Peak oil.
This innocuous and little-known term is packed with content. First introduced in 1956 by geophysicist M. King Hubbert, it has become the passionate interest of a small but articulate cadre of activists. A host of books have been written on the subject by the likes of Richard Heinberg, Thomm Hartmann, James Howard Kuntsler, Matt Simmons and many others.
You haven’t heard of it, have you? Well, allow me …
Peak oil doesn’t fit comfortably into a nutshell. First it is necessary to understand that the industrial revolution was fueled by carbon-based energy: first coal and, later, crude oil and natural gas (fossil fuels.) With the industrial revolution came phenomenal technological advances, some of which contributed to the so-called population explosion. (The population of the planet has more than doubled during this writer’s lifetime.) Examples of these technological advances include tractors and other farm implements as well as fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides made from fossil fuels. With increased farm output, it became possible to feed the expanding population.
Also contributing to the population expansion were technological advances in medicine, many tied to fossil fuels, especially pharmaceuticals.
Indeed, fossil fuels, especially oil, came to permeate most aspects of our lives. Plastics, synthetic fibers, lasers and air travel never would have come about without fossil fuels. And all this is on top of the American fascination with the gas-guzzler.
Next you should understand that every oil well and oil field has a lifespan. When first brought into production (really, extraction is a better word) the oil flows freely and is of a good quality. Over time, as more and more oil is extracted, it becomes necessary to inject something — sea water is used, and sometimes natural gas — in order to maintain enough pressure to keep the oil flowing. The oil subsequently becomes heavier and more difficult to refine. Eventually the cost of extracting the oil and bringing it to market exceeds its value and the well (or field) is abandoned for fresher sites. (Oil prices recently topped $100 per barrel and are expected to continue rising.)
In every case, there comes a time when the extraction rate peaks and begins an irreversible decline. So it is for the planet as a whole.
Various forecasts for the timing of the global peak in oil extraction range from now to 40 or 50 years in the future. These are based largely on reported reserves, which are widely believed to be inflated. The German-based Energy Watch Group recently issued a report based on production data, which placed the global peak in 2006 rather than some time in the future. If this is true, then the time to prepare is past and the only remaining option is to decide how to respond. (The Hirsch Report, prepared for the U.S. Energy Department and released in February 2005, called for a crash program beginning 20 years before the peak. Oops!)
So, how will this unique geophysical event affect us? For one thing we can expect declining supplies of oil and its derivatives, including gasoline, coupled with rising prices. We are seeing some of that at the gas pumps already. This effect will ripple through all segments of the economy.
But the graver concern is still agriculture. The population explosion was made possible by increased food production, which, in turn, was made possible by huge inputs of cheap energy. Besides fuel for farm equipment, the fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are all petro-chemical in nature. It has been said that it takes 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy to produce one calorie of food.
In a classic case of Cassandra vs. Pollyanna, we were warned, but we chose not to listen, preferring to think happy thoughts of eternal growth and prosperity. From Hubbert himself through Rachel Carson and E.F. Schumacher to Richard Heinberg and others, the alarm has been sounded. But we, including policy makers at all levels, have either refused to see the problem, or maintained an abiding faith in technology, human ingenuity and/or providence to provide solutions.
Fortunately, there are some pretty good people working on practical (if not always palatable) responses to the expected difficulties. Among these are the above-mentioned Richard Heinberg, a brilliant man named Colin Campbell, and my personal hero in the field, Julian Darley, founder and director of the Post Carbon Institute (PCI.) Through its five initiatives (Global Public Media, Relocalization Network, Post Carbon Cities, Oil Depletion Protocol and Energy Farms), PCI is actively seeking and aggressively advocating for well-reasoned responses to the dramatically changing energy environment.
We would all be well advised to join them in their efforts. Time is wasting.
Jackie Minchew lives in Everett.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
