Peak Oil 3: National and Global Production Peaks of Oil and Other Resources

"We've embarked on the beginning of the last days of the age of oil." — Mike Bowlin, Chair, ARCO

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel." — attributed to Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum, Emir of Dubai

We are not good at recognizing distant threats even if their probability is 100%. Society ignoring [peak oil] is like the people of Pompeii ignoring the rumblings below Vesuvius." — James Schlesinger, former US Energy Secretary

Geologists have been predicting since the 1950s that oil production would begin to decrease in a matter of decades. When Geophysicist M. King Hubbard predicted in 1956 that oil production in the U.S. would peak in the early 1970s, both the scientific community and the public made him a pariah. However, when production peaked in 1970 as he predicted (Figure 1), many scientists accepted him as a prophet (most of the public remained unaware of his predictions). Many people forget that until the early 1970s the U.S. was, like Saudi Arabia of the 1980s and 1990s, the largest oil producer in the world. However, since the early 1970s the U.S. has become increasingly dependent on foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to feed its voracious appetite for oil. We now rely on unstable third world countries to fuel our cars, and we finance despots and wars to maintain our precious oil supply. Even George W. Bush acknowledged in 2008 that the U.S. is addicted to oil. The effects on foreign countries of the U.S. addiction to oil are very similar to the effects of the U.S. addiction to illegal drugs: the flow of money from the wealthy U.S. leads to corruption, crime, and political instability in third world countries. Our addiction has caused scores of countries and millions of people to suffer. Moreover, our dependence on foreign countries for oil has obviously decreased our national security.

Figure 1. U.S. oil production over time. Equation for Gaussian fit: y = 10955*exp(-0.5*((x-1972.8)/36.21)^2). Data from BP Statistical Review (2010).

Now that the U.S. depends on foreign countries for 2/3 of its oil, we must be concerned not only about the reliability of our existing suppliers but also the natural limits to global oil production. In the year 2008 the world experienced for the first time a spike in oil and gas prices resulting from demand, as opposed to previous price spikes in 1973, 1980, and 1990 caused by global conflicts. Increases in oil prices result in increases in the costs of farming and food. The spike in 2008 occurred because countries didn't allow the market to correct itself; instead, for decades they subsidized energy and food, keeping prices artificially low ((Friedman 2008), p. 41).

To understand better why we can expect to have future shortages of non-renewable resources such as oil, we refer to (Figure 2), which plots hypothetical production rates of renewable and nonrenewable resources as a function of time. As discussed previously, because there is a finite amount of every nonrenewable resource such as oil, production and consumption inevitably lead to resource depletion. The total amount of a resource that is available (the ultimate cumulative production) is equal to the area under the curve. Resources that are not abundant and that we use rapidly run out quickly so that their resource production curves are very narrow. Resources that we use slowly or that are abundant last much longer, so their curves are wide and do not peak until well into the future.

Figure 2. Hypothetical production rates as a function of time. After Hubbert (1987).

It is the timing of the peak that is of most interest, because any time after the peak the resource will be scarce and therefore be expensive. In (Figure 2) the “unlimited exponential growth” curve can represent human population, while “renewable resource” can represent water production/consumption. As stated by Hubbert, “In their initial phases, the curves for each of these types of growth are indistinguishable from one another, but as industrial growth approaches maturity, the separate curves begin to diverge from one another. In its present state the world industrial system has already entered the divergence phase of these curves but is still somewhat short of the culmination of the curve for nonrenewable resources (1987).”

Note that on the rising limb of Hubbert's Peak demand drives supply: "the more oil the world economy needed, the more the oil industry could produce… Once we pass the peak, supply begins to dictate demand, meaning that prices start to rise suddenly and steeply, and the people with control of the remaining oil really get to start calling the shots (Hopkins 2008)."

