Why Fossil Fuels Won’t Go Away
Theoretically, it should be easy.
Clean, renewable energy doesn’t cause health problems, doesn’t pollute, and doesn’t have to be drilled or mined or transported across the world or protected.
Of course it makes sense to move away from fossil fuels! (oil, coal, natural gas) .
Yet there’s no sign of fossil fuels leaving us any time soon.
Here’s why.
Infrastructure Spending
This is the really big issue.
Governments – world-wide – are tied into fossil fuels. Big time.
The impact of fossil fuels is profound.
The US has already spent up to $12 trillion in direct costs for airports and highways, buying oil and protecting its supply routes, cars, planes, and other infrastructure. This means that the country is already committed to spending at least $1.6 trillion every year just to maintain this infrastructure, according to Chris Nelder in his article on fossil-fuel transportation costs
Airline industry analyst Michael Boyd noted that planes currently in use were designed on the assumption of oil at less than $50 a barrel. He believes the whole industry is obsolete with oil at $100 a barrel.
Surface transportation also looks unsustainable with high oil prices.
So why are we still spending to maintain an unwieldy system which offers gridlock and air delays, as well as health damage – not to mention massive environmental damage.
Debating subsides to Big Oil is truly dwarfed by the reality of our commitment to fossil fuels.
Other reasons fossil fuels won’t disappear anytime soon:
Manufactured Goods
It’s quite astonishing how many of the things we buy depend upon fossil fuels.
Goods can be cheaply transported from where they’re manufactured to where they’re sold, due to ‘cheap’ oil.
Products in plastic packaging use oil to make the plastic.
Also (and more worryingly), many of the goods we buy contain petroleum – baby oil, cosmetics, shampoos, ink, upholstery, DVD players, sports equipment, water pipes, candles, nail polish, deodorant, insecticides, soap, paint, aspirin, anaesthetics, sunglasses, soft contact lenses, phones, cameras, ammonia, underwear, breath mints….. the list is endless. Petroleum is everywhere in our lives.
Our Buildings
We build our houses on the assumption of cheap electricity from fossil fuels. You only have to look at the design differences between houses which use natural heating and cooling methods, and houses that rely on lots of electricity to keep warm and cool.
Nearly all the practices, building codes, operating codes and regulations for construction and industry are based on readily available cheap and plentiful electricity from fossil fuels.
Consider old factories – they had high roofs, so heat rose naturally and was extracted by natural air movement.
Now, we prefer to pay less up-front capital and have higher running costs. We build more cheaply e.g. with less insulation, with single or double-glazing instead of triple-glazing, without concern for heat gain and loss because the cost difference between heating and cooling a well-insulated building versus a poorly insulated one, is negligible in countries such as the US.
But in Scandinavian countries for example, the cost of energy from fossil fuels is sufficiently high to ensure that building regulations mandate heavy insulation – a higher capital cost in order to avoid higher running costs (energy for heating and cooling).
“Would you rather spend another $32 trillion over the next 20 years just to maintain our outmoded, unscalable, aged, unhealthy system, plus another $2.8 trillion in lost productivity due to delays and gridlock, only to wind up out of gas?”
So, what can be done?
Chris Nelder makes a compelling argument for investing in transportation systems which can deliver more economic benefits than costs. He estimates it would be cheaper to set up new transportation options than continue incremental spending on fossil fuel based systems.
To quote from his article: Would you rather spend another $32 trillion over the next 20 years just to maintain our outmoded, unscalable, aged, unhealthy system, plus another $2.8 trillion in lost productivity due to delays and gridlock, only to wind up out of gas? Or would you rather spend $25 trillion to repair our existing infrastructure, transition transportation to rail, transition the power grid to renewables, upgrade the entire grid, and solve the carbon problem, to have free fuel forever?
What will be done?
Unfortunately, however, the chances are good that politicians will continue to support fossil fuels.
It’s much easier to continue the status quo, and carry on paying to maintain our systems, even if it’s more expensive than new systems. The public (and the lobbyists) won’t argue. But changing our entire transportation system away from fossil fuels – ah, that would be difficult (even tough it would be cheaper, healthier and better in the long run).
And politicians want to keep their voters happy, so that they can stay in power.
Irrespective of the cost to the country. Or the environment.
Other articles on Fossil Fuel Energy:
These figures for the US are staggering. Also staggering is the amount of everyday items which rely on oil/petroleum in the production.
Agreed Will, truly staggering. And staggeringly difficult to change.
I love your fantastic web site. Just what I was searching for!
Best regards,
Ron
Andrew Nikiforuk (“The Energy of Slaves”) would argue that we are addicted to the lifestyle of convenience made possible by oil, just as others before us (Jefferson, for one) could not have done without human slaves. We’ve exchanged the energy of slaves for the energy of petroleum and its many derivatives (currently the equivalent of about 100 human slaves for every person in the United States, if I remember correctly).
Any real changes will be wrenching: that is the real reason why it’s so hard to shake the fossil fuel habit.
That’s such a fascinating viewpoint! Agreed, the convenience factor of oil is huge, I would not have thought of that convenience as being the equivalent of 100 slaves per person, most interesting! Thanks CelloMom!