Al Gore wants to be President. He has a brilliant strategy. Present himself as a virtuous oracle. A savior. Stay above the debilitating and exhausting political debate. Then make his move when voters inevitably find fault with his potential opponents. It will not be hard. The Democratic Party is in disarray. Confused. Contentious (as always). So all Al has to do is write books, make speeches and allow himself to be drafted. In point of fact, an active "Draft Gore" campaign is already underway. Liberals are falling all over themselves to make him their hero.

And he has an issue that is near and dear to the proletariat. Global Warming. He has done an excellent job of weaving it into a key theme for his campaign. Save the environment. Use the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007", as the basis for his magnificent convictions. What's not to like?

There is only one problem. The IPCC report has a serious flaw. One little kink that could really screw up his plans.

None of the SRES Scenarios are Valid

There are those who believe the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has many deficiencies. Flaws. Errors of methodology. And questionable conclusions. But one failure stands out. Of the published, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), none are valid. Not B1, A1T, B2, A1B, A2, nor A1F1. Which means the temperature increases they graph are nonsense. For one very simple reason. They all ignore fossil fuel energy resource depletion. All of the SRES scenarios assume there are no resource constraints on the consumption of coal, oil and natural gas.

That - is a fatal error.

Why has the IPCC failed to include this critical data in their calculations? Was it a deliberate omission? If, as the IPCC claims, human fossil fuel consumption drives global warming, then the depletion of oil, natural gas and coal resources will automatically force a decrease in the production of CO2 and other Green House Gases (GHG). Current projections indicate total fossil fuel consumption will peak around 2045. Maybe sooner. After that, we humans will have less to burn each year. If that's the case, then there is no problem. Right? By 2100 GHG production will be down to 2000 levels because we will have less fossil fuels to burn. There is no need to take any draconian measures to curb global warming. It is a self correcting problem.

Sorry. It's not that simple. Fossil fuel resource depletion and global warming are joined at the hip. Evil twins that threaten our human existence. Failure to consider them together could lead to greater global warming in the 21^st century, followed by a decrease in global temperatures after 2100. Or maybe not. We need to add resource depletion to the IPCC's calculations. That exercise may give us a better answer.

Fossil Fuel Resource Depletion

The depletion of our oil, natural gas and coal resources is not a phenomenon that will happen sometime in the distant future. It is happening now. It has already altered the objectives and alliances of international diplomacy, empowered the political aspirations of producer nations, restructured how world energy markets work, and changed the economics of fossil fuel exploration and production.

As you may have noticed, it has also raised the price of gasoline and heating oil.

Most of the world's production is coming from older deposits. Many have already gone past peak production. Exporting countries are thus in a position to control the price and availability of an increasingly scarce commodity. As a result, corporate behavior, government action, cultural stability, economics, legal agreements, geography, weather, transportation, military diplomacy and the always potent combination of religion and politics are now more important than geology in developing resource production forecasts. Call these the derivative factors of doing business on a global scale. Each one could disrupt the flow of oil, natural gas or coal. As a result, proven or identified reserves are less important than accessible reserves

Make a chart of world population growth. Add the data for fossil fuel consumption on an appropriate comparative scale. Population growth has obviously driven the consumption of energy. The more people on this planet, the more energy we consume. Within first world OECD nations, fossil fuel energy has provided the foundation for our economic wealth and population growth. But this begs a question. If we no longer have enough cheap and readily available energy to support our lifestyle, what happens next? Does this mean we will be forced to reduce our population in order to match the availability of fossil fuel energy? Or face famine? Chronic recession? Cultural chaos?

That's what the United Nations is telling us.

Is Global Warming Real?

Absolutely. There is plenty of real data and empirical evidence to support the contention our planet is going through one of its natural, normal, climate cycles. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), over the last 420,000 years temperatures on our planet have ranged from plus 4 degrees C (five periods of very warm weather) to minus 10 degrees (four periods of very cold weather) versus a fictitious baseline. If we go back 600 million years, temperature variations are even larger. In fact, average temperatures have been significantly higher (over 18 degrees C) than today (about 14 degrees C) for much of the earth's history. We can associate warm periods with lush plant life, dinosaurs, swamps, deserts, overflowing oceans, and high concentrations of carbon dioxide. Our treasure trove of coal, oil and natural gas (all are forms of carbon) was created during these warm cycles. Low temperature cycles have been associated with expanding glaciers, ice ages, struggling animal populations, limited vegetation, and low concentrations of carbon dioxide.

The point, of course, is that global warming and cooling are natural processes. We do not really know if, or how, human activity alters this process. Although the IPCC report places a great deal of the blame on the consumption of fossil fuels, part - or perhaps most - of what is happening to our planet could be perfectly natural.

Either way, we humans have a problem.

Conclusion

One can not separate fossil fuel depletion from global warming. They must be evaluated as a package because they are inter-related. Although both of these evil twins will force us humans to curb our consumption of fossil fuels, how we chose to utilize - and stretch out - and allocate our remaining resources is a critical element of any global plan.

I'll give you three examples.

1. There is a call to avoid coal fired power generation in favor of natural gas facilities. That could be a bad choice. Coal power can be regulated. We have some control over GHG emissions. But if we use our natural gas to make electricity, what happens when it runs out? Consumers will turn to coal - and anything else that will burn - to stay warm. That's unregulated consumption. Lots of pollution. Would it be better to "save" our remaining natural gas resources for home consumption by using coal for power generation? If our only consideration is global warming, the answer is no. If we add the challenge of resource depletion, the answer is a very definite yes. On a net pollution basis, we are better off if we conserve our natural gas resources for home consumption.

2. Right now China is determined to secure every unclaimed joule of fossil fuel it can find on our planet. China's first priority is to enable unlimited national economic growth. It will not join in any international plan to curb global warming on the basis that "poor" nations should be allowed to catch up to "rich" nations, a position supported by the United Nations. That means China plans to consume copious quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas for as long as it can. If our only concern is global warming, there may be some justification for this stance. If we include the challenge of fossil fuel resource depletion, China's stance is ultimately self destructive. And bad for us all.

3. Population. There are too many of us on this planet. The United Nations would like to make population management the cornerstone of its global warming agenda. It's the best long term solution. Reduce the population, reduce the production of GHG. But population management is a tough sell. The UN needs a kicker. That could be resource depletion. Declining fossil fuel resources will force a reduction of population and economic activity anyway (read: less globalization). In this case, the evil twins work together.

Al Gore has seized the high ground with a single, virtuous, pop-culture issue. Although it is obvious his failure to consider resource depletion and global warming as two sides of the same key issue leave him vulnerable, it will be up to the other candidates to figure out a way to unseat him from his prophetic throne.

As for me, I just want to be helpful. Despite my reservations about the accuracy of climate modeling, if someone wants to run a global simulation that includes fossil fuel resource depletion, I'll be happy to help with the relevant oil, coal and natural gas data. We should do reference, high availability and depletion crisis scenarios.

And let the chips fall where they may.

Ronald R. Cooke
The Cultural Economist