We can apply Hubbert’s approach of constructing resource availability curves to any non-renewable resource on either a local or a global basis. Many countries are already post-peak for production of oil (including the U.S.) and other resources. For example, the U.S. imports 100% of the following resources that it uses: Arsenic trioxide, asbestos, bauxite and alumina, columbium (niobium), fluorspar, graphite, manganese, mica, quartz crystal, strontium, thallium, thorium, and yttrium (Keller 2011). Because we have global trade, local scarcity has not resulted in a crisis. Countries that have a surplus of a resource export it, and countries erase their deficits by importing. The problem occurs when global annual production rate of a nonrenewable resource peaks and then begins to decline. During the decline, resource production cannot keep pace with demand, and resource prices rise. Peak oil may cause shortages of many other resources because oil provides the energy to transport those resources. If the U.S. doesn’t have oil to transport all of the resources that we import, we will have more than just an energy problem.

What nonrenewable resources may become scarce in the 21^st century? Hubbert predicted that copper, tin, lead, and zinc would reach peak production within decades (Hubbert 1987). At the current rate of consumption, these metals will be available for 60, 40, 40, and 45 years respectively, and Indium, which is used in LCDs and solar cells, may run out in only 15 years (Ragnarsdottir 2008). Phosphate, which is an essential component of fertilizers, may disappear within the next 60-70 years (Oelkers and Valsami-Jones 2008), which could greatly decrease agricultural productivity and cause widespread food shortages.

It’s not just non-renewable resources that we have to worry about. Certain types of renewable resources have production curves similar to those of non-renewable resources because their renewal rate is less than the harvesting rate. For example, deep (fossil) groundwaters have been in the ground for hundreds or thousands of years, which means it would take hundreds or thousands of years to replace them at natural recharge rates. In many areas of the world, the groundwater extraction rate is much greater than the recharge rate, so the groundwater reserve is shrinking, as made visible by falling water tables in unconfined aquifers. When we use groundwater and other resources faster than they can be replaced, we are effectively mining them, and we can expect the production rate to peak and then decline, as occurred in Saudi Arabia (Figure 3). Consequently, hydrologist Luna Leopold advocated the treatment of groundwater as a nonrenewable resource that we should use only during droughts. The sustainable approach to resource use is not to use renewable resources faster than nature can renew them.

Figure 3. Saudi Arabia Water Supply 1980-2000 in Million cubic meters/year. Data from Abderrahman (2001).

Another renewable resource whose production has peaked is the global wild fish catch, which peaked in the 1980’s due to overfishing (Fig. 1.10). Fortunately the use of aquaculture as a substitute is expanding, which has softened the blow. As human population and resource demand continue to increase, we can expect to see the production of more resources peak and then begin to decline. The important question is, will we always find adequate substitutes as we did for marine fish?

Oil production is now declining in 60 of the 98 oil-producing countries. Most of these countries had a peak in oil discovery 30-40 years before they reached peak production. Similarly, we can expect world oil production to peak 30-40 years after world discovery rates peaked in 1965. World oil consumption has outpaced the discovery of new oil reserves for almost three decades: we now consume four barrels for every one we discover.

Discoveries of oil total about two trillion barrels worldwide, and we already used ~one trillion barrels. That puts us at the center of the production curve where the peak is (often called “Hubbert’s Peak”), so that when we start consuming the second half, production rates will decrease and prices will rise (the curve is symmetrical, so the peak is in the center and the area under the curve to the left of the peak is the same as to the right of the peak, corresponding to one trillion barrels). Furthermore, the first trillion barrels was the oil that was easy to get out of the ground; the second trillion barrels will become increasingly more difficult to mine. The EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Investment) will steadily decrease, and the amount of environmental damage associated with oil recovery will greatly increase.

Andrew Nikiforuk gives good evidence that the world is nearing peak oil in his book “Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent” (Nikiforuk 2008). He notes that the biggest supplier of oil to the U.S. is no longer Saudi Arabia, but our next-door neighbor Canada. U.S. citizens are happy because there is less risk that money we spend on oil will end up in the hands of terrorists who target us. However, Canadian oil primarily comes from the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, and mining of this “dirty” oil creates huge environmental problems, including much higher CO₂ emissions per unit energy because large amounts of natural gas are used to refine this dirty oil. Production of tar sand oil emits roughly 100 to 650 pounds of CO₂ per barrel, compared with North Sea oil that emits only ~20 pounds per barrel. Nikiforuk (Nikiforuk 2008) calls this “a switch from bloody light oil to dirty heavy oil,” and concludes that it is not in the best interests of the U.S. or Canada.

