You are on page 1of 2

Pitting oil vs. coal vs.

gas without context: A reply to "The Alberta oil sands and climate [Swart and Weaver !ature "#$" doi:$#.$#%&'nclimate$("$)"
In a recent study from the journal Nature Climate Change entitled "The Alberta oil sands and climate," Neil Swart and Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria perform some basic calculations that show the relative lobal warmin potentials for various fossil fuel sources! "he findin s by Swart and Weaver are self#evident! We all $new what the I%&& predictions for future temperature increases due to reenhouse as emissions were, and we also $new that the combustion of the oil and derived products from the Alberta oil sands only comprise a minor proportion of the world's projected carbon emissions over the ne(t century! )r o, it was always obvious that developin the Albertan oil sands would have a minimal effect on the )arth's temperature! *ore importantly, the rationali+ation of the manuscript is unclear! ,urnin the oil and derived products from the Albertan oil sands will have a minimal impact on any lobal warmin ! So what- If we pic$ any modestly si+ed fossil fuel reservoir on )arth .be it oil, as, or coal/, we would obtain similarly small results! 0f what relevance do the findin s have- None! "he Albertan oil sands are not special! "here are also major oil sands deposits in 1ussia, and various heavy oil deposits around the world, and conventional oil in many places! So, why not do similar comparative calculations for all other major deposits that are also bein developed .or could be developed/- "hey are effectively all e2ual .some have a sli htly hi her or lower carbon footprint, but for the purposes of discussion, we would be comparin apples#with#apples/1eaders of Swart and Weaver's article may reasonably be led to conclude that developin the Albertan oil sands is not a bi deal in terms of lobal climate because of the resource's relatively small warmin footprint! ,ut cannot all other fossil fuel plays on the planet ma$e an e2uivalent claim- 3es, they can! "hus, if the climate rationale for developin the Albertan oil sands comes out of Swart and Weaver's article, then every other carbon#producin resource project can claim moral e2uivalence, in which case we must develop them all! 0ne must then 2uestion the purpose behind Swart and Weaver's paper, and its overall utility in the climate debate! If we divide a problem up into sufficiently small individual pieces that are no lon er a problem on their own, can we then use the ar ument that since the separate problems from the individual pieces are minimal, the overall problem is also minimal- 0f course not! "he problem is summative! "hus, bac$ to the 2uestion4 what is the point of this article0il is in no real way superior to either as or coal! "hey .and their collective derivatives/ all produce reenhouse ases when combusted . ranted, coal can produce modestly hi her 2uantities per unit of ener y, but the variability is not e(treme/! &onse2uently, it is illo ical to claim .as Swart and Weaver appear to be doin / that coal is the real "tippin point" problem! "his can be illustrated by considerin the reserves#to#production ratios for oil, as, and coal! In the 5677 ,% Statistical 1eview of World )ner y, lobal reserves of proven conventional oil are projected to last 89!5 years at current production rates! Swart and Weaver have assi ned a warmin of 6!58:& to this resource, which e2uates to 6!66;5:&<year from current oil production rates! Similarly, the ,% review database ives lobal reserves of proven as that are projected to last ;=!9 years at current production rates! Swart and Weaver have assi ned a warmin of 6!79:& to this resource, which e2uates to 6!665>:&<year from current as production rates! ?inally, the ,% review database ives lobal reserves of proven coal that are projected to last 77= years at current production rates! Swart and Weaver have assi ned a warmin of 6!@5:& to this resource, which e2uates to 6!66>=:&<year from current coal production rates! It

appears that oil and as combustion are collectively warmin the planet at about an e2uivalent rate as coal combustion! Swart and Weaver o on to calculate the projected warmin if the total resource bases ."1,s/ for oil, as, and coal are combusted! "he authors arrive at 6!=>:& for oil .conventional A unconventional/, B!7=:& for as .conventional A unconventional/, and 78!>@:& for coal! "he major problem with these numbers is that they lac$ conte(t! At current rates of production, the "1,s for oil, as, and coal as 2uoted by Swart and Weaver would last 7>6 years, 7566 years, and 7@66 years, respectively! When normali+ed to a warmin #per#year, we obtain 6!66;7:&<year for oil, 6!665>:&<year for as, and 6!66>=:&<year for coal! 0ne also notes that the atmospheric lifetime of carbon dio(ide is estimated as about B6 to @; years, and that althou h "more than half of the Ccarbon dio(ideD emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction .about 56E/ of emitted Ccarbon dio(ideD remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years!" "hus, it appears that unless Swart and Weaver are proposin we produce and combust these massive oil, as, and coal resources in a short period of time, their warmin estimates .particularly for as and coal/ appear to be very lar e overestimates when compared to the actual warmin influence they would have if combusted at current production rates! Franted, lobal production rates of fossil fuels are increasin over time, but not li$ely to the point where the "1,s for oil, as, and coal as 2uoted by Swart and Weaver would be combusted over the course of only a few decades! &onse2uently, conte(t is critical in interpretin this data .and even the oil sands based temperature increases/, and the article failed to provide it! 0verall, one must be very cautious in sin lin out coal as a potential 'climate villain' when compared to oil and as! Unless lobal coal production and combustion increases e(ponentially in short order to e(tremely hi h rates, then coal, oil, and as will all contribute si nificantly to increasin atmospheric carbon dio(ide concentrations over the ne(t century! &oal production is increasin rapidly, but not li$ely to the e(tent re2uired to allow combustion of the entire lobal "1, within a sin le atmospheric lifetime of carbon dio(ide!

You might also like