and acts just like a religion. Most religions are revelation based that is to say the 'truth' is revealed at some point, quite often in the long distant past, and this forms the basis of all subsequent belief. Science, when it is being scientific - and sometimes it seems not to be very scientific, allows the past theories to be tested against new data. I wonder if Climate Change is more religion and science when it come to the role of CO2 in particular?
Climate Change and religion have much in common - both have a huge industry to support their 'truth', and both are hugely resistant to new revelation. Whilst pollution, cutting down forests and the profligate use of energy are unwise - the scientific evidence that CO2 is a problem is not in accord with the facts. By all means use a carbon-tax regime to drive efficiency and curb the profligate use of resources, but CO2 is vital to life - all life needs CO2 and mans contribution is minuscule. Plants need CO2 to live! I would encourage the environmentalists, who are I believe are well intentioned, to critically examine their religion and look at the science as it has evolved in the last decade. Are will tilting at the wrong windmills?
Complain about this comment
@Simon
Totally agree. The SEA is much more suited to dealing with carbon issues.
The reason I was talking more about the EIA here is to be honest I see this as more of a local environmental impact than a global. Certainly the potential impact of the oil used elswhere is a major impact, but in the grand scheme of oil-use it is a small one-off. To me the major problem (and I ahven't been on site so this is obviously a bit of a guess) is the immediate damage caused to what may be a habitat with unique biodiversity. if it is primary forest then it could even be a key habitat. There i sno reason EIA franeworks can't match those of SEAs in the future... and given the nature of the consultants and academics who perform EIAs I think CO2 emissions will naturally become more important in EIA anyway.
@all
It makes me think a bit of the drug industry. Don't they say there it is better to cut off the supply than the demand? I think in teh case of oil it may be the opposite. As oil is a legal substance that anybody can sell, and as there is so much money to be made by doing so, the it may be better to work on cutting the demand and focus our spending there. After all we would save the buyers money if they switched to renewables. So my hypotheitical preference would be to spend all money on cutting demand for oil... not supply. We do that by building renewables, insulating houses, buying more efficient cars and appliances. To me money spent on keeping this oil in the ground is a waste, even if it protects a unique habitat. Other guidlines should protect unique habitats anyway and the EIA (with SIA) is as good a framework as we have for that.
Complain about this comment
@John_from_Hendon
I don't think science is a religion. It is the continual search for the truth... rather than a support for an existing truth. In religion people have already found the truth. In science we know we will always have to search for it further.
I am not sure quite what you are referencing as the beliefs of environmentalists. Is it that they believe in science as a scientist is not necessarily an environmentalist? I think what environmentalists "worship" is nature. Their point (one which I agree with) is not how much CO2 should there be... neither is it are we as humans causing climate change... but I think it is... "What right do we have to change nature... even in the short term?" By emitting CO2 we are changing natures natural balance... the effects are irrelevant. All species have a footprint on nature granted, but ours is by far the biggest. Do we really have the arrogance to believe that we are superior to other species and other aspects of nature. We have made mistakes before where we didn't know we were harming nature (e.g. DDT). We never apologised to nature for this mistake. We just carried on harming it. Can we afford to do the same with CO2? Who knows what it will do. Anyway I said I was avoiding CO2 on this blog so I will shut up shop for now! :o)
Complain about this comment
When one is dragged up with religion from birth one has an entirely different perspective about the whole thing than those who are new to it. This prepares one for life and the further 'absolutes' that come one's way. It is the duty of those of any faith to ask questions and challenge dogma. It is only through questioning and comparing that one can find truth and filter it out of what 'hegemony authority' puts in the way.
The only way to cope with the climate debate is to question it and see it from as many perspectives as possible while avoiding following one thread too devotedly. Hopefully then, you can avoid being brainwashed :o)
Complain about this comment
An Idea ! - (continued)
From the Richard Black article:
"Yet not extracting it would mean $7bn of revenue lost.
