Implications of peak oil
La llegada del pico del petróleo provocaría una escasez de dicho recurso. Pero esta escasez sería diferente a todas las sucedidas en el pasado ya que sus causas serían muy distintas. Los anteriores períodos de escasez tuvieron más que ver con razones políticas que con problemas reales en la extracción de los recursos. Esta vez, en cambio, el motivo fundamental será la falta de crudo suficiente para abastecer a toda la demanda. Los efectos y la gravedad de dicha escasez dependerán de lo rápido que decrezca la producción y de si se adoptaron medidas preventivas para adaptar la sociedad al uso de energías alternativas. Pero puede que esas alternativas ni siquiera lleguen a tiempo. En ese caso todos los productos y servicios que requieran el uso de petróleo escasearán disminuyendo el nivel de vida de todos los países. Los escenarios futuros van desde el colapso de la sociedad industrializada hasta los que afirman que la economía de mercado o las nuevas tecnologías resolverán el problema.
Catastrophe
The economic growth and prosperity experienced by the first world since the industrial revolution are due, in large part, to the use of fossil fuels. These fossil resources inevitably tend to decline since they are consumed at a much faster rate than they are replaced (geological scales). Some believe that the decrease in fuel production will have a drastic impact on modern technological civilization since it is heavily dependent on oil for fuel, as a chemical accumulator, and for the fertilizer industry. The US is especially dependent on this raw material. Around 90% of the world's leading power's transportation uses oil.
Some predict that a Malthusian catastrophe will occur as inefficiency in crude oil production increases. Since the 1940s, agriculture has greatly increased its productivity, largely due to the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers as well as the mechanization of cultivation and harvesting processes. This process was called the Green Revolution. The rise in food production has resulted in an increase in population growth unprecedented in the last 50 years. Pesticides and fertilizers have petroleum as their basic ingredient. Farm machinery also requires oil. Knowing that, currently, for each joule of food between 5 and 15 joules "Joule (unit)") of energy are consumed in production and distribution, it has been speculated that a decrease in crude oil supplies would cause the collapse of modern agriculture and would result in a drastic reduction in food production, preceded by a drastic increase in food prices (see World food crisis (2007-2008) "World food crisis (2007-2008)")). Its shortage could cause mass famine.
The shortage of oil could force a change in agricultural methods towards so-called organic agriculture that is less environmentally harmful but also less intensive. The new agriculture will also require a greater workforce, which will force many people to leave the cities to move to the countryside, reversing the predominant trend in industrial societies of migration of people from the countryside to the cities. Another possible derivative effect would be noticeable in societies whose transportation and urban planning are highly dependent on oil, as is the case in Europe but, above all, the United States.
In North America the effects of crude oil shortages would be especially dramatic. The majority of Americans live in the so-called suburbs,[52] areas of low density and extensive residential construction designed for automobile use. The close relationship between the car and the type of housing makes the American suburb an unsustainable system. The lack of fuel for their cars would force many Americans to move to areas with higher population density. The suburbs could become the slums of the future. There is a movement that aims to address this problem: called New Urbanism. This movement seeks to evolve the suburbs towards higher density neighborhoods by building new, not so extensive buildings.
The environment could also be affected. When crude oil production begins to decline, humanity could increase the use of even more polluting energies such as coal, of which there are still significant reserves on Earth. This could accelerate global warming and health problems such as cancer and heavy metal poisoning.[53].
Recession
A not-so-apocalyptic scenario assumes a slow rate of depletion and a slow transition to alternative energies, which could cause a major slowdown in the economy, known as a recession or depression due to high energy prices. Historically, there is a close correlation between increases in fuel prices and economic downturns. Inflation is also linked to increases in the price of oil. Despite everything, economists disagree about the intensity and causes of this association. The world economy could become less dependent on oil than during the first moments of the crisis. By comparison, the recessions of the early 1970s and early 1980s were due to a relatively brief period in which energy availability declined substantially; The possible future of a rise in prices due to the real depletion of resources predicts a period of recession much deeper and longer than those experienced until now. See Energy crisis.
developing countries
A decline in fossil fuels would also affect developing countries in the third world as it would make unattainable the claims of many of those nations to have the comforts and high standard of living of the United States and Europe. Pessimists believe that the limitation of resources will exacerbate differences and confrontations between the rich north and the impoverished south, while others, more optimistic, affirm that the problems would only be temporary while the step is taken to use alternative energies.[54].
Hope in new technologies
New technologies could make new energy sources available or allow more energy to be extracted from old ones. It is known that most of the energy potential is wasted. For example, only 10-20% of sunlight incident on solar cells is converted into electricity and only 35% of the oil can be extracted in a typical field. New technologies could increase these values. Many unconventional oils currently require more energy to extract than is obtained from burning them. This could also change with new technologies. The fact is that as the reserves are depleted, the difficulty of extraction increases and the most remote and those located in more inhospitable and inaccessible places remain. It is impossible to predict which new technologies will favor greater energy use, but what is certain is that they will not be able to contain the decline in crude oil production since it is a finite resource. At most they will be able to prolong the arrival of the peak beyond current predictions.
Many have special confidence in the possibility of successfully developing nuclear fusion. To this end, rich nations have launched a common project, ITER, whose objective is to achieve the development of a profitable and safe fusion reactor. Although this new source of primary energy could perhaps solve many of the problems of the energy and ecological crisis, especially with regard to the supply of electricity, a substitute for fuels would have to be found in which the energy generated by these reactors could be stored safely and as cleanly as possible. The solution to that could be hydrogen cells, still in the testing phase. Unfortunately, the construction of the first commercial reactor is still far from being a reality. Not even the most optimistic predict it before 2050, while the great oil crisis is expected to arrive much earlier. In the short and medium term, then, nuclear fusion does not seem to be the solution.
The market solution
A market solution is based on the belief that the rise in oil prices due to its scarcity will stimulate investments in technologies that replace the use of fuel, make crude oil extraction more efficient and increase productivity. The economic challenge in an environment of depletion of old resources is that research into alternative energies requires fossil fuels to be carried out. Critics argue that fuel shortages will make this research more expensive, increasing the cost of developing new technologies in the same measure.
As energy costs increase, they may exceed labor costs and, in the long term, interest rates would fall in conjunction with the decline in productivity of an energy-deprived economy. Some believe that other energy sources could become more attractive. Despite everything, critics claim that the market solution is wrong to formulate everything in purely monetary terms, since, in their assessments, they consider only the price of oil, when in reality the important aspect to take into account is energy efficiency (the balance between energy invested for extraction and refining versus energy extracted).
Those who support the market solution counterargue that with more money it is possible to find alternative solutions.
Critics advocate a more forward-looking mode of action than letting the market act, waiting for it and the invisible hand to resolve the problems that arise. They argue that current money and fossil fuels should be used to obtain truly substitute and alternative long-term solutions now that there is still time to maneuver and correct mistakes. Waiting for market reactions may make it too late when trying to act to alleviate the effects of the shortage. In the opinion of these same critics, letting it happen is playing Russian roulette in a global experiment that can only be carried out once in which total collapse is one of the possibilities to be contemplated, a risk that humanity should not allow itself to take.
Others identify the market as an economic agent that, rather than finding solutions, will further aggravate the situation. Traditionally, the result of every crisis is that the few who benefit from it seek short-term benefits, in this case they would be the crude oil suppliers. The market could take advantage of the scarcity of the resource and even promote an artificial scarcity of alternative energy sources, enriching a few instead of facilitating the transition to these new sources, which could therefore represent another brake.
The previous periods of scarcity, in the crash of '29 or the oil crisis of 1973, for example, were due more to economic and political situations than to real shortages. When this arrives and is real, many think that the market would only act as a negative synergy, worsening the crisis and causing companies or industries that in principle should not be so affected by the crisis to be dragged by the interrelationships of the market that make the entire economy closely intertwined and can fall like a house of cards when something fails. Finally, the entire structure, even those who benefited in the first moments, could be affected.
Increased efficiency in fuel use
A moderate rise in oil prices typically stimulates increased fuel consumption efficiency in transportation. Some believe this would postpone and mitigate the impact of a severe crude oil shortage. For example, some governments might mandate a minimum efficiency standard for cars. They could also incentivize a shift to other forms of transportation that were not directly dependent on oil. Electricity, in particular, can be generated from a variety of different sources. This could favor the use of transport such as railways, trams, trolleybuses and hybrid vehicles to the detriment of means totally dependent on traditional fuels such as trucks, cars and airplanes. For short trips of between 5 to 10 km, bicycles could become the preferred means and for long trips the combination of bicycles and trains would be the most economical solution.
Despite everything, an increase in fuel efficiency could, in fact, aggravate the problem. This phenomenon is known as Jevons' paradox, according to which states that, through technological improvements, increase efficiency in the consumption of a resource end up increasing the total consumption of said resource instead of reducing it. In any case, this paradox has been valid to the extent that there was no real shortage. In an environment of energy scarcity, much firmer and more determined action by governments to reduce consumption in absolute terms is to be expected. An improvement in efficiency also allows more work to be done with less fuel, allowing society to endure higher oil prices than before. This fact could encourage and accelerate the extraction of crude oil, further aggravating the depletion situation. On the other hand, if the price per barrel increases at the same level as efficiency, more consumption capacity will not be generated, so demand will be maintained. Finally, if the price increases above efficiency, consumption capacity will be lost and inflation will skyrocket while the demand for crude oil decreases.
Once the rate of oil extraction cannot increase parallel to the increase in demand, that is, when peak oil has been reached, the Jevons paradox will no longer apply. The price of oil would continue to rise but the amount of fuel available to the economy would remain the same or less. This means that, from that moment on, anyone who aims to maintain living standards will have to be increasingly efficient in their use of energy. In conclusion, high prices encourage efficiency, which can lead to substantial savings in energy resources and a drop in prices, which discourages efficiency and makes the Jevons paradox come into effect again.
Political implications
Currently, the United States is the economy that uses the most oil and maintains the lowest prices for this precious resource. Its global position as a hyperpower is supported by its economic supremacy, which, in turn, depends enormously on a good availability of cheap oil. At the same time, the world's largest crude oil reserves are located in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Russia. When Hubbert's peak occurs and oil progressively becomes a scarcer luxury, it is reasonable to think that economic and political tensions will emerge and worsen between the main producers and consumers.
Some observers see the actions of the United States government in the Middle East, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as the continuation of a long-term geopolitical struggle due to the superpower's need to provide itself with crude oil supplies at affordable prices even when world reserves begin to run low, thus obtaining a privileged and advantageous situation with respect to other nations. Richard Heinberg has proposed an oil depletion protocol as a way to mitigate the repercussions of the arrival of the peak.[55] Adoption of the Protocol would mean that "importing nations should agree to reduce their imports according to an annual percentage (Global Depletion Rate), while exporting countries should agree to reduce their exports according to that same rate." The Upsala Protocol has focused in a similar direction.[56].
Demand reduction through lifestyle changes
A significant percentage of the abuse of resources is caused by a wasteful lifestyle based on a large number of comforts and needs created by advertising and the consumer society that go far beyond the basic needs for our subsistence. The USA, with 5% of the world's population, consumes 24.8% of the world's oil, spending a total of 20.52 million barrels per day, which makes them the first consumers per capita in the world according to U.S. accounts. Department of Energy. Europe, not including Russia, consumes 19.9% of the world's oil, which means a total of 16.45 million barrels per day. There is a whole movement that advocates simplifying our society since the more complex it is, the more energy it requires. (See the section on the society of laziness in: the dumbest species of all). Be that as it may, dwindling energy resources would still force a decrease in demand for food and services. Many high-consumption habits should be changed for much more efficient and cheaper ones. For example, the use of bicycles for transportation in the city as well as eating food cooked at home, bringing it from nearby crops or also from organic crops that do not use chemical products. Spending on food packaging and packaging could also be reduced by prioritizing the sale of fresh products, which are also healthier. Likewise, it would also be preferable for each person to work in places close to their home, thus minimizing travel expenses.
Critics of consumerism claim that modern society is addicted to consumption favored by the possibility of debt and, above all, by the constant advertising bombardment to which people are subjected, which in itself is also a waste of energy. In fact, today companies spend energy so that potential consumers can spend it in turn. Energy scarcity will lead this situation to absurdity since in a context of scarcity, how can we understand spending energy to boost consumption? More and more people will have to readjust their way of life to a calmer and more peaceful pace instead of the current fast pace. The reduction in stress as well as the use of chemical products and pollution would have a positive impact on a reduction in the consumption of health resources.
But a reduction in complexity will also have a negative impact on the economy, perhaps causing an increase in unemployment as well as the bankruptcy of numerous businesses that will no longer be viable in an environment of energy scarcity. The crisis of the economic model based on growing consumption that is impossible to sustain any longer would bring with it a political transformation of capital importance for the survival of humanity. Society would not be free of negative effects and these would be all the greater the lower the will to reduce consumption while still in time. If we wait until resources are practically exhausted, the reduction in consumption will not be imposed by a change in policy but by a purely technical force. Society should undertake unpleasant changes. More work would be done to be able to replace the work done so far by machines. Planes and cars would be replaced by trains and ships as means of transportation. People would travel much less by staying home much more during the holidays. Processed or expensive-to-produce foods such as meat, chocolate, coffee "Coffee (drink)"), tea "Tea (drink)") and milk would be replaced by local foods such as cereals and vegetables. Air conditioning would become a thing of the past. People should live in smaller, lower-cost houses, better insulated and easier to maintain; in general, a dramatic reduction in consumption would have effects on the entire production and transportation chain of products. In extreme cases, electricity and even food would be rationed.
Alternatives to conventional oil
There are other alternative energy sources that can be used instead of fossil fuels in many of the applications for which it is used. For example, ethanol extracted from sugar cane crops that power a good part of the cars in Brazil, or oil extracts from crops such as soybeans, sunflowers, olives... These energies require large areas of land and compete with those dedicated to producing food.
There are more natural substitutes for pesticides and plastics. On the negative side, some of the substitutes being considered could even be more polluting than current fuels. This would be the case of synthetic oils derived from coal or natural gas, which, for example, Nazi Germany was already forced to use to supply its army. As the resources found in the deposits are exhausted, these alternatives will be increasingly used to partially alleviate the shortage. Despite everything, it is doubtful whether they can even come close to the excessive use that has been given to oil in the last half of the century. For plant-based fuels, the fields needed to grow food would have to be sacrificed and there would still be few to replace the current use of fuels. In the case of synthetics, perhaps the abundance of carbon initially made a certain substitution feasible, but we must not forget that carbon, like oil, is also a resource that, although abundant, is finite. An intensification of demand would shorten the depletion of the mines. It is also difficult to think of an effective extraction of said mineral without the oil that is used today to move all the mining machinery, trucks, elevators, excavators, etc. On the other hand, the use of coal and its synthetic derivatives would further increase pollution, accelerating the problems of air pollution and global warming.