The use of fossil fuels will stop when they run out. There are simply too many vested interests to allow a major move towards alternative energy sources on a global scale. Of course, a concerted effort by major world governments could do it... but that's never going to happen either.

What it doesn't say is that this "scenario" – the most pessimistic of several the IEA has produced – could lead to six degrees of warming by the end of the century.

And to think that the Guardian was once the voice of the intelligent left. It is a tragedy that a great newspaper has completely abandoned its soul to eco hysterics.

Greenpeace is a pressure group it is not an arm of the UN and has no special status that allows it to break national laws with impunity. Governments need to send Greenpeace a simple message:

Disrupt a lawful business in our country and your activists will go to jail and your organisation will be brought to court and made to pay damages for every penny lost through their illegal actions.

Our society depends on oil. My car wont run on anything else, nor will nearly all of our power stations. We cannot make many materials, including all plastics, without oil. No more oil = no more (or much much more expensive) computers, tvs, radios. Many drugs are made from oil products, such as asprin. All commercial solar panels have been constructed from oil products, as have the plastics for almost all major wind farms. Pesticides, fertilisers, e.t.c. all come directly from oil, and they feed most people on the planet.

I think you get my point. Coming off oil will possibly be the most difficult thing humanity has ever had to do. If greenpeace think shutting down a single oil rig for a few days is going to be remembered as some great heroic act, they have no idea what is coming up next.

*
CharleySays CharleySays

31 Aug 2010, 10:08PM

Sorry John but blue whales, polar bears and kittiwakes won't power my Audi and it's my turn to take the kids to school tomorrow.

The visual image of a man trying to wrestle a polar bear into his fuel tank on the side of the M25 is going to be really hard to shake (plus you're right, it really doesn't work).

GrumbleDuke

31 Aug 2010, 10:14PM

CharleySays

Sorry John but blue whales, polar bears and kittiwakes won't power my Audi and it's my turn to take the kids to school tomorrow.

Walk...it's far cheaper.

Yeah, I'm going to assume you're one of those smug cosmopolitan types that assumes everyone lives in a city or town.

Nice on Greenpeace. Ignore the haters, history is on your side.

The only thing that depresses me is that there aren't more organisations willing to do the same thing.

I don't agree with the actions of Greenpeace,
but I do agree with the sentiment.
If people actually walked (including schoolchildren)!,then
it would go somewhere towards decreasing
both our reliance on fossil fuels & also
obese waistlines (including schoolchildren)!

I strongly AGREE come on people what are we doing to the world, will some one Total, Shell, Bp look into algae as a sustainable replacment for fuel. Similar to wheat but with less water use. Learning this is possible and not being albe to do a thing about it is frustrating. We can all drive audi's, just put something different inside it.....

We do need alternatives to fossil fuels, but I don't want my energy supply policy decided by a green proto-fascist pressure group, thank you.

Truth is fossil hydrocarbons will be needed long after we invent hydrogen fusion power (should we succeed in that), 'cos that's where the raw materials for our plastics and synthetic rubbers come from. The only other sources are on other planets in the solar system, so expect exploitation of arctic reserves first.

People will act against their long term self interest for instant gratification, this is well established, just look at smoking etc. Of course no one will take action on climate change until it is well upon us. I just hope that when the obvious is too obvious to ignore, we have the wit to do something constructive about it. The people who will really suffer are the ones who always suffer. Economically disadvantaged south of the equator. These will die in their millions.
If you feel you should do something about it, do so. If not don't.

