Fossil Fuel Expansion: A Path to Climate Catastrophe
Written on
When you fill your vehicle with gasoline, your primary concern is likely getting it to operate. However, here's a sobering fact: approximately 75–80% of the energy contained in that gasoline is lost as heat, escaping into the atmosphere, while only about 20% effectively powers your car.
From an engineering perspective, this is a significant failure. It's not merely an inconvenience for drivers who receive just 20 cents worth of movement for every dollar spent on fuel; it's also a reckless emission of pollutants, including greenhouse gases, into our environment with no tangible benefit.
Is there a way to remedy this issue? Yes, there are gradual improvements that can be made to traditional gasoline engines, but these solutions are far from revolutionary.
There's a lot of excitement surrounding electric vehicles today, and rightly so. However, fixing global transportation involves more than just electric cars; it must also address the existing gasoline-powered vehicles. Cars have a long lifespan, and even with a strong push toward electrification, it will take decades to transition completely. Meanwhile, an additional two billion gasoline-powered vehicles will soon be on the roads, alongside 100,000 daily flights and 180,000 vessels at sea. This sector is responsible for 17% of global CO? emissions, highlighting the urgent need for improvement.
Yet, we find ourselves investing exorbitant amounts to extract, refine, and squander most of the oil we produce. This is not a sustainable way to manage our vehicles—or our planet.
Transportation is just one example of a broader issue. Energy transformations, such as converting chemical energy into motion, inevitably generate heat, resulting in wasted energy. This principle applies universally, whether discussing steam engines, electric generators, power stations, or even oil drilling operations.
In a glaring contradiction, a recent UN report indicates that the largest and most profit-driven fossil fuel companies plan expansions that would exceed the planet's carbon budget by a factor of two.
Calling this situation "insanity" barely captures its severity; it poses a direct threat to humanity’s future.
How can we demonstrate that transportation can become more efficient? Simply look at history. Following the oil crisis of the 1970s, US President Gerald Ford didn't just advocate for change; he urged Congress to implement mandatory fuel-efficiency standards. The goal was to double the mileage of new vehicles within ten years. Despite automakers’ claims that it was impossible, the law passed, and manufacturers complied. Market demand aligned with legislation as consumers sought more economical vehicles in response to rising gas prices.
This era saw the rise of Japanese automakers, who captured a significant market share from the Detroit giants with their fuel-efficient models. Innovations in engine technology, weight reduction, and improved aerodynamics led to substantial advancements.
Although there were notable failures, such as the Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Vega, the automotive industry dedicated itself to fuel economy for over a decade, ultimately resulting in 1982 vehicles consuming half as much gasoline as those from 1973.
However, progress stagnated after 1985. The oil boom of the 1980s, fueled by offshore drilling and new discoveries in Saudi Arabia, eased gas prices. Presidential administrations like Ronald Reagan’s saw no need to tighten standards. For 25 years, efficiency improvements plateaued, and during the late '90s economic boom, consumers favored larger, less fuel-efficient SUVs.
Yet, engineering advancements persisted. Although these innovations could have led to improved fuel efficiency without sacrificing performance, the absence of regulatory pressure allowed manufacturers to produce heavier, more powerful vehicles.
Today's average family sedan accelerates faster than sports cars from fifty years ago. While faster cars are enticing, this extra speed often merely gets you to the next traffic signal sooner. A more balanced approach between performance and efficiency was certainly attainable.
The real disappointment? If automakers had been compelled to upgrade their fleets regularly, we could be using significantly less oil today—potentially even less than we did in 1973, despite a 56% increase in population.
And keep in mind, the automotive sector is just one relatable illustration.
According to Vaclav Smil, our contemporary world relies on four essential materials that underpin our way of life, all of which are produced using fossil fuels. Without these materials, advanced societies could not exist. Cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia are critical components of our modern existence. Each year, we produce approximately 4 billion tons of cement (which equates to two cars worth of concrete per person), 2 billion tons of steel (enough for 2,700 Empire State Buildings), 400 million tons of plastics (more than 45 kilograms per person), and 250 million tons of ammonia. The production of these materials consumes around 17% of global energy, generating 25% of CO? emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
The Insanity of Expanding Fossil Fuels: A Collective Suicide Pact
“Humanity faces a choice: cooperate or perish. It is either a Climate Solidarity Pact or a Collective Suicide Pact,” stated the UN Secretary-General to over 100 world leaders at the inaugural plenary of the UN Climate Change Conference COP27.
Currently, it appears humanity has chosen the latter, as a UN report reveals that major fossil fuel producers are preparing for expansions that would devastate the planet's carbon budget twice over. Experts describe these intentions as "insanity," jeopardizing the future of humanity.