The proposal is couched in terms of avoiding emissions from burning the oil. At about 400 million tonnes of CO2, the government estimates this is roughly equivalent to Ecuador's total emissions for 13 years.
The sum of $350m per year for 10 years - totalling about half of the oilfield's estimated value - was suggested as a reasonable price.
If a mechanism were set up to encourage Ecuador to keep 850 million barrels of oil in the ground, how fast might Saudi Arabia sprint out of the blocks in pursuit of dollars relating to its 267 billion barrels?"
- bolding by manysummits
------------------------
400 million tonnes of CO2 ~ = 1.26 x 10^9 (billion) barrels of crude oil
( @ 1 tonne of CO2 = ~ 3.15 bbls oil )
In the article, we are told 850 million bbls of oil may be left "in the ground."
850 x 10^6 (million) bbls oil ~ = 269 x 10^6 (million) tonnes CO2
( @ 1 bbl oil producing 315 kg CO2 )
Discrepancy there? Let's go with the lower number:
We'll leave 850 million bbls of crude oil in the ground; i.e., by not drilling we'll save ~ 269 million tonnes of CO2 going into the air, but Ecuador will lose seven billion dollars of revenue.
Breakeven is then seven billion dollars divided by 269 x 10^6 tonnes of CO2 = ~ $26 per tonnes of CO2.
So if it costs less than $26/tonne to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, it might be a reasonable venture, depending on how much below $26/tonne it costs to remove COI2 from the air.
I'll work on that next. Got to go:
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #69.
perhaps you could put those calculations on a google (spreadsheet) document? you could then invite others to view/collaborate. just a thought..
Complain about this comment
#69 Manysummits: you ask "how fast might Saudi Arabia sprint out of the blocks in pursuit of dollars relating to its 267 billion barrels".
The answer is that they're already half way down the track! In the climate negotiations Saudi Arabia has been calling for compensation if oil exports fall as a result of agreements on cutting CO2 emissions.
See, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/energy-environment/14oil.html
Complain about this comment
Saudi Arabia is in a very strong position either way. As a country it has a vast majority of the world's spare capacity. Thus it can essentially control the price of oil through the activities of OPEC. Gone are the days when OPEC were happy at $20 per barrel. I can't see oil dropping below $50 a barrel on OPECs watch so I think Saudi Arabia will be ok either way. To be honest it is hard to attach any blame to them. They have a phenomonal once in history chance to make money that could last them for centuries. In a world where economic futures are not looking so rosy they are just looking after their own future. So I re-iterate that we shoulddn't be focussing too much money downstream. we must look upstream and focus our limited finances on cutting demand. Cutting supply is just not worth the expenditure... you may as well throw money away!
Complain about this comment
simon-swede at 71,
This is ridiculous. It is nearly as ridiculous as the Bahrain-ski-slope-under-a-glass-pyramid idea. I hope the claim for compensation is rejected, for the sake of the rest of world. If the Saudi's are worried about a drop in their revenue why don't they cut back on some of their more over-the-top-architectural plans. Instead plan for a more frugal future more in keeping with the wisdom of their ancestors. In the long run I expect they will be far happier with a more aesthetic and dignified lifestyle.
Complain about this comment
Saudi Arabian/Ecuadorian...All Nations Responsibility or Irresponsibility
I'm not going on to the new blog - not yet.
I've got a bone in my teeth and I'm holding on - on a roll, in other words:
1) Only a fool would knowingly continue to transgress a known planetary boundary, i.e., a planetary threshold with potentially catastrophic consequences, without mitigation.
2) Let's say that threshold is 350 ppmv, as per James Hansen (2008 - "Target Atmospheric CO2"), and the new Stockholm Resilience Centre's "Planetary Boundaries" article (2009).
3) The current CO2 level is 37 ppmv above this planetary boundary (387 ppmv)
4) Thererfore, any nation or entity emitting CO2 into our atmosphere is liable for the consequences, until the atmospheric CO2 level is brought down to the planetary threshold, i.e., 350 ppmv, subject to ongoing scientific assessment of this number.
