Global Warming and OPEC

[Noworkia]

I read in the news this morning that OPEC is going to increase oil production by 2 million barrels a day.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050919/ap_on_bi_ge/opec_meeting_12

"VIENNA, Austria

OPEC oil ministers trying to calm a market rattled by refinery shutdowns and concerned about supplies for the winter were debating Monday whether to boost the group's official output ceiling or make available 2 million extra barrels a day from reserves. "


That is just more greenhouse gasses that is going to be put in to the atmosphere. That got me thinking. If industrial countries decrease fossil fuel usage but OPEC keeps pumping the same, the price will drop. That will make it cheaper for others to buy it, consume it and put green house gasses in the atmosphere anyway. Cheaper prices usually encourage usage.

If greenhouse gas production is to be reduced to 1990 levels, then OPEC needs to reduce production to 1990 levels. OPEC is currently producing 30% over their 1990 levels. If OPEC would just reduce output to 1990 levels, then the amount of greenhouse gasses release would drop to almost that level over night.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

And in what way is this highly technical?

Aside from the fact that you're wrong - greenhouse gas emissions are equally affected by the amount of other fossil fuels burnt. Use of Coal and Gas in India and China will have a far greater impact than the extra 20% oil production.

I know, why not e-mail OPEC and inform them of the error of their ways?

 

[Titan]

I'm just curious, how do we measure greenhouse gas output for the whole world? Is there an official registry somewhere which tracks each factory and estimates car output? I haven't had a chance to do my homework on the whole global warming debate and would like some resources of facts for a scientific-minded person like me. What I know is this:

o The earth has been generally getting a few degrees warmer in the past hundred years. This is hard to measure of course since data points and history are scattered about.

o This *may* be cause by the greenhouse effect in our own atmosphere, but this is even harder to demonstrate for similar reasons. While the effect can be simulated in a lab, it's hard to get the right measurements and data to substantiate this for a whole planet.

When I look at the debate I see a lot of environmentalist FUD and a lot of capatalist apathy. It's hard to know where the truth lies.

But, I will say that smokestacks spew crap that tends to linger and can't be healthy to breathe in. Like the Diesel Death valley. Which is why i live in VT where the air is clean and population low. I'm more concerned about my own lungs than the supposed crisis on the planet.

I will say I am amazed at how people seem to think the world is supposed to stay the same, always the way we want it, bent to the will of mankind. It is, in fact, quite a dynamic system where you shouldn't be suprised if you have a city one day, and a lake the next. Mother nature still rules us all.

 

[Noworkia]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
And in what way is this highly technical?

Aside from the fact that you're wrong - greenhouse gas emissions are equally affected by the amount of other fossil fuels burnt. Use of Coal and Gas in India and China will have a far greater impact than the extra 20% oil production.

I know, why not e-mail OPEC and inform them of the error of their ways?

I guess I should have added this to the other greenhouse gas thread to make it more valid for you.

The world can't reduce consumption without reducing production of fossil fuels, we live in a free market economy.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Noworkia

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
And in what way is this highly technical?

Aside from the fact that you're wrong - greenhouse gas emissions are equally affected by the amount of other fossil fuels burnt. Use of Coal and Gas in India and China will have a far greater impact than the extra 20% oil production.

I know, why not e-mail OPEC and inform them of the error of their ways?

I guess I should have added this to the other greenhouse gas thread to make it more valid for you.

The world can't reduce consumption without reducing production of fossil fuels, we live in a free market economy.

And becuase we live in a free-market economy, that will never happen. The problem simply cannot be simplified to "Produce less, consume less." If anything, we need to look for better ways of producing energy than burning fossil fuels, (be it Nuclear or Renewable energy) and more efficient ways of using that energy.

 

[Pythias]

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps we should be looking into ways of utilizing it?

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Pythias
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps we should be looking into ways of utilizing it?

If you can find a way to collect pure hydrogen you'll be a rich man. Until then... NEXT!

 

[Noworkia]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000

Originally posted by: Noworkia

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
And in what way is this highly technical?

Aside from the fact that you're wrong - greenhouse gas emissions are equally affected by the amount of other fossil fuels burnt. Use of Coal and Gas in India and China will have a far greater impact than the extra 20% oil production.

I know, why not e-mail OPEC and inform them of the error of their ways?

I guess I should have added this to the other greenhouse gas thread to make it more valid for you.

The world can't reduce consumption without reducing production of fossil fuels, we live in a free market economy.

And becuase we live in a free-market economy, that will never happen. The problem simply cannot be simplified to "Produce less, consume less." If anything, we need to look for better ways of producing energy than burning fossil fuels, (be it Nuclear or Renewable energy) and more efficient ways of using that energy.

What is the better way of producing energy, when the free market says that fossil fuels are cheaper to use than nuclear or renewable?

 

[makken]

Originally posted by: Pythias
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps we should be looking into ways of utilizing it?

In the universe, but I doubt on earth.
Most of it is caught up in something we call water 😉

We can, of course, seperate hydrogen from water, but simple thermodynamics says that will use more energy than the hydrogen will produce.

 

[Pythias]

Originally posted by: makken

Originally posted by: Pythias
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps we should be looking into ways of utilizing it?

In the universe, but I doubt on earth.
Most of it is caught up in something we call water 😉

We can, of course, seperate hydrogen from water, but simple thermodynamics says that will use more energy than the hydrogen will produce.

Could we use solar/wind/thermal/gerbil turbine to extract hydrogen?

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: Pythias

Originally posted by: makken

Originally posted by: Pythias
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps we should be looking into ways of utilizing it?

In the universe, but I doubt on earth.
Most of it is caught up in something we call water 😉

We can, of course, seperate hydrogen from water, but simple thermodynamics says that will use more energy than the hydrogen will produce.

Could we use solar/wind/thermal/gerbil turbine to extract hydrogen?

Solar panels block valuable sunlight from warming the desert.
Windmills mutilate endangered birds that fly, hypnotized, into them.
Thermal energy needs to stay where it is to keep bacteria in the ocean alive.
Gerbils have feelings too.

 

[Pythias]

Originally posted by: tkotitan2

Originally posted by: Pythias

Originally posted by: makken

Originally posted by: Pythias
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps we should be looking into ways of utilizing it?

In the universe, but I doubt on earth.
Most of it is caught up in something we call water 😉

We can, of course, seperate hydrogen from water, but simple thermodynamics says that will use more energy than the hydrogen will produce.

Could we use solar/wind/thermal/gerbil turbine to extract hydrogen?

Solar panels block valuable sunlight from warming the desert.
Windmills mutilate endangered birds that fly, hypnotized, into them.
Thermal energy needs to stay where it is to keep bacteria in the ocean alive.
Gerbils have feelings too.

ROFL At ease! I am by no means a rabid environmentalist. My concern is that I may one day be unable to surf teh pr0n for lack of power. This must not happen!

 

[CycloWizard]

This is a good place to start for those who don't have the necessary background to discuss the issue of global warming:

Wikipedia guide to global warming

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that, by keeping oil prices high, OPEC could encourage the development of alternative fuels. What he fails to realize is that this is EXACTLY why OPEC will drop prices. Current oil prices have greatly intensified research efforts for alternative fuels. If OPEC refuses to output more oil, then they will force themselves into obsolescence and make no money at all.

In the end, the earth is a much more robust system than people realize. It has been able to overcome ecological disasters in the past and will continue to do so in the future. As the Wiki article demonstrates, temperature cycles are the rule rather than the exception. People need to realize this before becoming alarmists and declare that the sky is falling.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: tkotitan2

Originally posted by: Pythias

Originally posted by: makken

Originally posted by: Pythias
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps we should be looking into ways of utilizing it?

In the universe, but I doubt on earth.
Most of it is caught up in something we call water 😉

We can, of course, seperate hydrogen from water, but simple thermodynamics says that will use more energy than the hydrogen will produce.

Could we use solar/wind/thermal/gerbil turbine to extract hydrogen?

Solar panels block valuable sunlight from warming the desert.
Windmills mutilate endangered birds that fly, hypnotized, into them.
Thermal energy needs to stay where it is to keep bacteria in the ocean alive.
Gerbils have feelings too.

At last! Someone talking sense... Good linky CycloWizard - suggest everone reads it before continuing with this thread!

 

[Pythias]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is a good place to start for those who don't have the necessary background to discuss the issue of global warming:

Wikipedia guide to global warming

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that, by keeping oil prices high, OPEC could encourage the development of alternative fuels. What he fails to realize is that this is EXACTLY why OPEC will drop prices. Current oil prices have greatly intensified research efforts for alternative fuels. If OPEC refuses to output more oil, then they will force themselves into obsolescence and make no money at all.

In the end, the earth is a much more robust system than people realize. It has been able to overcome ecological disasters in the past and will continue to do so in the future. As the Wiki article demonstrates, temperature cycles are the rule rather than the exception. People need to realize this before becoming alarmists and declare that the sky is falling.

All kidding aside, I agree. Although I do have to say that I'm a little skeptical, possibly even cynical about the global warming theory. This mudball is billions of years old and we are the new kids on the block.