2 ms·
> using most of oil reserves asap is a good strategy ... only if one assigns no cost to all the CO2 produced. Burning a barrel of oil creates about 340 kg CO2
by gshubert17 8y ago
> using most of oil reserves asap is a good strategy
... only if one assigns no cost to all the CO2 produced.
Burning a barrel of oil creates about 340 kg CO2, about half of which ends up in the atmosphere (oceans absorb some, etc.) World oil reserves are over a trillion barrels.
Burning 46 billion barrels of oil adds 1 ppm to atmospheric CO2. So those trillion barrels will boost CO2 by over 20 ppm.
Of course, coal is much worse. World coal reserves are around a trillion tons. Burning 5 billion tons of coal raises CO2 by a part per million. Burning all that coal would raise atmospheric CO2 by nearly 180 ppm.
Burning fossil fuels is not the only source of carbon dioxide; there's also deforestation. But leaving as much fossil fuels in the ground as possible, would make achieving desirable CO2 goals that much easier.
- chr1 8y agoSure burning oil is bad and not only because CO2, but also because of other more toxic gases it produces. The comment i was replying to, says that US producing more oil doesn't mean that more oil will be burnt in total, because others have to produce less in response, and saving oil for later would be better for those who save it. Even though i wish the second part was true, so that oil prices could go up reducing its usage, i have to admit that unfortunately, selling as much oil as possible while there is a demand for it, is the rational strategy for people who own the oil.