These ambitious energy plans contradict existing climate policies and commitments. The report predicts a staggering 460% increase in coal production, an 83% rise in gas, and a 29% increase in oil by 2030—figures that violate the internationally agreed-upon limits for temperature rise of 1.5°C. Even the more lenient 2°C target would see a 69% excess in fossil fuel production.
About 90% of the forthcoming carbon crisis from new oil and gas ventures between 2023 and 2050 can be traced back to just 20 countries. Leading this charge are India (coal), Saudi Arabia (oil), and Russia (coal, oil, and gas).
Imagine this: if these 20 nations simply refused their expansive plans, we could avoid a staggering 173 billion tons of carbon emissions—that's equivalent to sidestepping the emissions from nearly 1,100 new coal plants or over 30 years' worth of emissions from the entire United States.
Five nations from the global north emerge as primary offenders: the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Despite their economic capacity to swiftly transition away from fossil fuel production, they account for 51% of the projected expansion from new oil and gas fields until 2050. Even the United Arab Emirates, which pledged to maintain the 1.5°C limit, is preparing to significantly increase oil and gas production.
The hypocrisy is astounding—these economically prosperous nations bear a historical responsibility for initiating the climate crisis yet claim to lead the way in climate solutions while simultaneously planning massive drilling operations. This behavior is not just unacceptable; it exemplifies extreme hypocrisy. These countries must halt their expansion efforts and take the lead in phasing out production while contributing fairly to a just global energy transition.
On top of economic madness, this situation represents a climate disaster of our own making.
Numerous scientific studies affirm that any new oil and gas fields are incompatible with the 1.5°C global warming limit agreed upon in Paris. Yet the analysis of publicly available data reveals a shocking gap of approximately 20 billion tons of CO?—about half of today’s annual global emissions—between planned production and what aligns with climate objectives. Relying on uncertain future technologies to capture and sequester CO? underground is a gamble.
Inger Andersen, the executive director of the UN Environment Program, asserts, “These plans jeopardize humanity’s future. Governments must stop saying one thing and doing another.”
To further illustrate the absurdity: if the planned expansions are not curtailed, fossil fuel producers could face significant losses as global efforts to reduce CO? emissions intensify.
How Predatory Capitalism is Leading Us Toward Self-Destruction: A Troubling Equation
The reality is paradoxical: our identity is rooted in consumption, and we are entirely reliant on fossil fuels to sustain it, regardless of the toll it takes on our planet. Fossil fuels are too inexpensive when factoring in their production and environmental costs.
Globally, fossil fuels received a staggering subsidy of $5.9 trillion, or 6.8% of GDP, in 2020, which is expected to rise to 7.4% of GDP by 2025. The fossil fuel sector receives subsidies amounting to $11 million every minute. Even more alarmingly, for every dollar invested in addressing climate change, at least five are spent subsidizing what is detrimental to our existence. This is akin to taking cough medicine while living in Antarctica without proper clothing. It's no surprise that carbon emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate.
There is no dispute: fossil fuels are at the root of the climate crisis. Even within the fossil fuel sector, a turning point has occurred, with companies like Chevron acknowledging in court that "fossil fuels are the problem." Nevertheless, climate change denial and inaction persist, with these entities advocating for business expansion while attempting to project themselves as part of the climate solution. In reality, they are a problem desperately trying to avoid resolution.
These companies have become so profitable that they struggle to determine how to utilize their earnings. Their latest trend is stock buybacks, a self-serving strategy designed to elevate share prices and ensure that substantial bonuses continue to flow.
This economic model can be described in many ways, but "Predatory Capitalism" fits aptly. What does it signify? It means profit is the ultimate goal of life, shareholders dictate social priorities, and nothing stands in the way of maximizing returns—not even human welfare.
Meanwhile, our civilization appears to adopt a strategy of “change as little as possible and hope for the best.” We are making minor adjustments while pretending everything will be fine. However, the reality is clear: this approach is ineffective, and our planet is bearing the consequences.
The solution necessitates an economic transformation of unprecedented scale to transition away from fossil fuels. This need is glaringly evident.
But here's the conundrum: can you observe such a transformation occurring anywhere? Our current strategies for combating climate change are rendering meaningful progress nearly unattainable. Daily, in every community, decisions are made that perpetuate our dependency on fossil fuels. City governments are acquiring new gasoline-powered vehicles for their fleets. Counties are ordering diesel garbage trucks, despite the availability of electric alternatives. School administrators are opting for new diesel buses without adequately considering other options.
The reality is stark: fossil fuels are undermining essential climate objectives, and our planet is paying the price. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry continues to expand this destructive trend.
Thank you for your attentive reading and support! If you're interested in further insights into climate change, scientific advancements, and geopolitics with a unique Patagonian perspective, subscribe to the newsletter Antarctic Sapiens for weekly thought-provoking content.