Fossil Fuels Doesn't Just Mean Oil

Andrew Weaver and Neil Stewart have recently looked at the warming potential of different types and deposits of fossil fuels around the world. Their findings, which are published in Nature, serve as a reminder that when it comes to climate change policy we need to cast our net wide across all the different types of fossil fuels used in the energy mix (be they natural gas, conventional petroleum, unconventional oil, coal, etc.). So much attention has been placed specifically on unconventional oil, in particular the Alberta bituminous sands (with good reason); yet there is a danger in focusing too specifically on one source of petroleum, or one type of fossil fuel. Worldwide coal deposits, note Weaver and Stewart, actually have a significantly higher warming potential than recoverable unconventional fuels. The common focus on peak oil can be problematic in this regard too, because alternative forms of fossil fuel can often be refined or synthetically processed as replacements, with negative consequences for climate change. The point is that we need to significantly decrease our use of all fossil fuels, not just those that suit a good environmental campaign. Weaver is quoted in a CBC article on the matter:

"This idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We'll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them. I have always said that the tarsands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels."