5 ms·
~85% of the US's energy usage comes from fossil fuels [1]. Despite the unfortunate reality of anthropogenic climate change, the really key thing to realize is
by cossatot 11y ago
~85% of the US's energy usage comes from fossil fuels [1]. Despite the unfortunate reality of anthropogenic climate change, the really key thing to realize is that transitions to alternate forms of energy take decades because the scale of such transitions is absolutely enormous; these changes take longer and longer with every major transition, i.e. wood to coal, or coal to oil; oil to whatever's next could take a century [2]. The earth has about 1300 billion barrels of 'proven' oil reserves[3] which at current consumption rates of ~100 million barrels per day [4] gives us about 36 years of oil left. And that assumes that, despite rapid increases in population size and economic development, that consumption won't change.
36 years isn't very long to develop the new energy technology, test it sufficiently, and build the infrastructure. Oil is the hardest to replace of all of our energy sources because it has the highest energy density and is therefore integral to transportation. Replacing coal with solar + nuclear would be a better option because both are based on stationary power plants instead of car engines and jet turbines. But in reality, if oil gets expensive now, we'll just start burning more coal because the pieces are already in place.
Like it or not (I definitely do not like it), we are a society very reliant upon fossil fuels, and if fossil fuel accessibility is restricted substantially (i.e. by completely stopping oil exploration) there will be considerable destabilization of society, which will do two particularly nasty things: 1) Harm the poor disproportionately, by making it difficult or impossible for the poor in developed nations to heat their houses and drive to work and school, and raising the cost of food substantially; and by completely stopping if not reversing the economic development of the rest of the world, keeping billions in poverty. 2) Wreak tremendous havoc on the environment, as the forests are cut down to provide wood for heating and cooking, and the fisheries and wild animal stock is razed due to high food prices.
There are no great solutions to the problem, but there are some that are much better than the current status quo of doing nothing, or the opposite end-member solution of enforcing an otherwise unlikely peak oil catastrophe by stopping exploration. Taxing carbon and using the proceeds to fund new energy technology as well as ramping up current alternative energy production both domestically and in India and Africa, and implementing more efficient transportation, heating and electricity generation could go a long way.
[1] 2012 levels, from Energy Revolution by Mara Prentiss
[2] Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate by Vaclav Smil
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
[4] http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
- eru 11y agoAgreed. Though the harm to rich society does not have to be that big: taxes already make energy rather expensive in some rich countries and people cope. The consumer doesn't really care whether energy is expensive because of taxes or because of scarcity.