Several other observations support the idea that global peak oil is near. First, of the 98 oil-producing nations, 60 have already passed their peak (Hopkins 2008), including the U.S., U.K., Norway, Venezuela, and Russia; countries near their peak include Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and China; and countries where production is increasing include Canada (tar sands), Kazakhstan, and seven others. Second, although prices have been very high, giving an incentive to increase production, the production rate has remained steady at 84-87 million barrels per day for the last six years (Figure 4). The evidence is that geology rather than economics or politics dictates production rates. Third, oil companies are drilling in more difficult environments because they have already tapped out the easy targets. For example, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in May 2010 resulted from the extreme pressures below one mile of ocean and four miles of rock where they were drilling. Another supporting observation is that oil companies have not greatly expanded their oil exploration activities even though the price of oil has skyrocketed. Oil companies are now using their vast amounts of money to diversify or buy back their own stocks rather than spending more money on R&D and exploration. This is clear evidence of falling return on investment in exploration, and shows that oil companies are planning for reduced oil production.

Figure 4. World oil production in thousands of barrels daily. Gaussian fit predicts peak production in the year 2026 (y = 85079*exp(-0.5((x-2026)/51.94)^2). Data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy Data 2010.

So when will global oil production peak and then begin a steady decline leading to increasing cost? Oil companies and national governments want investors to be optimistic about the future, so they try to discredit peak oil claims. To get the true story we need experts who are independent of corporate or government interests, who have no personal stake so their opinions are objective, and who base their opinions on facts. Kenneth Deffeyes (2001) argued that the peak would be somewhere close to the year 2005. Using data from British Petroleum’s annual Statistical Review of World Energy 2010, I plotted world oil production through 2009 (Figure 4). The data show that oil production plateaued starting in 2005. The increasing gap between constant supply and increasing demand fueled by countries like China and India caused oil prices to increase dramatically by 2007 before falling in response to the global recession. A Gaussian fit to the production data peaks at 2026[i] (Figure 4). Most other studies that tried to fit the production data and extrapolate it into the future suggested that oil production would peak near 2008-2010 (Figure 5, from www.theoildrum.com). Considering that oil production has not increased significantly since 2005, and actually dropped 2.6% from 2008-2009 (BP 2010), these predictions seem accurate. However, as Hopkins (2008) points out, the exact date of the peak doesn't matter; what matters is that it is near, and we haven't begun to prepare for it.

Figure 5. World oil production (EIA Monthly) for crude oil + NGL. The median forecast is calculated from 15 models that are predicting a peak before 2020 (Bakhtiari, Smith, Staniford, Loglets, Shock model, GBM, ASPO-[70,58,45], Robelius Low/High, HSM,Duncan&Youngquist). 95% of the predictions sees a production peak between 2008 and 2010 at 77.5 - 85.0 mbpd (The 95% forecast variability area in yellow is computed using a bootstrap technique). The magenta area is the 95% confidence interval for the population-based model.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary” (Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation & Risk Management, February 2005, Page 64). What is crazy and wasteful is that the U.S. and other countries are still building car assembly plants, roads, highways, parking lots, suburban housing developments, and airplanes as though cheap oil will last forever (Brown 2009). We continue to make investments in an infrastructure that will be superfluous shortly after we build it. This is an example of a market that is failing because it does not anticipate even short-term changes.

Many will dispute the assertion that world oil production has nearly peaked. It is possible that the current peak apparent in (Figure 4) is a local maximum rather than a global maximum. Examples of local maximums include the 1973 and 1980 peaks in world oil production followed shortly after by price increases. Both of these local maxima resulted from political events, the OPEC embargo in 1973 and the Iraq-Iran war in 1980. So while resource availability is the primary control, anything that disrupts production and transportation of oil (wars, natural disasters, and politics) can cause short-term fluctuations in production rates and therefore price. However, the current oil production peak is not caused by political events, but by the inability of producers to increase supply.

Others argue that oil production, or at least combined conventional and unconventional oil and gas, will not rapidly decline but will plateau or slowly decline (Cheney and Hawkes 2007). Production of conventional oil and gas may decline steeply. However, substitution with unconventional oil such as tar sands combined with improvements in extraction technologies will slow the rate of production decline for combined conventional and unconventional oil and gas, consistent with the nearly constant production rate of the last six years. Even in this best-case scenario where world oil production plateaus rather than peaks, oil prices will still climb considerably because demand will continue to increase exponentially as the economies of China and India expand at an exponential rate. As noted by Lester Brown, in this era of globalization “where oil production is no longer expanding, one country can get more oil only if another gets less (Brown 2009)”. The U.S. will be competing with China, India, and every other country in the world for oil, which will drive up oil prices.

Some think that increasing domestic production will solve any oil shortage problems for the U.S., but in reality, oil companies will sell any domestically-produced oil on the global market. Despite political claims to the contrary, if the U.S. opened the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling today, when it reached maximum production in roughly 2030 it would supply no more than 1.2% of the total world oil consumption[ii], and therefore would have a negligible impact on oil prices. Furthermore, oil production could not begin until roughly ten years after opening ANWR (yes, it takes that long to build the pipeline, drilling facilities, etc.), and would peak around 2030 before starting to decline, so it won’t help the U.S. for at least ten years. So no, opening ANWR will not solve our oil problem.

The most important question about oil is not how much remains in the ground, but how much can we mine and still maintain economic and energy profits (Hall and Day (2009)). We get an energy profit when we get more energy from the oil we produce than the amount of energy required to produce it. The Energy Return On Energy Investment EROEI of U.S. petroleum declined from roughly 100:1 in 1930, to 40:1 in 1970, to about 14:1 in 2000 (Hall and Day (2009)). For the tar sands that produce a major amount of oil consumed in the U.S. the ratio is much less than 10:1, perhaps even close to 1:1 (Figure 6). As EROEI decreases, the cost per unit energy increases.

Figure 6. From Hall and Day (2009)

Increases in EROEI, supply-demand gap, and price of petroleum will also cause increases for gasoline, because gasoline is produced by distilling oil in a refinery. Gasoline is an amazing substance that we take for granted. Each gallon of gasoline contains 37 kWh of energy, which is equivalent to 500 hours of human work[iii] (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Research.html). In other words, you could hire 500 people to push your car for one hour and it would get you roughly as far as one gallon of gasoline. Currently that gallon of gasoline costs about $2.50, but to hire 500 people to push your car for one hour at a typical wage of $10/hour would cost you $5000. People say gas is too expensive? It’s the bargain of the millennium, which is why people are burning through it so quickly.

Some argued that gas prices were high in 2008 because the U.S. didn’t have enough refineries, and that the problem of high gas prices would just go away if we build more refineries. If that were true, then the price of gas should be cheaper in most other countries, which are unlikely to all have made the same dumb mistake. Here is a global comparison of gas prices:

Table 5.2: Gasoline Prices for Selected Countries, February/March, 2009

From <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2009_fotw569.html>.

Country	Pump Prices	Country	Pump Prices	Country	Pump Prices
Netherlands	$6.25	India (Delhi)	$3.75	China	$1.93
United Kingdom	$5.94	Australia	$3.32	Nigeria	$1.85
Germany	$5.87	South Africa	$3.24	Indonesia	$1.67
Italy	$5.72	Russia	$2.38	Iran	$0.33
France	$5.56	Mexico	$2.36	Venezuela	$0.12
South Korea	$5.38	United States	$2.23

In most countries gasoline is more expensive than in the U.S.. Iran and Venezuela have anomalously low prices because they are petroleum-producing countries with government-controlled pricing. European countries have much higher prices due to heavy government taxation. Thus, high gas prices are a global problem caused by oil scarcity, and are not caused by a U.S. infrastructure deficiency. We conclude that oil is becoming scarce, that exploration and enhanced recovery are unlikely to relieve that scarcity, and that oil prices will continue to rise as demand increases.

References

BP (2010). Statistical Review of World Energy 2010, British Petroleum. http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622.

Brown, L. (2009). Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. New York, NY, W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.