5) History indicates we the people will pick up the tab for the mitigation and cleanup. I am not expecting anyone else will do this.
6) So - in the case of Ecuador, which I am using as a test case, here's the deal:
-----------
1) Since costs for air-capture of CO2 are apparently only slightly higher than the cost of removing CO2 from point source emmitters such as a coal-fired power plant, and as air-capture is non-discriminatory, in that it can be used anywhere, in small or large developmemts, and since its benefits are equally distributed amongst the people of the world, lowering CO2 in the atmosphere directly, I will use air-capture as the standard against which all other proposals will be measured.
2) Since the actual costs are not readily available for either point-source CO2 capture or for air-capture, we will adopt a practical approach rather than accounting.
3) And that approach is this:
- Ecuador must remove from the atmosphere, molecule by molecule, mole by mole, every tonne of CO2 which will be emmitted to the atmosphere as the rain-forest reserve under discussion is extracted and burned. This will remove the necessity of any tax revenue from a carbon tax or a carbon offset etc being abused. It will also remove the necessity of doing fancy present value and such calculations over the say thirty year life of this proposed oilfield.
- As the oil is extracted, no doubt the price of crude will fluctuate - no matter - all that is required is that Ecuador remove every molecule of CO2 which is emmitted, also over a thirty year period, and also with anticipated declines in the cost of air-capture removal.
Do you see what I am getting at?
This principle, once established, will have universal application.
Even individual humans emit CO2 - you can require me to pay for the costs of removing this exhaled CO2.
Note that I am demanding that something like this be implemented!
Last time I looked, I had one vote, and the taxpayer pays all the bills in the final analysis.
We'll call this people power - No - I have an even better idea!
We'll call it DEMO-CRACY (people-power)
More later!
What say you, members of what I am going to call the World Democratic Council??
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
I disagree
First...at the most basic level this is wrong because we will continue to use oil even if we stop burning it. Ecuador would merely be selling a product that happened to be flammable, the end user is the one that actually burns it.
Second, (excuse the rant) the whole hypothesis of substantial global warming has the issue of being an extraordinary claim and the problem is the "evidence" that "supports" this hypothesis is sketchy at best. In science you can't go around making claims of substantial warming when the warming is nowhere near those levels. We quite simply cannot find this mythical heat in the pipe. We have never once approached the "dangerous" levels of warming suggested. Heck, ocean heat content just took a dive...how is that even possible when it's supposed to be the only thing holding us back from the oblivion that is global warming???
Alarmists don't need to prove SOME warming. They don't need to generate peer reviewed papers showing that if many factors fall withing a certain range it might be theoretically possible for substantial warming. They need to prove the insane amounts of warming they're complaining about.
Do not come to me with some model that uses a lame list of climate forcings with every one showing from a minimum of +/-20% to...so variable we obviously aren't even sure of its positive or negative impact. Alarmists need to provide iron-clad figures if they're going to suggest UNDETECTABLE increases...because that my friend is very much...an extraordinary claim.
Complain about this comment
55. At 4:01pm on 29 Oct 2009, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
Which bit broke house rules? Everything in the comment was benign and helpful to those researching and attempting to understand.
Probably under the catch-all 'off-topic' which applies, if I read some posts above under my interpretation of the House Rules... variably. Especially from those who could teach our current leadership of loss of plot in sober debate.
More 'it's our ball, and we'll stamp feet 'cos we can', but that's what makes so much here 'unique'.
Try threatening or ad hom'ing someone who is on message, and it'll sail through and even survive a challenge: they're good like that... with some.
Complain about this comment
#63 eddhind
thanks for the info. i didn't find the glass pyramid, so am hoping it wasn't built. i've seen clips of the one in bahrain and the energy use, even without the glass is phenomenal.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS