The idea that as oil declines, we will burn less hydrocarbon is not correct. We can and will transition to Coal as a matter of necessity (and all coal resources could fuel us for 50 years of increasing demand without any help from oil or gas). The real idea about how much CO2 will be released over the next century will be to plot the demand curve against the sequestered carbon present in all plausibly exploitable hydrocarbon sources (Natural Gas, Coal, Oil and possibly tar sands). If no attempt is made to transition, economies will simply switch to whatever else is available when Oil peaks.

If we are forced to Coal, warming will be just one of the concerns, with heavy metal poisoning, particulates and even radiation release becoming major concerns.

However, at least one geologist here disagrees that oil has or will peak anytime in the next decade (Nick, I think). I disagree with him based on what I know, but certainly concede that he has more practical and theoretical knowledge on the topic.

Regardless, the 'cap' on CO2 release will ultimately be how much hydrocarbon we *need*. The idea is to change the need issue, not by the stupid strawman of crashing economies, but by the realistic idea of transitioning to Nuclear and Solar. Also, change the I/O balance by enforcing emission standards on power production, and re-sequestering via biomass and deep-earth pumping.

Davin L.