Cheney, E. S. and M. W. Hawkes (2007). "The Future of Hydrocarbons: Hubbert's Peak or a Plateau?" GSA Today 17(6): 69-70.

Deffeyes, K. S. (2001). Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.

Friedman, T. (2008). Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Hall, C. S. A. and J. W. J. Day (2009). "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil." American Scientist 97: 230-237.

Hopkins, R. (2008). The Transition Handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience, Chelsea Green Publishing.

Hubbert, M. K. (1987). Exponential Growth as a Transient Phenomenon in Human History. Societal Issues, Scientific Viewpoints. M. A. Strom. New York, NY, American Institute of Physics: 75-84.

Keller, E. A. (2011). Environmental Geology, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Nikiforuk, A. (2008). Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. Vancouver, BC, Canada, Greystone Books. file:///C:\Users\ayersj\Documents\My%20Classes\Sustainability\Papers\TarSandsBook.pdf.

Oelkers, E. H. and E. Valsami-Jones (2008). "Phosphate Mineral Reactivity and Global Sustainability." Elements 4(2): 83-87.

Ragnarsdottir, K. V. (2008). "Rare metals getting rarer." Nature Geoscience 1(11): 720-721. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/pdf/ngeo302.pdf.

---

[i] According to Deffeyes (2001), production values for nonrenewable resources such as oil are best fit using the Gaussian or normal distribution y=a*exp(-.5*((x-x₀)/b)²). This equation has three adjustable parameters: the year of peak production (x₀), the amount of oil produced daily during that peak year in millions of barrels (a), and the number of years between the half-maximum points (b). I used the Solver add-in in Microsoft Excel 2010 to minimize the sum of the squares of the residuals (= predicted – measured), known as the chi-squared statistic, by automatically adjusting the values of the three parameters until I obtained the best fit values for global production of a = 85.0, b = 51.9, and x₀ = 2026, with r² = 0.87. I obtained the same results using nonlinear regression in Sigmaplot 11. The calculated peak production of 85 million barrels per day is roughly equal to the production rate from 2007-2010.

[ii] Fear of oil shortages has led to the spread of misinformation, particularly for political gain. Recently a friend said he had heard from several sources that ANWR can supply about 60 years of oil for the U.S.. I told him that I had heard that, given our current oil consumption rate, it was more like a two -year supply (if it were our only source of oil), and that to last 60 years ANWR would have to contain more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had. That night I looked up the statistics. According to the USGS (2001) ANWR holds roughly 10.4 billion barrels. In 2007, the United States consumed 7.54 billion barrels of oil. Thus, it would take only 10.4 bbl/7.54 bbl/year = 1.38 years for Americans to consume all of the oil. For the maximum estimate of 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR it would take 16/7.54 = 2.1 years. Considering our rate of consumption of oil is continuously increasing, an estimate of two years supply is a reasonable upper limit.

[iii] Actually, if as stated previously "One kilowatt-hour per day is roughly the power you could get from one human servant”, then I calculate that it is 888 h as follows: if E = P*t, then t = E/P = 37 kWh/(1 kWh/d) = 37 d * 24 h/d = 888 h

Peak Oil: Background

Climate says we should change, but peak oil says we will be forced to change (Hopkins 2008).

Oil is an amazing liquid, and an ephemeral, invaluable gift[i]. It has been the world's most important source of energy since the mid-1950s. But evidence suggests that demand for oil will soon outstrip supply, and in the face of shortages of energy, especially for transportation, we will be forced to change our lifestyles.

Oil is effectively a non-renewable resource because it forms much more slowly than we consume it. Thus, by definition our dependence on oil is unsustainable. Oil will become a “scarce,” expensive resource when the world production rate reaches a maximum, an event called peak oil. After that peak, oil production will decline and oil prices and the cost of living will begin a long-term increase.

Currently we have no adequate substitutes for oil. It is the only high energy density liquid that can fuel our current forms of transportation. Coal is used to produce electricity, natural gas for power and heating, but there is no substitute for oil for transportation. The only other liquid fuels that could potentially substitute for oil are hydrogen and biofuels, and both have significant drawbacks. Hydrogen is not a source of energy but a carrier of energy. Hydrogen production requires other forms of energy, usually fossil fuels, and hydrogen vehicles are not energy efficient (MacKay 2009). Biofuel production requires large amounts of land because the efficiency of photosynthesis is low. In most countries biofuel can only be produced by converting land for food to land for fuel, but even if we converted all agricultural land to biofuel production it still could not meet our transportation fuel needs. For example, if Britain converted all of its agricultural land to biofuel production, it still would not supply enough energy (36 kWh/d per person) to meet demand from cars (40 kWh/d per person - see (MacKay 2009) pp. 43-4). After peak oil, we will think twice before hopping in the car for joyrides or frivolous errands; those activities will be too expensive to continue.

Besides its importance for transportation, oil a critically important part of our industrial agriculture system, and is the raw material for many chemical products, including pharmaceuticals, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics; the 16% not used for energy production is converted into these other materials. Peak oil advocates such as Deffeyes argue that we should save our remaining oil for more valuable applications than burning it up in our cars. For example, we can’t make most plastics without oil. An oil shortage could cause shortages in all these materials:

Table 4.1: Things we may have to do without* after Peak Oil

* or fall back on less adequate or more expensive substitutes

• Most forms of plastic including PVC and polycarbonates
• Wax
• Asphalt used to make roads
• Tar
• Many lubricants
• Many solvents
• Many detergents
• Many adhesives
• Resins and epoxies
• Fibers (polyester, acrylics, nylon, etc.)
• Synthetic rubber
• Agrochemicals: Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides
• engine coolant and aircraft deicer fluid (propylene glycol)
• Styrofoam
• Many personal care products including perfumes, cosmetics,
• Oil-based paints including polyurethanes
• Materials for electronics (electrical insulation, capacitors, transformers)
• Many inks and dyes
• Many food additives including flavorings, colorings, and fragrances
• Many pharmaceuticals

Thus, an oil shortage could have a major impact on the way we live. In the next post we will explore the evidence for peak oil.

References

Hopkins, R. (2008). The Transition Handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience, Chelsea Green Publishing.

MacKay, D. J. C. (2009). Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. Cambridge, England, UIT Cambridge Ltd. www.withouthotair.com.

---

[i] Note that we use the term “oil” synonymously with petroleum

Change the Way You Live: Sustainable Living

"The diligent farmer plants trees, of which he himself will never see the fruit." — Cicero

You go into a community and they will vote 80 percent to 20 percent in favor of a tougher Clean Air Act, but if you ask them to devote 20 minutes a year to having their car emissions inspected, they will vote 80 to 20 against it.  We are a long way in this country from taking individual responsibility for the environmental problem.  -William D. Ruckelshaus, former EPA administrator, New York Times, 30 November 1988

The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty.  The activist is the man who cleans up the river.  -Ross Perot

Materialism is widespread in our culture. It is perhaps the most important social force in our society. It drives our economy, fuels our desires, and preoccupies our minds. Americans are addicted to shopping and self-indulgence. We continue to spend even when we don’t have any money, which is part of the reason why our country is now in the throes of an economic crisis (another reason is that we are bumping up against the physical limits to growth where our demand (ecological footprint) exceeds the supply (biocapacity)). That we continue to purchase products that we don’t need and can’t afford, when we buy them when we know we shouldn’t, when the anxiety caused by accumulating financial debt does not prevent us from purchasing more, then we have an addiction, a disease of the mind. The symptoms are an uncontrolled compulsion to shop and purchase items and the habit of “going shopping” whenever we have free time even when we don’t need anything. There is also a buildup of tolerance to the pleasure of shopping but decreasing satisfaction with continuing purchases, so we must buy more to get the same “high”, a sure sign of addiction. The following sections contain prescriptions to the disease of consumerism. Many of these prescriptions are common sense, and they don’t require the knowledge of a scientist to explain or elaborate. However, I am reminded of the numerous books and magazines sold daily that tell the reader how to lose weight. The answer is obvious (stop eating!), but sometimes we need encouragement. Also, I would argue that here we are dealing with a much larger problem than obesity, and unlike obesity there is more than one way to reduce the problem.

How Should I Start Living Sustainably?

We have to shift our emphasis from economic efficiency and materialism towards a sustainable quality of life and to healing of our society, of our people and our ecological systems.  -Janet Holmes à Court

Reduce Your Consumption

We’ve reviewed a lot of evidence that consumption has the biggest impact on the environment. I hope it has convinced you to change your lifestyle. But how? What changes will have the greatest effect? To reduce consumption requires changing the way you think and how you spend your time, which is not easy. So be patient, and take small steps. Don’t get frustrated. It will probably take a few years of effort before you become satisfied. Start small, or start with the “low-hanging fruit”, the easy changes that have a big impact.

First, you must divorce yourself from materialism. Look around your home. How much do you own? How much of it do you really need? When looking at past and potential purchases, ask yourself if you would be less happy if you didn’t own it. If you are still tempted to make an unwise purchase, remind yourself that it is unsustainable, and picture what it will look like in a landfill a few years in the future. Remind yourself that the peace of mind you gain from keeping that money in the bank, or avoiding another credit card purchase you can’t afford, is worth more than the item. Pat yourself on the back for not letting advertisers manipulate your behavior. If you stop and think this way before making any purchase, you will avoid the trap of impulse buying that comes naturally in a materialistic world.

When trying to reduce consumption, one of the easiest guidelines to remember is to avoid disposable products. I’ve followed this guideline for most of my life, because it always seemed so obvious to me: products are designed to be disposable so that we will spend much more money continuously replacing them. Disposable products may seem more convenient, but often they are marginally so, and using them generates huge amounts of waste. Water bottles have become a symbol of our wasteful society, and rightly so. It’s so easy to avoid using disposable water bottles: buy a BPA-free water bottle, carry it with you wherever you go, refill it for free, and wash it every day. You can save yourself lots of money by doing this.

It’s useful to keep in mind that corporations always try to sell as much product as possible. They do this by convincing you through advertising that you need something that you don’t really need. There are endless examples of ways that advertisers try to get consumers to consume more, e.g., Taco Bell serves a "4th meal", and movie theaters have increased the size of their drinks to the point that they no longer fit in the drinkholders, both obvious examples of why America has an obesity epidemic – we are victims of advertising. Some advertisers suggest that you can’t be happy without their product; for example, Best Buys motto is: "You. Happy."

Another way that corporations get you to buy more is through the use of planned and perceived obsolescence. Everyone born before the 1970’s has the perception that the quality of products has declined, and that products are now designed to be disposable. I remember that my grandfather spent a lot of his time fixing things, and as a result, he seldom had to purchase replacements. In fact, I still have some of my grandfather’s tools, which are now between 50 and 100 years old. How many of today’s products last that long? Few do because most products now are designed with planned obsolescence in mind. Again, the goal of the manufacturer is to get you to buy as much of their product as possible, so they design the product to fail after a planned amount of time, usually just after the warranty lapses. In fact, most consumers now accept that they will have to buy a replacement shortly after the warranty expires, but it wasn’t like that in the past. My parents and grandparents each owned only one vacuum in their lifetimes, but today people frequently replace their vacuums after only one or two years of service. The vacuums are made so cheaply that they are not even worth repairing. Do you remember TV and appliance repair shops? You almost never see them now, because it usually is more expensive to repair a product than to replace it. Now the old product goes into the landfill as waste, and we waste more time shopping for and more money purchasing replacements.

Corporations and advertisers also rely on perceived obsolescence when they try to convince you to replace a product that still works perfectly well. By emphasizing a fancy feature in each new version of a product, usually a feature that you are unlikely to use and definitely don’t need, they convince you to buy replacements on a regular basis. This strategy has always worked well for car sales, but it works even better for new electronic devices that perform better tricks every year. I know people who buy annual upgrades of products such as the IPod nano or the IPhone because Apple is so remarkably good at marketing. I personally am a technophile, so I enjoy playing with gadgets and figuring out how to use all of their features (I even read the manuals!), but I still use less than half of the features bundled in most of my electronic gadgets. Yes, I am tempted to buy the newest versions of these products, but I know I don’t need them. From my experience, the constant upgrading is time-consuming and expensive, and I have more enjoyable and less expensive things to do. To convince myself not to buy them, I find the best strategy is to remind myself how much time it will take to figure out how to use them and to configure them properly. I now strive to simplify my life and eliminate clutter, a topic to which we will return.