Aspirin - salicylic acid - isn't that from a plant?

thegardenelf

but I do agree with the sentiment.
If people actually walked (including schoolchildren)!,then
it would go somewhere towards decreasing
both our reliance on fossil fuels

That would make bugger all difference to our overall demand for fossil fuels...as JefooY says above - our society depends on oil.....utterly.
The PC that I write this on, the cars outside, the planes in the sky, almost everything on my desk needed oil to end up there.

our options are grim....either we go back to living like we did in the middle ages (which Greenpeace seems to want us to do), or succumb to a coming global warming catastrophe (an outcome still in dispute), or we come up with alternatives - nuclear, solar, wind, magic - none of which is enough to even nearly satisfy current demands.....

thegardenelf

but I do agree with the sentiment.
If people actually walked (including schoolchildren)!,then
it would go somewhere towards decreasing
both our reliance on fossil fuels

That would make bugger all difference to our overall demand for fossil fuels...as JefooY says above - our society depends on oil.....utterly.
The PC that I write this on, the cars outside, the planes in the sky, almost everything on my desk needed oil to end up there.

our options are grim....either we go back to living like we did in the middle ages (which Greenpeace seems to want us to do), or succumb to a coming global warming catastrophe (an outcome still in dispute), or we come up with alternatives - nuclear, solar, wind, magic - none of which is enough to even nearly satisfy current demands.....

It doesn't seem to strike the author that peak oil could in fact be a lie propogated by the monopolised oil giants like the opec nations to keep prices high, after all, didn't they state that peak oil would happen in the 70s? And after that, the 90s? The fact is that these measures to curb oil consumption, a sort of eco-terrorism will indeed effect the poorest first, which is no surprise considering its advocates are comfortably middle class. British firms such as Panel technology are in the process of engineering water powered cars. If the sea levels are rising due to the burning of fossil fuels, wouldn't it make sense to put this new water to good use?

Greenpeace would have a lot more credibility if the occupied the Vatican until the Pope gave his blessing to the use of condoms.

It is the volume of consumption of oil more than the use of it at all that is the real problem.

When there are vehicle engines capable of 80mpg then no engine that achieves less efficiency should be allowed to be used. 2/3rds of oil use in the USA is for transportation for example.

Oil/petrol should be treated as a precious and dangerous comodity whose usage should be absolutely prudent and used as efficiently as possible. Burning excessive oil simply to allow a luxury car to accelerate faster is damaging on so many levels it should simply not be a choice that is available.

If global transportation oil use was all operating at the level of the most economic engine there would be far many less concerns about its use.

Obviously this is just one aspect of the problems of oil and fossil fuel usage in general but it is a big aspect.

Farga

You hit the nail on the head, "satisfy current demands".

Reduce the demands, reduce consumerism,
reduce greed. But that won't happen unfortunately, as people see
"demands" as "rights".

Farga

You hit the nail on the head, "satisfy current demands".

Reduce the demands, reduce consumerism,
reduce greed. But that won't happen unfortunately, as people see
"demands" as "rights".

after all, didn't they state that peak oil would happen in the 70s?

"They" as in M. King Hubbert predicted that oil production would peak in the US in about 1974. And he was bang on the money.

Heard the one about how much natural gas Saudi Arabia is having to shove into the Ghawar oil field lately to keep it viable?

Mr Bronze

Exactly!

We have squandered the era of cheap, abundant energy.
Rather than investing for the future, thinking in a joined-up fashion about which direction we wished our species to take, and investing huge quantities of this virtually free energy (crude oil) to realise this goal, we have been driven on by the profit-gorging oil/arms/war industry to the point where the reality of producing a sustainable future for the Planet's mushrooming population is nothing but a pipe dream.
Merry fucking Christmas.

When there are vehicle engines capable of 80mpg then no engine that achieves less efficiency should be allowed to be used. 2/3rds of oil use in the USA is for transportation for example.

Let's try the simple things first, seriously raise fuel taxes (all not just petrol and diesel), increase the number of trains and bring back guards vans for cycle use, make working from home easier for those whose jobs permit, make cycling more acceptable.

Pieces like this just come across as promotional advertising chock full of empty sophistry and in essence just talking to the intended audience of their faithful direct debit clients. I can't believe anyone else can find anything edifying here. Sauven talks about circularity, but his 'having your cake and eating it' is wonderfully exampled by this priceless nugget

"...a series of brutal "weather events" this year should serve as the final warning. We are careful to point out that no single flood, storm or drought can be blamed on climate change..."

