Petroleum depletion, natural gas, nuclear power - JP

United Dr. James Pindell, States and UK Tectonic Analysis Ltd.

Research Geologist, Hydrocarbon Systems

To: Mr. John Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, August 1, 2021 I hope with this letter to focus your well-informed attention on three main points; one, that the emissions issue has understandably been overplayed by “believers in CO2” and the IPCC; two, that the impending depletion of petroleum is a greater challenge than CO2; and three, that the only practical way forward is to move to an electric economy via natural gas in the short term as we develop new-generation nuclear power with war-time urgency. I am an independent research geologist wellpracticed (over 100 published papers) in Earth evolution and its processes.

Understandably, the IPCC initially had to simplify the geo-climatic system when they began assessing and modelling climate change, such as the erroneous idea that sea level has not varied over most of the Holocene (the last 11,700 years). Although the IPCC has progressively added new considerations to their models, it still has overlooked an enormous amount of critical information. These disregarded parameters are large enough to render working climate models nearly useless, which has led to the inability of the models to recreate the past with any accuracy or to predict what climate will do in future. As more information is incorporated, models are getting worse not better. Unfortunately, world governments have taken the models as factual and acted hastily and recklessly as a result.

Steven Koonin’s “Unsettled” puts climate science into perspective without political or commercial bias. The actual data suggest great differences from the politicized and subsidized agenda of the believers. Ironically, that agenda claims to be based in science, but is not. It is critical to acknowledge the difference between natural global warming and anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Since about 1800AD, the globe has been returning naturally toward its average Holocene temperature following the Little Ice Age of 1500–1800AD, which was the coolest spell for ~8,000 years and which certainly should not be considered “normal”. Unfortunately, considerable infrastructure for today’s coastal cities was established early during this warming trend, which will need great modification as sea level continues to rise naturally.

In addition to Koonin’s clarifications of what climate data actually indicate, among the things that the IPCC has overlooked is the fact that global temperatures and sea level were repeatedly higher than today’s in the last 5,000–10,000 years, neither of which were caused by rises in CO2. Further, because a given volume of seawater requires massively more energy to warm than air does, it is physically implausible for the atmosphere to warm the oceans below a few meters’ depth. Yet the oceans are warming, pointing to the Sun’s radiation and not to CO2 in the atmosphere as the cause. Further still, regarding the association between temperature rise and CO2 rise, it is now clear that pre-historical and historical temperature rises pre-dated their 1

associated CO2 rises. This is exactly opposite to the initial presumption of the IPCC and current global understanding, that rising CO2 causes temperature to rise. This is because warming sea water releases dissolved CO2 to the atmosphere, much as a warm soft drink fizzes more than a cold one when opened.

Critically, because of the difference in thermal capacity between water and air, the warming oceans must be causing or allowing the overlying air to warm. The oceans cover 71% of the planet and soak up the majority of the Sun’s and other cosmic energy.

Natural cycles of how much radiation reaches the ocean surface appear to control the fluctuating heat content of the oceans. This is then shared with the atmosphere.

In short, humanity MIGHT be contributing a small amount to the natural global warming following the Little Ice Age of 1500–1800AD. But not even “a small amount” of AGW is provable: there is no human-made climate emergency.

Wind, solar, tidal, and biofuel will never be able to replace what petroleum provides, but there may be value in having learned this the hard way; we must move on. Attempting these ideas under the guise of “saving the planet” (Al Gore) rallied millions of vocal people to accept the desecration of agricultural, ridgeline and coastal lands, but many more see them as fruitless effort and more tangible forms of pollution than CO2. Koonin’s and other more honest and robust interpretations of the science are beginning to replace the politicized agenda of Al Gore and the IPCC; the guise will not last much longer. Sadly, “science” may never be trusted again; hopefully, the better-informed environmentally minded people will be able to appreciate what has happened and refocus their energies as suggested below.

Concerning petroleum, Industry reports suggest the world has ~1.73 trillion barrels in oil reserves including that from fracking. However, over 500 billion of this amount is widely doubted to exist due to OPEC’s 1984–1990 bogus reserve increases and Venezuela’s 2010 inclusion of ultra-heavy oil in its tar belt, leaving about 1.2 trillion barrels. The world burns ~35 billion barrels/year, which would last only 34 more years unless we develop new energy policies. Geologists know that little more significant oil will be found, proven by the recent contraction in exploration. THIS is the real reason we must adopt alternative energies, not CO2 emissions. Fortunately, the cleanest hydrocarbon, natural gas, will last hundreds more years; we will need it and its value doubtless will rise. Hydrocarbon exploration will continue because of it.

After ~15 years of pushing alternatives (now supplying only 5.7% of demand), the world remains 83% dependent on hydrocarbon energy. Democracies should wish to avoid a situation in just 20 more years where Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela could then leverage the last of the world’s oil (their oil) for whatever political or religious end they wish. Democratic governments have little time to develop serious new energy sources in order to avoid the prospect of further wars.

It is irresponsible to keep using precious liquid hydrocarbons for ground transportation and indoor heating, which together consume ~half of US energy use.

Vehicles can and must be run on electricity, LNG, hydrogen/ammonia, or something 2

else altogether, and heating on electricity or natural gas. Developing electrical infrastructure for new demand is ESSENTIAL, no matter what the source of the electricity. However, NUCLEAR POWER and NATURAL GAS are the only feasible ways to replace petroleum, along with coal as needed. Hastening these developments will allow the remaining oil to be used more strategically (e.g., air travel, pesticides, fertilizers, plastics, medicines, petrochemicals) for longer, thus postponing the inevitable petroleum crisis, of which the 1973 oil embargo provided a whiff.

It has been politically short-sighted to vilify CO2 as harmful to Earth. We have unnecessarily created a misdirected political movement that must now refocus itself (e.g., Greta, Extinction Rebellion). Western governments could have shown true leadership long ago by acknowledging and planning for the end of petroleum. Instead, we’ve fought wars for oil and concurrently wasted decades arguing if global warming is anthropogenic. Honest science, when allowed to speak freely and without fanatical and sanctimonious scorn and suppression, shows current warming is natural, not anthropogenic, and there is NOTHING we can do about it. God-like proposals to cool the earth risk triggering the next ice age. Solar strength is now in a declining mode, causing solar scientists to worry more about global cooling than warming.

From the above, the unnecessary use of liquid hydrocarbons must end soon.

Electricity from natural gas rather than oil must fuel the transition to new-generation nuclear power using safe, lower temperature and non-proliferable nuclear fuels (which also happen to be CO2 free). New infrastructure for an electric economy is needed with war-time urgency. Wind, solar, tidal and bio will not get us to where we need to be without unfeasibly massive desecration of the country’s lands and coasts; it seems largely pointless to continue those efforts.

Mr. Kerry, as a geologist I applaud all genuinely beneficial environmental efforts.

However, depletion of petroleum, not CO2, is the main issue, because the concern over CO2 is unfounded. China will likely never buy into the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and nor should the West. Instead, the USA, EU, UK, CHINA and others must TOGETHER lead efforts to develop a semi-global electric economy based initially on natural gas but progressively on new-generation nuclear power. We can work as partners to this end, rather than perpetuating unnecessary and pointless CO2 alarmism. CO2 is innocent and will not matter in 40 years’ time, anyway, because oil will be scarce. Western governments must LEAD firmly and sensibly and stop kowtowing to vocal minority and self-interest groups who don’t yet realize the insignificance of CO2. Their concerns are well intended, but more important than CO2 is that we must free ourselves from petroleum. Nuclear power is the only permanent way to get there. Leading firmly WITH China as partner not foe could pave the future.

Yours sincerely, James Pindell

3