Ever heard of peak oil? Undoubtedly you have briefly been exposed to the concept. If you haven't, it is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached. Now I ask, have you ever heard of global warming? Of course you have, it's all over the news; celebrities, television shows, supermarkets, and most any major aspect of society is joining in on the 'green' movement.
The idea of global warming has, for the most part, become an accepted idea. But why hasn't the concept of peak oil been engrained in people all over the world. "Apart from the Swedish and possibly the Irish government, no government or corporation is yet really addressing or even acknowledging peak oil, at least publicly"(Hopkins). Climate change and peak oil will have to be dealt with; there are no two ways about it. So where will we go and what can we do?
To put climate change into perspective, think about the following ideas. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 278ppm(Parts per million). It 2007 they were recorded at 385ppm. This increase has led to a global temperature increase of 0.8 degrees Celsius. Although this doesn't sound like much it is already wreaking havoc around the world. Glaciers are melting, storms are stronger and animals migration patterns are changing.(Hopkins).
Furthermore, due to a process called thermal inertia, if we had halted all carbon emissions in 2008 the global temperature would have continued to increase by at least 0.6 degrees. This means that we are already guaranteed to reach an increase of 1.4 degrees. Scientists believe that we should set the 'safe' max in global temperature increase at 2 degrees. Anything over this will cause climate catastrophe (Hopkins). So when do we change?
Is peak oil a reality? What evidence is there to support the idea that we have already reached our maximum production or that that point is soon approaching. For the sake of brevity I will only provide a couple reasons.
"Most oil-producing nations follow the same pattern - the peak in discovery tends to occur 30-40 years before a peak in production... Given that the world as a whole peaked in discovery in 1965... we are close to or at, the peak of production"(Hopkins).
Another interesting thing to look at is the size of the fields being discovered. "In 1940 the average size of the fields found over the last five years was 1.5 billion barrels"(Hopkins). By 2004 this number had fallen to a mere 45 million barrels, and it continues to fall (Hopkins).
During this 'Oil Age' the human race has discovered over 47,000 oil fields. Of these, the 40 largest are responsible for 75 percent of all oil ever discovered. If we haven't reached peak oil, we are very close. Why else would we be so desperate for these small pockets of oil?
So where are these two issues going to take us. Basically there are three options for the decline of oil. We can go through a long term transition where the decline of oil is slow and regulated. This is our best option. This option will allow the world to realize what is upon them and make changes to accommodate it.
The second option is a little less desirable and is known as "oil Shocks". It is similar to the first option except that the world will experience "sudden disruptions and price hikes, triggering periodic sustained emergencies"(Hopkins). In essence there will be relatively short periods of time where the price of oil spikes well above a reasonable price for almost all of the population.
The last option is the least desirable. "Here, the impacts of peak oil become so severe that the fabric of society begins to unravel, leading to "socially catastrophic competition for scarce resources, including food, shelter and energy""(Hopkins). Basically the level of the world's oil reserves will be depleted in a very short period of time leaving the world to switch to alternative sources of energy immediately.
These three options are based on the bell curve that is commonly presented when talking about peak oil. What isn't known is whether it would be a gentle slope down, or an abrupt cliff (Hopkins).
A common misconception is that the human race will be able to go on as it does now relying on renewable energy. Hopkins writes, "A society without access to fossil fuels would be able to do seventy to a hundred times less work than one with them."
This all boils down to the amount of energy returned on the energy invested or EROEI for short. In the 1930's the US had an EROEI of 100:1. This means that for every unit of energy put into the extraction process, one hundred units were obtained. This is an immense EROEI. Today the EROEI is between 11:1 and 18:1(Hopkins). And these stats are all based on the energy form oil.
What's more interesting is that wind energy has a return of about 11:1, solar, a return of between 2.5:1 and 4.3:1. Nothing will ever come close to the 1930's 100:1. "The decline in EROEI in our energy sources, together with the combined peaks of oil, gas, coal, and uranium, means that we need to acknowledge that we are as energy-rich a society today as we are ever likely to be"(Hopkins).
The best way to prepare for the drop in oil resources is to begin to create resilient communities. That is, communities that are more reliant on themselves rather that the rest of the world. You can explore this site for some more information about these communities. Rob Hopkins, the founder of the transition movement, has written a very interesting book titled, The Transition handbook from oil dependency to local resilience. I have put forth a couple of his ideas in this post but he has many more ideas that have peaked my interest. Maybe they will peak yours. Without a doubt he is biased towards the fact that peak oil is a reality, and frankly, from what I have read, on both sides of the topic, I believe him. But, only the future will tell.
Source:
Hopkins, Rob. The Transition Handbook: from Oil Dependency to Local Resilience. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Pub., 2009. Print.