I don't read a lot of Greenpeace puffery so I may be wrong, but I can't believe Greenpeace is doing too well if their schtick is performing at this desperate level.
When all the hoo-hah dies down over this recent regulation bit of uncritcial Guardian advertising, and boosts their awareness cycle for a bit, is anyone going to stick around and find out if Cairn energy is going to change its plans in any way, at all? Or dare to ask if Greenpeace actually do anything constructive in any way?
I notice Cairn Energys share price closed up a half percentage today ;)

Good article and all (sustainable) power to Greenpeace! - Don't take any notice of the usual greedy, selfish Audi-driving deniers either, eh John? I'll be glad when the oil runs out, so then I can eat them and their horrid, spoilt and lazy kids! - Barbecue anyone? (I'll be using CharleySays' furniture as fuel) ...

stoneshepherd

I agree with your suggestions but private vehicle transport and goods transportation is still important and a 'right'. However, that does not mean that right should include the right to burn as much oil/petrol as one pleases. Raising tax does not change attitude enough, it would have to be raised 'through the roof'.

Sorry John but blue whales, polar bears and kittiwakes won't power my Audi and it's my turn to take the kids to school tomorrow.

Well said. And how am I supposed to get to work if I can't fill up my Range Rover? We have come to depend upon the car and there's no point in denying that fact. In the longer term, it may be that a new fuel will have to be found but, until one comes along, I'm sticking with my trusty Range Rover Sport.

Go beyond oil.

...but not to nuclear fusion, which Greenpeace shamefully opposes. How much closer we'd be if the environmental movement was full square behind it!

Interesting.

Greenland is not known for being overly wealthy. What else are they going to do for money? Sell ice to Eskimos? There are only a few of them and there is a great deal of ice.

What it represents is not that people shouldn't be protesting about drilling, especially in areas where ice naturally exists. But that people need and want to live much like anyone else does in the western world and for that they require money. Situations like this occur world wide. Though I agree the problems at the ice caps are more acute than many others.

Take a look at these:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11820680

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-44CW1MJ-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1446720159&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0a81e6585f531c8829ac36edc2f7bf64&searchtype=a

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC2685778;jsessionid=CCB7F1E61BA167DA79060DDB0F47678C.jvm1

This final link is interesting only in so much that alcohol (when mixed) prevents water from freezing (or I guess causes it to thaw). Chilling.

What do Greenpeace tell these people?

Another vanity protest.

nuisverige

You can still have your Range Rover but it's engine should be limited to that of the smallest and most economical available. All vehicles should in fact have a fuel economy of the most efficient vehicle or not be available. Why on earth would you actually want to spend your hard earned money on petrol to burn out the exhaust pipe? Are you that stupid or can't you think of anything better to spend it on?

Global warming is bust, because carbon trading is bust.

Who does James Hansen say is behind carbon trading ? It's the oil companies and banks. What a surprise.

Governments today, instead, talk of "cap-and-trade with offsets", a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/26/james-hansen-climate-change?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

MrBronze

I fail to see your point. I have a Range Rover. It needs a big, powerful engine to pull it, otherwise it won't go. If they can make it more economical - great! I'm all for saving a few quid on petrol, but I need the car to have power.

tomedinburgh
31 Aug 2010, 10:21PM

Greenpeace is a pressure group it is not an arm of the UN and has no special status that allows it to break national laws with impunity. Governments need to send Greenpeace a simple message

They could always get the French Navy to deliver that message.

Surely Greenpeace can be made to compensate Cairn for any loss due to the delay? Rigs are very expensive to hire. I would urge Greenland to send a message and give these idiots a truly punitive sentance, say 10 years.

Hopefully, the Esperanza will have an accident.

Unfortunately, we need oil and will continue to do so. No amount of frugal use will change that. The arctic reserves will be exploited. It's inevitable. This action is pointless.

Why does The Guardian give these tw*ts the oxygen of publicity?

At the end of the day oil will run out sooner or later
This is inevitable
So do we have the intelligence to find alternatives now
Or do we just ignore the problem, encouraged by big oil companies anxious to extract the maximum amount of profit from us first, regardless of the affects on our budgets or the environment

nuisverige

Why do you need a Range Rover? You don't need it, you just want one because it's 'nice'. The fact that the oil it uses excessively to transport you around is a waste of a finite, polluting, corrupting resource should register in your brain and if you have enough IQ should alert you to the fact that not only are you wasting your own money but you are unnecessarily lining the pockets of greedy corporations, adding to the destruction and pollution of the environment and the misery of people all over the world. In short, your Range Rover and the millions of other cars that use excessive fuel are making the world a shitter place to live, for everyone, including yourself, if you have enough grey matter to realise.

GrumbleDuke

31 Aug 2010, 10:14PM

CharleySays

Sorry John but blue whales, polar bears and kittiwakes won't power my Audi and it's my turn to take the kids to school tomorrow.

Walk...it's far cheaper.

Yeah, I'm going to assume you're one of those smug cosmopolitan types that assumes everyone lives in a city or town.

I grew up in a village and my mum walked me to and from primary school (or my gran did). It was the village school. Have they really died out in 20 years?

To be fair, my secondary school was in town, beyond walking distance. I used one of those bus things.

Oil-based economies need................................................oil!

Oil-based economies need................................................oil!

Why do people just assume that alternatives can be found? Oil is energy dense and was cheap

Less economic energy means more and more people living the rest of their lives on welfare or in ultra low paid, dead end jobs jobs. Thanks you green f*cks.

The 84 strong crew of the Ocean Ranger had no chance against a rogue wave.

How does the proposed rig and operating environment compare?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Ranger

CP01 31 Aug 2010, 11:37PM

At the end of the day oil will run out sooner or later
This is inevitable

No it won't.

CP01 31 Aug 2010, 11:37PM

At the end of the day oil will run out sooner or later
This is inevitable

No it won't.

" Six degrees sounds manageable. It is not. These companies are relying on us to keep quiet while they take humanity to the brink. Our climbers are on that rig with a simple message: Go beyond oil."

All very impressive posture and spin. How did the Green Peace reach the rig? Will Mr Sauven confirm that they used the much abused oil, the fruits of the dreadful oil companies labour.

While he is at it, so far except for posturing and spinning, what positive steps have Green Peace taken and with what level of success to develop alternative power sources for the humans and what is that they magical find and where does one find it?

It's just as well we only need oil, not clean water or marine life since those things are getting to be in shorter and shorter supply - though of course everything's fine really and anyone who says otherwise is just in league with those awful scientists and their fiendish plot for a science-based global New World Order (they're evil bastards, y'know).

But we all know that in reality no resource is actually finite and all our resources will last forever and ever - sheesh, they must think we're gullible enough to believe otherwise - and we can carry on polluting and using up and poisoning resources far faster than we can replace them because hey, they're infinite, and anyone who tells us otherwise is a horrid fascist bastard commie trying to spoil our fun.
And we won't listen and we'll stick our fingers in our ears and sing la-la-la till they go away. Or maybe we'll go up to our rooms and turn the music up to drown out their nagging. Take that science!

What Greenpeace should be doing is concentrating on encouraging Renewable energy production, such as Severn Barrage and energy efficiency. Only by reducing demand will the drilling stop, because Greenpeace cannot discourage people to drive or fly and they know it.

The thinking behind this idea:
As the artic ice breaks up, drilling for oil there sounds like the most logical step to oil tycoons. Before global warming became reality, there was too much glacial ice to drill through. But now that their increased production of oil has made global warming accelerate to the point that the ice is breaking up, new opportunities abound. After all, at least there aren't as many humans to be affected by an oil spill.
Why this will not work
Oil has got us into this mess and decreasing our dependency on oil, or better defined as an addiction to oil here in the United States, is the only thing that will get us out. Visit my blog for more on this subject.
More on this subject
Drilling is not the answer! Drilling is not safe, no matter if it is done conventionally or any way. As with anything accidents can happen and oil brings with it too many consequences to turn a blind eye. Our wildlife and water are too precious and our future too important. Wake up oilmen, money can't buy you a new planet.