The Daily of the University of Washington

We are married to oil and the breakup will be ugly


The end of the Petroleum Age will lead to hardships, civil unrest at home and abroad and war. Limiting consumption of petroleum is the only way forward.

More and more scientists and analysts are concluding that Peak Oil has occurred or will occur in the near future.

Some students are asking what it has to do with them, and arguing that it will help stop climate change. So what's the problem?

Petroleum is the foundation of modern civilization. The average American consumes nearly three gallons of oil a day, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

Ninety percent of all transportation relies on oil. Everything it affects — all of the world economy — will be hit hard.

Led by two former CIA directors, a high-level "war game" called "Oil Shockwave" concluded the world economy would quickly spiral into recession. The price of food will skyrocket. Modern agriculture relies on oil for everything, from farming to pesticides to delivery.

Ten percent of oil is used to make items from aspirin to computers, all of which take many times their weight in oil to produce.

Worst of all, future oil shortages will lead to an age of resource conflicts and wars. The immediate cause of riots in Burma, as well as civil unrest in Iran, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and other states all directly trace back to oil supply.

"Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature," said Dick Cheney in 1999. "Energy is truly fundamental to the world's economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality."

As for climate change, as soon as oil becomes uneconomic, governments will predictably turn to coal.

The IPCC estimates enough coal left to produce a whopping 3.5 trillion tons of CO2, well past the 400 billion tons 'allowable' to prevent catastrophic climate change, Dr. Leggett said.

This makes recent reports all the more salient.

The Energy Watch Group, based in Germany, just released a report that says global oil production peaked in 2006. Energy analysts, like former Bush administration official Matthew Simmons, say we already peaked globally in '05.

There are even signs from within the industry itself.

"The era of easy oil is over," exclaims Chevron in a telling new ad campaign. Worldwide oil discovery peaked in 1965. The last year we discovered more oil than we consumed was 1981. In 1998, we used three times the oil discovered, according to IHS Energy Group.

The United States (Pennsylvania specifically) was once the largest oil producer in the world. Against the wishes of his industry, oil geologist M. King Hubbert calculated that oil supply was finite and soon production in the United States would peak. Within a year of Hubbert's prediction, production in the United States peaked, in 1970, and has been steadily declining ever since.

Oil exploration experts like Dr. Colin Campbell and Dr. Jeremy Leggett say this is happening (or has already happened) now globally. Even so, to focus solely on the numbers is missing the point entirely. Hubbert came out with his theory more than 30 years ago and people are still arguing over it.

"[The debate over when exactly 'the peak' will hit] is being used as a tool for inaction," said Kristiina Vogt, UW professor of forest resources.

The problem needs our attention now. The solution? First, urgent and decisive attention is required from our leaders.

"We don't have the luxury of continuing how we have been," professor Vogt warns, "or we're going to have some major conflicts."

There is no silver bullet solution, Vogt adds. Solutions have to be localized, and consumption will have to be cut back by those who use excess amounts.

Petroleum substitutes like tar sands, shale and heavy oil cannot replace crude oil. Alternative technologies like hydrogen, solar, nuclear, wind and others offer the potential to help but will not replace oil. In fact, they all need oil for development and implementation.

Environmentally sustainable solutions are urgently needed. For example, Vogt has calculated if we use forest waste biomass for biofuels, we could substitute for 48 percent of the gasoline used in Washington state.

The government, however, is still dragging its feet, offering gimmicky 'band-aid' solutions that appease and subsidize powerful lobbies at the expense of renewable technologies.

Most Americans have never even heard of Peak Oil — and this article barely scratches the surface — but soon they will have to act on it.

"It is only a matter of time before this scenario comes to pass," said Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and security at Hampshire College. "If we act now to limit our consumption of oil and develop non-petroleum energy alternatives, we can face the 'twilight' of the Petroleum Age with some degree of hope."

[Reach columnist Aditya Ganapathiraju at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]


4 Comments

#1 Daniel Draffen
(Huntsville, AL | Unverified Name)

on November 8, 2007 at 6:27 a.m.
Report this comment

Walkable and bicycleable towns and local food production are what are needed first and formost. City planners continue with car-centric plans spending most of their transportation budget on highway construction and widening projects. How odd this behavior appears in the spector of Peak Oil! We need light (electric) rail and biodiesel mass transit, not more cars and highways. Also we need more and better railways and by all means more passenger rail service everywhere. The budget for rail is pathetic compared to that of airlines and interstate highways which, needless to say, have a limited time horizon. Corner markets, produce stands and shops need to populate every neighborhood, within walking distance. Malls and huge shopping centers in the far flung burbs are obsolete in the new post-carbon era. Yet they are going up around us like crazy, like no tomorrow (pun intended). People need to wake up and wake up now!!!!!

#2 G.R.L. Cowan
(Port Hope, Canada | Unverified Name)

on November 8, 2007 at 10:27 a.m.
Report this comment

Solar, nuclear, and windpower can all benefit from cheap petroleum, but Ganapathiraju is misleading when he asserts "they all need oil for development and implementation". Even if they need liquid hydrocarbons, the amounts needed are small enough that synthesis from CO2 and water would require only a small deduction from these power sources' outputs.

#3 Aditya G
(Kirkland, WA | Unverified Name)

on November 9, 2007 at 10:02 a.m.
Report this comment

Mr. Cowan, let me direct you to the research that persuaded to me to conclusion here-- http://www.ludwig-boelkow-stiftung.de...

I hope you will find it informative. Here is my original article with references. http://aditya137.blogspot.com/2007/11...

#4 G.R.L. Cowan
(Port Hope, Canada | Unverified Name)

on November 10, 2007 at 10:56 a.m.
Report this comment

Persuaded you to what conclusion?


Post a comment

Name:


(None, None | Unverified Name)
Login to verify your name

Email:


Required, but not shown.

Comment: