We have a big environmental problem. We have been polluting our planet’s air, water, and land; depleting its resources; and accumulating a lot of waste for which we need to find places to store. Why have we been doing these things? There are four major reasons. One major reason was discussed in to Chapter 12: we have 6.8 billion people on Earth today (Population Reference Bureau, 2009) and all of these people need food, water, clothing, and shelter. In addition to these minimal needs to survive, millions of people in developed nations have cars, large homes, air conditioning, heated houses, washers, dryers, heated water for bathing, refrigerators, stoves, and so on. Hence, having nearly 7 billion people on Earth, compared to 5.2 billion people just 20 years ago (Population Reference Bureau, 1990), and having many people with a high standard of living, means that we humans will pollute a lot, deplete a lot, and build up huge amounts of waste that need to be stored.
A second major reason why we have a big problem of polluting, depleting, and storing of waste is that during the past 200 years, we have gone from an agricultural way of life to an industrial way of life. Instead of “living off the land,” growing grain to eat, and tending to farm animals, we built factories and machines and created a new status called the factory worker to produce all kinds of products to consume—as a stroll through a typical shopping mall will show. To create these products, we have used a lot of resources and polluted the air and rivers. The key to this industrializing, and hence polluting and depleting, has been the creation and development of modern capitalism. Simply stated, capitalism produces products to make profit. Thus, to make more profit, owners of capital—that is, factory and business owners—need to produce and sell more products. It is therefore in the vested interests of those who own factories and businesses to produce and sell as much as they can so as to make as much profit as they can. The very nature of this process has resulted in substantial depletion and pollution.
As of this point in human history, although capitalism has helped to create the highest material standard of living that the world has ever seen, it has at the same time increased the rate at which we pollute, deplete, and have waste storage problems (recall our discussion of latent dysfunction in Chapter 1). As former Vice President Al Gore concluded in his book Earth in the Balance, “Human civilization is now the dominant cause of change in the global environment.” A third major factor that has caused our environmental problems is that we have created an ideology within capitalistic developed nations—one that is spreading more and more to developing nations due to television, computers, e-mail, and the Internet—that people in both developed and developing nations want an ever-higher material standard of living (Eitzen & Zinn, 2000, pp. 91–94; Ritzer, 2005). A higher material standard of living means producing more material goods—cars, houses, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stoves, water heaters, heating and air conditioning systems for homes and offices, and so on. All of this means that we need to use more resources to produce more products, resulting in the further depletion of many resources. As we produce and consume these products, we pollute more and have more waste left over.
People in developed nations have become accustomed to ever-higher standards of living. For example, we in the United States make up 4.5% of the world’s population, but we consume 25% of all the oil, coal, and natural gas (Eitzen & Leedham, 2001, p. 208) that is consumed in the world so that we can enjoy driving cars and heating and cooling our homes and places of work. So, our country alone uses up a lot of the world’s resources in order to have and maintain a high material standard of living. To have such a high material lifestyle, our country also does a disproportionate amount of polluting. Again, we are only 4.5% of the world’s population, yet we add 20% of the carbon dioxide produced by humans to the world’s air, producing what has become known as the “greenhouse effect,” which scientific evidence indicates is warming up the Earth and starting to produce climate change. Consequently, although we in the United States have a high standard of living, we also deplete and pollute huge amounts to enjoy our high standard of living. This raises an important question: Should we, as Americans, be more responsible for solving the problems of depletion and pollution given that we are consuming more and polluting more?
The fourth major cause of our environmental problem is that, increasingly, people in developing nations are noticing how well people in developed nations are living and want to have some or many of the same amenities as do people in developed nations. They too want washers and dryers, air conditioning, televisions, cars, computers, cell phones, and so on. The result has been increased depletion of resources, increased pollution, and increased accumulation of waste in these countries as well. We are currently creating a new worldwide ideology through which people in increasing numbers want and expect higher material lifestyles. So, it appears that the increasing pressure to produce more goods and services to create a higher material standard of living for the 5.6 billion people living in less developed countries (Population Reference Bureau, 2009) will mean that our world will continue to face environmental problems now and in the foreseeable future.
This is one assessment of the challenges that we face environmentally. What are the solutions? They are many and varied. Below are a number of varied issues and thinking that on their own achieve limited impacts but, just like solving the world's environmental problems, together they all contribute, in their small ways, to the joined-up thinking that will be needed.
We will work on these over the coming weeks, exploring their creativity, validity and role in the overall environmental picture.
A second major reason why we have a big problem of polluting, depleting, and storing of waste is that during the past 200 years, we have gone from an agricultural way of life to an industrial way of life. Instead of “living off the land,” growing grain to eat, and tending to farm animals, we built factories and machines and created a new status called the factory worker to produce all kinds of products to consume—as a stroll through a typical shopping mall will show. To create these products, we have used a lot of resources and polluted the air and rivers. The key to this industrializing, and hence polluting and depleting, has been the creation and development of modern capitalism. Simply stated, capitalism produces products to make profit. Thus, to make more profit, owners of capital—that is, factory and business owners—need to produce and sell more products. It is therefore in the vested interests of those who own factories and businesses to produce and sell as much as they can so as to make as much profit as they can. The very nature of this process has resulted in substantial depletion and pollution.
As of this point in human history, although capitalism has helped to create the highest material standard of living that the world has ever seen, it has at the same time increased the rate at which we pollute, deplete, and have waste storage problems (recall our discussion of latent dysfunction in Chapter 1). As former Vice President Al Gore concluded in his book Earth in the Balance, “Human civilization is now the dominant cause of change in the global environment.” A third major factor that has caused our environmental problems is that we have created an ideology within capitalistic developed nations—one that is spreading more and more to developing nations due to television, computers, e-mail, and the Internet—that people in both developed and developing nations want an ever-higher material standard of living (Eitzen & Zinn, 2000, pp. 91–94; Ritzer, 2005). A higher material standard of living means producing more material goods—cars, houses, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stoves, water heaters, heating and air conditioning systems for homes and offices, and so on. All of this means that we need to use more resources to produce more products, resulting in the further depletion of many resources. As we produce and consume these products, we pollute more and have more waste left over.
People in developed nations have become accustomed to ever-higher standards of living. For example, we in the United States make up 4.5% of the world’s population, but we consume 25% of all the oil, coal, and natural gas (Eitzen & Leedham, 2001, p. 208) that is consumed in the world so that we can enjoy driving cars and heating and cooling our homes and places of work. So, our country alone uses up a lot of the world’s resources in order to have and maintain a high material standard of living. To have such a high material lifestyle, our country also does a disproportionate amount of polluting. Again, we are only 4.5% of the world’s population, yet we add 20% of the carbon dioxide produced by humans to the world’s air, producing what has become known as the “greenhouse effect,” which scientific evidence indicates is warming up the Earth and starting to produce climate change. Consequently, although we in the United States have a high standard of living, we also deplete and pollute huge amounts to enjoy our high standard of living. This raises an important question: Should we, as Americans, be more responsible for solving the problems of depletion and pollution given that we are consuming more and polluting more?
The fourth major cause of our environmental problem is that, increasingly, people in developing nations are noticing how well people in developed nations are living and want to have some or many of the same amenities as do people in developed nations. They too want washers and dryers, air conditioning, televisions, cars, computers, cell phones, and so on. The result has been increased depletion of resources, increased pollution, and increased accumulation of waste in these countries as well. We are currently creating a new worldwide ideology through which people in increasing numbers want and expect higher material lifestyles. So, it appears that the increasing pressure to produce more goods and services to create a higher material standard of living for the 5.6 billion people living in less developed countries (Population Reference Bureau, 2009) will mean that our world will continue to face environmental problems now and in the foreseeable future.
This is one assessment of the challenges that we face environmentally. What are the solutions? They are many and varied. Below are a number of varied issues and thinking that on their own achieve limited impacts but, just like solving the world's environmental problems, together they all contribute, in their small ways, to the joined-up thinking that will be needed.
We will work on these over the coming weeks, exploring their creativity, validity and role in the overall environmental picture.
1. The renewable and fossil fuel debate
The question is, have we got it right on renewables?
The following videos offer different points of view. Watch them and compare the arguments put forward.
TASK
Write a critical (value or limitations of the arguments using evidence) response to the debate that analyses the arguments made and how the theories and issues impact the wider environmental issues that modern society faces.
The following videos offer different points of view. Watch them and compare the arguments put forward.
TASK
Write a critical (value or limitations of the arguments using evidence) response to the debate that analyses the arguments made and how the theories and issues impact the wider environmental issues that modern society faces.
University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment professors discuss the latests in the biofuels debate and the negative perception that surrounds it.
Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.
A new film has put the “fear of God” into the Left, exposing renewables as “anything but green”, Outsiders host Rowan Dean says. Mr Dean said the environmental documentary film, ‘The Planet of the Humans’, has dared to “slay one of the holy writs of climate change”.
Sadly, we're pretty used to dispelling myths on this channel - usually ones aimed directly at electric vehicles and clean transportation from the fossil fuel industry. But rarely do we have to deal with accusations from folks who say they want the world to be cleaner, greener, safer and smarter. And rarely from people who are eager to see the world's carbon footprint fall and the world transition away from dirty fuels. Except that's exactly what we're doing today after watching Planet of the Humans -- Michael Moore's latest Shockumentary. in it, his long-time collaborator Jeff Gibbs lays out a manifesto that claims electric cars, renewable energy, and everything that goes along with a shift towards cleaner fuels is simply industrialism gone mad - and that we need to find another way to live our lives.
If you wish to watch the full Planet of the Human's documentary, the link is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE&t=336s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE&t=336s
Link to George Monbiot's review here:
2. Land prices: an environmental issue?
The issue of wealthy investors taking control over land farmed by poor farmers clearly has political and economic implications. It is also an issue of justice. It is, perhaps, less obvious how it is an environmental issue. But, as you will discover, some of the main forces driving up farmland prices are tied to environmental challenges such as climate change, food insecurity, water shortages and the wish to diversify energy sources away from fossil fuels to biofuels.
Land acquisition, or ‘land grab’ as it is often called, offers important lessons about the way that environmental problems are entangled with economic and political issues at an increasingly global scale. The issue illustrates how everyday issues such as food prices are caught up in complex connections that link different places, different people and their livelihoods across the globe.
In this issue, we hope to:
Land acquisition, or ‘land grab’ as it is often called, offers important lessons about the way that environmental problems are entangled with economic and political issues at an increasingly global scale. The issue illustrates how everyday issues such as food prices are caught up in complex connections that link different places, different people and their livelihoods across the globe.
In this issue, we hope to:
- explore the relationship between land acquisition, access to food and broader processes in the global economy
- consider the relationship between economic uncertainty and environmental change
- examine how social groups may respond to environmental change and uncertainty
- appreciate how analytical concepts can be useful in making sense of the complexity of environmental issues; in this case the issues of right to land and food prices.
Securing food, sharing land
Read the two articles below for an insight into how this issue impacts the environment and wider society.
Who should own land and how may land be legitimately acquired? The video below starts to answer these questions by visiting East Anglia.
TASK 1 - Land prices in East Anglia
1. How much did the price of arable land increase between 2005 and 2012?
2. What percentage of farmland in East Anglia has been bought by investment funds and large institutional investors?
3. Why do institutional investors see agricultural land as an asset today?
4. Why does having a portfolio of land in different countries spread risk?
5. Why is the UK an attractive investment opportunity for farmland?
6. How has institutional investment changed farming practices in East Anglia?
1. How much did the price of arable land increase between 2005 and 2012?
2. What percentage of farmland in East Anglia has been bought by investment funds and large institutional investors?
3. Why do institutional investors see agricultural land as an asset today?
4. Why does having a portfolio of land in different countries spread risk?
5. Why is the UK an attractive investment opportunity for farmland?
6. How has institutional investment changed farming practices in East Anglia?
The global demand for agricultural land
The practice of buying up farmland is not confined to East Anglia: it is a global phenomenon. Rather than rely on volatile food markets for the supply of food through trade, many food wholesalers are now taking control of food production by buying the land. Gaining access to agricultural land in other countries is one way of managing environmental insecurity for countries such as China and the states of the Persian Gulf; countries that are vulnerable to the effects of hotter – and in some cases, drier – weather than temperate countries.
There are a number of other related reasons for the increase of land acquisitions:
The degree of economic uncertainty under which food and agricultural businesses operate in the global economy has thus heightened, along with the environmental risks resulting from climate change. This level of uncertainty requires a new and different approach to food production. Land acquisition appears to be central to this new approach.
The practice of buying up farmland is not confined to East Anglia: it is a global phenomenon. Rather than rely on volatile food markets for the supply of food through trade, many food wholesalers are now taking control of food production by buying the land. Gaining access to agricultural land in other countries is one way of managing environmental insecurity for countries such as China and the states of the Persian Gulf; countries that are vulnerable to the effects of hotter – and in some cases, drier – weather than temperate countries.
There are a number of other related reasons for the increase of land acquisitions:
- Climate change and more extreme weather conditions mean harvests can fail, forcing up commodity prices because of diminished supply.
- The growing global human population, which is predicted to reach 10 billion by 2100, means more people to feed.
- Changing diets in fast-developing, populous countries such as China, where the consumption of traditional grains is falling as wealthier Chinese prefer meat and dairy products. Livestock farming requires large quantities of harvested feed, which in turn requires more land.
- The global financial crisis of 2008 led international companies to look to diversify their assets away from volatile and risky assets, e.g. with shares into more tangible assets such as land.
- Biofuel production needs land. Biofuels can help tackle climate change: they are made from plant mass, absorbing carbon dioxide as they grow and releasing it when the derived fuel is burned for energy. Biofuels, therefore, can be carbon neutral. They can contribute to energy security for countries by reducing dependence on fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal – which may otherwise have to be imported from another country.
The degree of economic uncertainty under which food and agricultural businesses operate in the global economy has thus heightened, along with the environmental risks resulting from climate change. This level of uncertainty requires a new and different approach to food production. Land acquisition appears to be central to this new approach.
While land acquisition is taking place in many parts of the world (New Zealand, China, across Latin America), the greatest volume of transactions is happening in Africa. This move to take control of farmland on a large scale is referred to as ‘land grab’ in many places, particularly in Africa.
TASK 2 - Land grab in Africa
Read the article ‘Analysis: Land grab or development opportunity?’ (BBC News, 2012), which gives an overview of the situation in Africa. Then answer the following questions. 1. How might you distinguish between a legitimate land deal and a land grab? 2. Why are many land deals seen as land grabs? 3. Are there ways that local farmers can be supported and enabled to stay on the land? |
Senegal and land acquisition/land grab
Natural capital may be defined as those features of the natural environment that people rely on for food, livelihood and quality of life. Natural capital includes arable and grazing land, forests, water, fisheries and minerals. Natural capital is one of the most important productive assets in developing countries as it provides livelihoods for many of the poor as well as a foundation for economic development.
Natural capital may be defined as those features of the natural environment that people rely on for food, livelihood and quality of life. Natural capital includes arable and grazing land, forests, water, fisheries and minerals. Natural capital is one of the most important productive assets in developing countries as it provides livelihoods for many of the poor as well as a foundation for economic development.
TASK 3
Watch the following video, Land Grab in Senegal, which lets you look at this in the context of Senegal. Keep the questions below in mind when watching the film and then answer them.
Watch the following video, Land Grab in Senegal, which lets you look at this in the context of Senegal. Keep the questions below in mind when watching the film and then answer them.
1. What percentage of the population is involved in farming in Senegal?
2. What are the three purposes for which leased land is used?
3. Which countries are most involved in land acquisition in Senegal?
4. When villagers have been consulted by a rural council and foreign buyers in the use of land, what have they asked for?
5. What evidence is there that rural councils are not an effective institution?
6. How are villagers contesting their land being seized?
2. What are the three purposes for which leased land is used?
3. Which countries are most involved in land acquisition in Senegal?
4. When villagers have been consulted by a rural council and foreign buyers in the use of land, what have they asked for?
5. What evidence is there that rural councils are not an effective institution?
6. How are villagers contesting their land being seized?
Power, agency and property rights
Two types of property rights underlie many land rights conflicts in Senegal: customary land rights and private property rights.
Individuals, households, kinship groups, tribes, villages and communities claim customary land rights, which are based on tradition going back many generations in some cases. Historically, in many parts of Africa much land is held under customary tenure. Although there are many types of customary tenure this basically means that people claim a right to a piece of land because their families and ancestors have traditionally used it. Such communities and families rarely have a legal title or deed that says they own the land, so they cannot sell it. But nonetheless, because of their longstanding association with the land, the community feels a physical, emotional and spiritual attachment to it. Customary rights often come into conflict with the notion of property rights of the state. When African countries were granted independence from the colonial powers, any land not under private ownership was considered as belonging to the newly independent state, including land that communities considered to be their customary land. As well as farmland, customary land includes common resources such as forests and rivers.
Private property rights give legal title to a piece of land, which means it is owned by the actor holding that title and the law will protect the owner’s exclusive right to that land. The concept of private property rights developed alongside capitalism. Property rights apply to goods and services as well as land. These rights allow entrepreneurs to keep any profits deriving from a business. Private property rights, therefore, act as a stimulus to business and economic growth.
In Senegal, the government addressed the twin system of customary rights and modern land ownership through the 1964 National Domain Law. This law created elected rural councils to manage and allocate land. This law has periodically brought the Senegalese central and local governments into conflict with local communities. These conflicts have increased as the state has seized customary land to lease to foreign companies, leading to the eviction of local communities claiming customary rights. The capacity of the state and its allies to appropriate land from customary occupiers can be seen as an expression of uneven power relations.
At the end of the film you saw how, with help from civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), villagers are contesting land grabs. Despite the uneven power relations between villagers and the national government and foreign companies, villagers are exercising their agency by contesting land grabs.
Two types of property rights underlie many land rights conflicts in Senegal: customary land rights and private property rights.
Individuals, households, kinship groups, tribes, villages and communities claim customary land rights, which are based on tradition going back many generations in some cases. Historically, in many parts of Africa much land is held under customary tenure. Although there are many types of customary tenure this basically means that people claim a right to a piece of land because their families and ancestors have traditionally used it. Such communities and families rarely have a legal title or deed that says they own the land, so they cannot sell it. But nonetheless, because of their longstanding association with the land, the community feels a physical, emotional and spiritual attachment to it. Customary rights often come into conflict with the notion of property rights of the state. When African countries were granted independence from the colonial powers, any land not under private ownership was considered as belonging to the newly independent state, including land that communities considered to be their customary land. As well as farmland, customary land includes common resources such as forests and rivers.
Private property rights give legal title to a piece of land, which means it is owned by the actor holding that title and the law will protect the owner’s exclusive right to that land. The concept of private property rights developed alongside capitalism. Property rights apply to goods and services as well as land. These rights allow entrepreneurs to keep any profits deriving from a business. Private property rights, therefore, act as a stimulus to business and economic growth.
In Senegal, the government addressed the twin system of customary rights and modern land ownership through the 1964 National Domain Law. This law created elected rural councils to manage and allocate land. This law has periodically brought the Senegalese central and local governments into conflict with local communities. These conflicts have increased as the state has seized customary land to lease to foreign companies, leading to the eviction of local communities claiming customary rights. The capacity of the state and its allies to appropriate land from customary occupiers can be seen as an expression of uneven power relations.
At the end of the film you saw how, with help from civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), villagers are contesting land grabs. Despite the uneven power relations between villagers and the national government and foreign companies, villagers are exercising their agency by contesting land grabs.
Discourses and land grabs
Discourses play a role in shaping the ideas that actors use to communicate and legitimise power relations. For example, the phrase ‘land grab’ (as opposed to ‘land acquisition’) contains certain assumptions. A ‘grab’ implies something that is done in haste and is inappropriate and unfair. The phrase ‘land grab’ is more likely to be used by those who regard the change of ownership of land in Senegal and elsewhere as wrong and unjust. Those actors who uphold the customary rights of communities are demonstrating resistance merely by using the term ‘land grab’. They wish the phrase to become well established in everyday vocabulary as it expresses understandings with which they agree. However, those who support the right of the state to enclose customary land and sell it to businesses will favour the phrase ‘land acquisition’, which implies a transfer of land ownership that is legal, orderly and reasonable.
The phrases ‘land grab’ and ‘land acquisition’ thus embody different values and understandings. They tend to be used by different actors with different interests. In short, the two phrases belong to different discourses. As you have seen, the first Forum on Food Sovereignty held in Nyéléni, Mali in 2011 played an important role in organising resistance against what it terms ‘land grab’. But the alternative discourse of ‘land acquisition’ argues that much African land is underutilised in agricultural terms. Supporters contend that, with mechanisation and inputs of fertilisers, the land could become more productive agriculturally.
So who is right? Is land grab/land acquisition necessarily a bad thing? Watch the video below to see the context and both sides of the argument.
Discourses play a role in shaping the ideas that actors use to communicate and legitimise power relations. For example, the phrase ‘land grab’ (as opposed to ‘land acquisition’) contains certain assumptions. A ‘grab’ implies something that is done in haste and is inappropriate and unfair. The phrase ‘land grab’ is more likely to be used by those who regard the change of ownership of land in Senegal and elsewhere as wrong and unjust. Those actors who uphold the customary rights of communities are demonstrating resistance merely by using the term ‘land grab’. They wish the phrase to become well established in everyday vocabulary as it expresses understandings with which they agree. However, those who support the right of the state to enclose customary land and sell it to businesses will favour the phrase ‘land acquisition’, which implies a transfer of land ownership that is legal, orderly and reasonable.
The phrases ‘land grab’ and ‘land acquisition’ thus embody different values and understandings. They tend to be used by different actors with different interests. In short, the two phrases belong to different discourses. As you have seen, the first Forum on Food Sovereignty held in Nyéléni, Mali in 2011 played an important role in organising resistance against what it terms ‘land grab’. But the alternative discourse of ‘land acquisition’ argues that much African land is underutilised in agricultural terms. Supporters contend that, with mechanisation and inputs of fertilisers, the land could become more productive agriculturally.
So who is right? Is land grab/land acquisition necessarily a bad thing? Watch the video below to see the context and both sides of the argument.
So, finally, is land ownership and the global land and resource grab an environmental issues? And to what extent does it impact on global ecology and the use of the Earth's resources? Is it fair? Is it sustainable?
TASK 4 - Conclusion
Using the evidence you have seen and gathered, write a concluding paragraph that summarises the issues covered and to what extent this is an environmental problem or not.
Provide some reasoning on why you have reached your conclusion. Some points you may like to consider are:
Using the evidence you have seen and gathered, write a concluding paragraph that summarises the issues covered and to what extent this is an environmental problem or not.
Provide some reasoning on why you have reached your conclusion. Some points you may like to consider are:
- whether the changes of ownership in land in Africa are legal and how that impacts the issue
- whether there is consultation with local people and what that means
- whether there are benefits for the economy of the country
- whether environmental protection is enhanced or damaged.
3. Can we live without oil?
Crude oil is currently our most important global source of energy. It is vital in the manufacture of many modern materials. But the world's supply of oil is finite, its price is unstable and our reliance on oil has damaging environmental consequences. Here we look at why developing alternatives to oil is an essential and urgent task for humanity.
Here is one internet view of what no oil would look like. How much of this do you agree with? Is it an oversimplification? It is, after all, a YouTube video on tinterweb.
Here is one internet view of what no oil would look like. How much of this do you agree with? Is it an oversimplification? It is, after all, a YouTube video on tinterweb.
Over the last 100 years or so, humanity has come to rely increasingly on oil products. Oil is so central to modern life that it's no exaggeration to say that, at the moment, modern economies could not operate without vast supplies of crude oil.
1. From your general knowledge, what are the two major uses of oil in the modern world and why do we need to consider 'living without oil'?
The central contention of the Living without oil course is that developing alternatives to oil is an essential and urgent task for humanity. Those alternatives will necessarily have to involve both new sources of fuel and new technologies for transport, and new ways to produce modern materials.
So in order to set the scene, we will address in more detail the two questions: why is oil important, and why do we need to replace it?
A note about terminology
Chemists may argue that this course should have a more precise title! The term 'oil' can have a number of related meanings - in general the term can be used to refer to any thick liquid that doesn't mix with water. In everyday language, the term 'oil' is used to refer to petroleum (crude oil), which is indeed a thick liquid that doesn't mix with water. Chemists sometimes refer to crude oil as 'mineral oil' in order to distinguish it from oils derived from plants or other sources. In this course the term 'oil' will be used in its everyday sense - meaning petroleum (crude oil).
So in order to set the scene, we will address in more detail the two questions: why is oil important, and why do we need to replace it?
A note about terminology
Chemists may argue that this course should have a more precise title! The term 'oil' can have a number of related meanings - in general the term can be used to refer to any thick liquid that doesn't mix with water. In everyday language, the term 'oil' is used to refer to petroleum (crude oil), which is indeed a thick liquid that doesn't mix with water. Chemists sometimes refer to crude oil as 'mineral oil' in order to distinguish it from oils derived from plants or other sources. In this course the term 'oil' will be used in its everyday sense - meaning petroleum (crude oil).
Oil consumption
One way of establishing the importance of oil in the modern world is simply to look at the numbers. Oil fuels an estimated 95% of the world's transport. In 2010 the world consumed a staggering 12 million tonnes of oil daily, which is roughly equivalent to 14 billion litres of oil every day. These are enormous quantities - equivalent to the volume of over 5000 Olympic swimming pools or filling enough road tankers to stretch the distance from London to New York (Figure 1).
One way of establishing the importance of oil in the modern world is simply to look at the numbers. Oil fuels an estimated 95% of the world's transport. In 2010 the world consumed a staggering 12 million tonnes of oil daily, which is roughly equivalent to 14 billion litres of oil every day. These are enormous quantities - equivalent to the volume of over 5000 Olympic swimming pools or filling enough road tankers to stretch the distance from London to New York (Figure 1).
A typical adult needs to ingest up to 3 litres of water in drinks and food each day - so it could be argued that a typical UK adult is responsible for the consumption of more oil than drinking water!
In assessing the importance of oil and its potential replacements, it's inevitable that some numerical comparisons have to be made.
The oil industry tends to measure the quantity of oil in barrels - a rather old-fashioned unit, given the fact that oil is no longer transported in barrels. A careful web search for the world consumption of oil might lead to the annually published BP Statistical Review of World Energy (the source of most of the data in this section), where the value quoted will always be in millions or billions of barrels of oil. The daily global consumption of oil for 2010 is given in the BP Statistical Review as 87 million barrels of oil per day. The price of crude oil is generally given as the price (in US dollars) per barrel. On the other hand, scientists internationally tend to use SI units, where SI is an abbreviation for the Système International d'Unités (International System of Units). Examples of SI units are the kilogram or tonne for mass and the litre for volume.
In order to translate the units used in oil industry publications to those more commonly used in scientific publications, you need to be able to convert 'barrels' into standard SI units of mass and volume.
Converting quantities of oil quoted in barrels to litres is relatively straightforward, since one barrel of oil contains a volume of 159 litres. To convert from barrels to tonnes is slightly trickier as it depends on where the oil comes from. Crude oils from different sources have different densities but, on average, one barrel is equivalent to 0.14 tonnes of oil.
In assessing the importance of oil and its potential replacements, it's inevitable that some numerical comparisons have to be made.
The oil industry tends to measure the quantity of oil in barrels - a rather old-fashioned unit, given the fact that oil is no longer transported in barrels. A careful web search for the world consumption of oil might lead to the annually published BP Statistical Review of World Energy (the source of most of the data in this section), where the value quoted will always be in millions or billions of barrels of oil. The daily global consumption of oil for 2010 is given in the BP Statistical Review as 87 million barrels of oil per day. The price of crude oil is generally given as the price (in US dollars) per barrel. On the other hand, scientists internationally tend to use SI units, where SI is an abbreviation for the Système International d'Unités (International System of Units). Examples of SI units are the kilogram or tonne for mass and the litre for volume.
In order to translate the units used in oil industry publications to those more commonly used in scientific publications, you need to be able to convert 'barrels' into standard SI units of mass and volume.
Converting quantities of oil quoted in barrels to litres is relatively straightforward, since one barrel of oil contains a volume of 159 litres. To convert from barrels to tonnes is slightly trickier as it depends on where the oil comes from. Crude oils from different sources have different densities but, on average, one barrel is equivalent to 0.14 tonnes of oil.
2. Calculate the UK's annual oil consumption for 2010 in barrels, and estimate what the mass of that oil might be in tonnes.
Crude oil in its unrefined state is not very useful - it has to be processed to produce the fuels and materials so essential in the modern world. However, for now, you just need to be aware that each barrel of oil undergoes extensive refining and processing to produce fuels and materials.
TASK
Watch the 3-minute video clip in which some of the central issues surrounding living without oil are introduced and then answer the questions below. If you have time, you may wish to watch the whole clip through once, and then read the questions before watching the video again. Use the pause button while noting down your answers to each question.
Watch the 3-minute video clip in which some of the central issues surrounding living without oil are introduced and then answer the questions below. If you have time, you may wish to watch the whole clip through once, and then read the questions before watching the video again. Use the pause button while noting down your answers to each question.
3. The clip states that 'the extraction and use of oil have damaging impacts on local environments and global climate'. Give one example each of:
i. how the extraction of oil has damaged a local environment
ii. how the use of oil damages local environments
iii. how the use of oil has a damaging impact on the global environment.
4. What alternatives to oil as a source of transport energy feature in the video?
5. There are three broad alternatives to oil-based transport: biologically derived liquid fuels (biofuels), hydrogen and battery electric vehicles. The video makes it clear that all these technologies are likely to be tested in the near future. Which of these, if any, do you personally think is most likely to feature in meeting our transport needs in the long term?
i. how the extraction of oil has damaged a local environment
ii. how the use of oil damages local environments
iii. how the use of oil has a damaging impact on the global environment.
4. What alternatives to oil as a source of transport energy feature in the video?
5. There are three broad alternatives to oil-based transport: biologically derived liquid fuels (biofuels), hydrogen and battery electric vehicles. The video makes it clear that all these technologies are likely to be tested in the near future. Which of these, if any, do you personally think is most likely to feature in meeting our transport needs in the long term?
Oil for personal transport
Most obviously, oil products provide us with the energy to move us around and a proportion of the 4 litres of crude oil each person consumes each day will be used to fuel personal transport. Several crude oil products are used to fuel transport. Petrol (called gasoline in some parts of the world) and diesel are the fuels primarily used for road transport, whilst kerosene is used to fuel jet aircraft.
Most obviously, oil products provide us with the energy to move us around and a proportion of the 4 litres of crude oil each person consumes each day will be used to fuel personal transport. Several crude oil products are used to fuel transport. Petrol (called gasoline in some parts of the world) and diesel are the fuels primarily used for road transport, whilst kerosene is used to fuel jet aircraft.
Other forms of transport are important too - aviation is a huge consumer of fuel derived from crude oil (largely kerosene). A single return flight to New York from London could easily triple an individual's annual personal consumption of crude oil products.
However, as important as personal transport is in determining the amount of crude oil we consume, to gain a full appreciation of the centrality of oil in the modern world you also need to look at the role crude oil plays in transporting goods.
However, as important as personal transport is in determining the amount of crude oil we consume, to gain a full appreciation of the centrality of oil in the modern world you also need to look at the role crude oil plays in transporting goods.
Virtual oil
There may be those amongst you who have used no powered transport at all in the last week - perhaps you cycled, walked or ran everywhere you needed to go, or even rode a horse. However, in the developed world, even individuals who don't personally use powered transport live lives that rely heavily on oil. Almost everything we buy has been produced by a process that consumes oil - it all contains what might be called 'virtual oil'.
Think firstly about the food we eat. Diets in the developed world rely on the cheap transport we get from oil. This applies whether we are eating intensively reared meat flown from the other side of the world or 'organically' grown vegetables driven from 30 kilometres away. Clearly there can be vast differences in the amount of oil consumed in bringing different foodstuffs to us, depending both on the distance travelled and the type of transport used.
In the past, campaigners in the UK have used the concept of 'food miles' to try to capture the differences in the quantities of oil consumed to get different goods to us - their focus was on making consumers aware of the greenhouse gas emissions involved. The 'food miles' associated with an item of food measures the distance from the point at which the food was produced to the point at which it is consumed, but the concept has since come under criticism as too simplistic.
There may be those amongst you who have used no powered transport at all in the last week - perhaps you cycled, walked or ran everywhere you needed to go, or even rode a horse. However, in the developed world, even individuals who don't personally use powered transport live lives that rely heavily on oil. Almost everything we buy has been produced by a process that consumes oil - it all contains what might be called 'virtual oil'.
Think firstly about the food we eat. Diets in the developed world rely on the cheap transport we get from oil. This applies whether we are eating intensively reared meat flown from the other side of the world or 'organically' grown vegetables driven from 30 kilometres away. Clearly there can be vast differences in the amount of oil consumed in bringing different foodstuffs to us, depending both on the distance travelled and the type of transport used.
In the past, campaigners in the UK have used the concept of 'food miles' to try to capture the differences in the quantities of oil consumed to get different goods to us - their focus was on making consumers aware of the greenhouse gas emissions involved. The 'food miles' associated with an item of food measures the distance from the point at which the food was produced to the point at which it is consumed, but the concept has since come under criticism as too simplistic.
6. For northern European 'environmentally engaged' consumers shopping in spring, tomatoes grown in southern Spain might be preferable to home-grown tomatoes - despite the fact that the Spanish tomatoes have many more food miles attached to them. Why might this be true?
Whilst the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from transport are an important part of the environmental impact of the things we buy, it's important to take into account the emissions involved in every stage of an object's production and use. In more recent years, campaigners have tended to use the concept of a 'carbon footprint' - an estimate of the total impact a product has on anthropogenic global warming. It is an area where there are often no clear-cut answers, and differing estimates of environmental impact can often lead to controversy.
The use of oil-based transport makes an almost invisible contribution to the manufacture of all modern goods. A cotton jacket that was manufactured in Romania and sold in Switzerland will have used oil to transport the jacket from Romania to the shop. Cotton is not a crop that is grown commercially in Romania, so the cotton will have been imported into Romania from another country - perhaps Egypt or China. This too will have involved the consumption of oil.
The use of oil-based transport makes an almost invisible contribution to the manufacture of all modern goods. A cotton jacket that was manufactured in Romania and sold in Switzerland will have used oil to transport the jacket from Romania to the shop. Cotton is not a crop that is grown commercially in Romania, so the cotton will have been imported into Romania from another country - perhaps Egypt or China. This too will have involved the consumption of oil.
The deceptively simple jacket is an amalgam of different parts manufactured all over the world. It has a lining made from polyester and viscose - two different synthetic materials which are likely to have been manufactured at different sites. It has plastic buttons and is held together by cotton threads. The cloth has been dyed an attractive olive colour - the dye will have been manufactured at one site and transported some distance to the factory that dyed the cloth.
The manufacture of the jacket is only possible because cheap transport fuelled by oil allows the manufacturer to assemble all the parts needed. This relatively complex process of bringing together parts from all over the world applies to almost all the goods around us in our homes. You have explored the manufacture of a jacket - but think of how many more parts and materials have to be produced separately and brought together to manufacture a complex object like a television or computer.
It is very difficult to state accurately how much of an individual's daily crude oil consumption is taken up by the 'virtual oil' in the goods they use. However, you can make a rough estimate. According to International Energy Authority statistics, approximately 61% of crude oil consumed is used for transport (this includes both personal transport and the transport of goods), and it can be estimated that on average each individual in the UK is responsible for the consumption of 4 litres of crude oil.
The manufacture of the jacket is only possible because cheap transport fuelled by oil allows the manufacturer to assemble all the parts needed. This relatively complex process of bringing together parts from all over the world applies to almost all the goods around us in our homes. You have explored the manufacture of a jacket - but think of how many more parts and materials have to be produced separately and brought together to manufacture a complex object like a television or computer.
It is very difficult to state accurately how much of an individual's daily crude oil consumption is taken up by the 'virtual oil' in the goods they use. However, you can make a rough estimate. According to International Energy Authority statistics, approximately 61% of crude oil consumed is used for transport (this includes both personal transport and the transport of goods), and it can be estimated that on average each individual in the UK is responsible for the consumption of 4 litres of crude oil.
7. Use these figures to estimate the total daily volume of crude oil that, on average, is used for transport for each individual in the UK.
Oil as a source of modern materials
So far, 3.5 litres of the UK citizen's 4 litre daily allocation of crude oil have been accounted for. The bulk of the remaining 0.5 litres is used as lubricants, waxes and road coverings, but a small proportion of the allocation - in the region of 0.1−0.2 litres - is converted to petrochemicals. As the name implies, these are chemicals derived from crude oil (petroleum), although the term is also used to refer to products derived from natural gas. Petrochemicals are used to manufacture a huge variety of materials - including plastics, pesticides, drugs, adhesives, paints, and so on.
The proportion of crude oil used to make petrochemicals is small but it is a very important part of the story. The economic importance of petrochemicals can be seen from the fact that recently the world production of transport fuels from crude oil was estimated to have a value of US $385 billion, whilst world production of petrochemicals was estimated to have a value of US $375 billion. Over 80% of crude oil is used to make transport fuel, while 3-5% is used for petrochemicals, yet their value is roughly the same.
Examining the statistics is one way to gain an insight into the importance of petrochemicals, but another way is to look at the things around you in your home. Let's return momentarily to my jacket: the lining is made of the synthetic materials polyester and viscose - products that are both to a greater or lesser extent derived from crude oil. More precisely, these materials are made from petrochemicals.
Polyester is ultimately derived from a petrochemical called xylene. Viscose is derived from cellulose extracted from plants, in a manufacturing process that incorporates a number of petrochemicals. The plastic buttons, and the dye too, are almost certainly derived from petrochemicals.
It's hard to exaggerate how commonplace petrochemical products have become in our daily lives - we are surrounded by them. We walk on petrochemical products in the form of synthetic fibre carpets and vinyl floorings. The colours on the walls which surround us are derived from petrochemicals. We sit on seats stuffed with plastic foams derived from petrochemicals. Crude oil is the source of almost all the many plastics we use. For example, we get clean water from plastic pipes, whilst other plastic pipes take our waste water away. Our music players, computers and mobile phones are all made in part from plastics derived from oil. The food we eat doesn't just rely on oil for the transport elements of its production; it also relies on the pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers which are usually chemically derived from oil. The packaging which keeps our food fresh or allows us to transfer it directly from the fridge to the oven is derived from oil. Modern medicines are almost always derived from oil, as are replacement heart valves and artificial limbs.
The list of modern goods that rely on the products of the petrochemical industry is almost endless - that is why the small fraction of a barrel of oil used for petrochemicals is so valuable.
So far, 3.5 litres of the UK citizen's 4 litre daily allocation of crude oil have been accounted for. The bulk of the remaining 0.5 litres is used as lubricants, waxes and road coverings, but a small proportion of the allocation - in the region of 0.1−0.2 litres - is converted to petrochemicals. As the name implies, these are chemicals derived from crude oil (petroleum), although the term is also used to refer to products derived from natural gas. Petrochemicals are used to manufacture a huge variety of materials - including plastics, pesticides, drugs, adhesives, paints, and so on.
The proportion of crude oil used to make petrochemicals is small but it is a very important part of the story. The economic importance of petrochemicals can be seen from the fact that recently the world production of transport fuels from crude oil was estimated to have a value of US $385 billion, whilst world production of petrochemicals was estimated to have a value of US $375 billion. Over 80% of crude oil is used to make transport fuel, while 3-5% is used for petrochemicals, yet their value is roughly the same.
Examining the statistics is one way to gain an insight into the importance of petrochemicals, but another way is to look at the things around you in your home. Let's return momentarily to my jacket: the lining is made of the synthetic materials polyester and viscose - products that are both to a greater or lesser extent derived from crude oil. More precisely, these materials are made from petrochemicals.
Polyester is ultimately derived from a petrochemical called xylene. Viscose is derived from cellulose extracted from plants, in a manufacturing process that incorporates a number of petrochemicals. The plastic buttons, and the dye too, are almost certainly derived from petrochemicals.
It's hard to exaggerate how commonplace petrochemical products have become in our daily lives - we are surrounded by them. We walk on petrochemical products in the form of synthetic fibre carpets and vinyl floorings. The colours on the walls which surround us are derived from petrochemicals. We sit on seats stuffed with plastic foams derived from petrochemicals. Crude oil is the source of almost all the many plastics we use. For example, we get clean water from plastic pipes, whilst other plastic pipes take our waste water away. Our music players, computers and mobile phones are all made in part from plastics derived from oil. The food we eat doesn't just rely on oil for the transport elements of its production; it also relies on the pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers which are usually chemically derived from oil. The packaging which keeps our food fresh or allows us to transfer it directly from the fridge to the oven is derived from oil. Modern medicines are almost always derived from oil, as are replacement heart valves and artificial limbs.
The list of modern goods that rely on the products of the petrochemical industry is almost endless - that is why the small fraction of a barrel of oil used for petrochemicals is so valuable.
Is the oil running out?
We usually find oil in new places with old ideas. Sometimes, also, we find oil in an old place with a new idea, but we seldom find oil in an old place with an old idea. Several times in the past we thought we were running out of oil whereas we were only running out of ideas.
Parke A. Dickey, petroleum geologist, 1958
We are now entering the second half of the Oil Age, and face the relentless decline of production, imposed by nature.
Colin Campbell, petroleum geologist, 2006
Oil is one of a number of fossil fuels - fuels derived from the fossilised remains of living things. The two other most abundant fossil fuels are natural gas and coal.
The supplies of all fossil fuels are finite and (in theory) if we keep using them, they will eventually run out. The imminent exhaustion of oil supplies has been predicted a number of times in the last 100 years. In 1919 the head of the prestigious US Geological Survey predicted that the United States would run out of oil within nine years. Almost 100 years later, oil is still being extracted in the US. Discoveries of new oilfields and more efficient extraction techniques have so far kept the oil flowing, though the quantity of oil produced has declined.
We usually find oil in new places with old ideas. Sometimes, also, we find oil in an old place with a new idea, but we seldom find oil in an old place with an old idea. Several times in the past we thought we were running out of oil whereas we were only running out of ideas.
Parke A. Dickey, petroleum geologist, 1958
We are now entering the second half of the Oil Age, and face the relentless decline of production, imposed by nature.
Colin Campbell, petroleum geologist, 2006
Oil is one of a number of fossil fuels - fuels derived from the fossilised remains of living things. The two other most abundant fossil fuels are natural gas and coal.
The supplies of all fossil fuels are finite and (in theory) if we keep using them, they will eventually run out. The imminent exhaustion of oil supplies has been predicted a number of times in the last 100 years. In 1919 the head of the prestigious US Geological Survey predicted that the United States would run out of oil within nine years. Almost 100 years later, oil is still being extracted in the US. Discoveries of new oilfields and more efficient extraction techniques have so far kept the oil flowing, though the quantity of oil produced has declined.
There is no question that at some point the oil will run out, but this is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes or even our children's lifetimes. However, when the oil wells run dry is not the key question - or at least not the one likely to affect our or the next generation. Instead, the key question is whether we can produce enough oil to satisfy global demand. Consider Figure 6, produced in 2003 by members of the campaigning organisation the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. The figure shows an estimate of the global production of oil over a 120-year period.
8. Describe the trends in oil production shown in the graph.
9. Why must we be careful about the data if we know that it was created in 2003?
9. Why must we be careful about the data if we know that it was created in 2003?
Below is actual data up until may 2020 showing US crude oil production.
Figure 7 U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical ChartInteractive historical chart showing the monthly level of U.S. crude oil production back to 1983 from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Values shown are in thousands of barrels produced per day. The current level of U.S. crude oil production as of May 2020 is 11,200.00 thousand barrels per day.
10. Describe the trends in US crude oil production shown in the graph.
11. Compare the two graphs (Figure 6 and 7), describing the differences and similarities.
12. State one problem in comparing these two sets of data.
11. Compare the two graphs (Figure 6 and 7), describing the differences and similarities.
12. State one problem in comparing these two sets of data.
The idea that we are already at, or about to hit, 'peak oil' is a highly disputed one - and heated arguments have taken place about the validity of the ideas behind Figure 6. The debate can take at least two forms. Put crudely, the first form of the debate is between the geologists and the economists. Geologists point to the declining rate of discovery of new oilfields and the inevitable decline in resources. Economists claim that shortages of oil will raise prices - spurring technological development and the exploitation of sources of oil previously considered uneconomic. A second form of the debate occurs between different geologists - over exactly when the peak in oil production is likely to occur.
13. Considering the paragraph above concerning 'peak oil' and the evidence from figures 6 and 7, which side of the argument appears to be winning at the moment? Explain your answer.
The peak oil debate
For many commentators, the trends shown above are not as important as the bigger question: is overall global oil production about to decline? Many argue that we are at, or very close to, the point when the world's production of oil will peak and start to fall. This idea, known as the 'Peak Oil hypothesis', is a controversial one. Watch and explore the ideas and predictions shown in the videos below before attempting the final written task.
For many commentators, the trends shown above are not as important as the bigger question: is overall global oil production about to decline? Many argue that we are at, or very close to, the point when the world's production of oil will peak and start to fall. This idea, known as the 'Peak Oil hypothesis', is a controversial one. Watch and explore the ideas and predictions shown in the videos below before attempting the final written task.
TASK
14. Where do you stand on the Peak Oil question? From what you know, do you think it is a real issue? In your opinion does it affect the question of whether or not we should be trying to live without oil?
(Answer in about 200 words)
14. Where do you stand on the Peak Oil question? From what you know, do you think it is a real issue? In your opinion does it affect the question of whether or not we should be trying to live without oil?
(Answer in about 200 words)