Sometimes it’s not easy identifying the cheaply made junk. A good source of information on product reliability is the magazine Consumer Reports. Over time, you will learn which brands and countries sell junk, and which make reliable products. My grandfather used to say decades ago that anything marked “made in China” was junk, and that may be even truer today (and we now know that they frequently make their products using materials that are bad for our health).

Besides avoiding purchases of disposable products and junk that is designed to break, and repairing rather than replacing, you should try to purchase products that are made from renewable resources and that are made locally (to reduce carbon emissions from transportation and to help your local economy). Always keep in mind that your goal is to reduce your footprint. Does your footprint look like that of an elephant, or of a mouse? Stop living so large!

Is Our Current Lifestyle Unsustainable?

Human population is estimated to increase from 6 to 9 billion by 2050, but humans already use over half of accessible runoff and about 40% of plant growth for the energy stored in plants by photosynthesis [1]. We have created large holes in the ozone layer and increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than a third. The rate of species extinctions is growing exponentially (we are actually in the midst of earth's 5th mass extinction event, primarily caused by humans), and the percentage of fisheries fully exploited is nearly 80%. How many humans can Earth support? In this chapter, we look at sustainability as a balance between ecological resource supply and demand.

The ecological footprint is a measure of your resource demand. It is an attempt to estimate how much of earth’s resources you consume, and how much of an impact you have on the environment. There are many ways of calculating the size of your footprint, as you will find if you search the Internet for ecological footprint calculators. One way to express the size of a footprint is as the number of Earths that would be required to support the world’s population if all humans consumed resources at the same rate, i.e., the global ecological footprint. One problem with this approach is that the number of Earths then depends on the global population, which is exponentially increasing. It is thus a moving target. In spite of this problem, it is still a useful way to compare qualitatively the environmental impact of different lifestyles. Another more accurate method is to estimate the area of earth and sea that are required to support an individual’s lifestyle by regenerating renewable resources and absorbing wastes. If measured in productive land area, the global ecological footprint in acres per capita is 6.8, while citizens of the U.S. require 23.5 [2]. I like to think that I could sustain my family of four on our relatively large suburban yard of 1 acre, but to live like average U.S. citizens we would need 4*23.5 = 94 acres!

The concept of the ecological footprint is clearly Malthusian. It assumes that there is a fixed amount of resources available. It raises an important question: What is the carrying capacity of the Earth, the number of humans that Earth can support sustainably? Estimates range between 4 and 10 billion, depending on the average environmental impact of humans [3]. Remember that I = P*C*T. Assuming T is equal to one (*elsewhere we will debate whether T is smaller or greater than one, i.e., whether technology increases or decreases our environmental impact), then one Earth can sustainably withstand a maximum level of human impact Imax = P*C. If we reduce consumption C, we can increase population P and still maintain the equality. If all humans minimized C by becoming vegetarians and we farmed all arable land, then the maximum population that Earth could support Pmax = Imax/Cmin = 10 billion people. However, currently our consumption rate is closer to Cmax, and in this case Pmin = Imax/Cmax is about 4 billion. The current global population is 6 billion. According to the Living Planet Report 2008 [2], the current global ecological footprint of that 6 billion people is 1.3 planet Earths (See Fig. Global ecological footprint from [2]). This means that humanity uses ecological services 1.3 times faster than Earth can renew them. We are in “ecological overshoot”, i.e., our population and impact have grown so much that the earth can no longer support us sustainably. In order to live sustainably, humanity must reduce its total ecological footprint to one earth, either by reducing consumption or population. We can choose now to reduce consumption, but if we don’t act then eventually nature will make the choice for us and without mercy, and global population will decrease until it reaches a sustainable level.

The maximum amount of ecological services and resources that Earth can provide is termed the biocapacity. It is a measure of supply, expressed as the amount of land available for production per capita. The global biocapacity is -0.6 hectares per capita, again indicating that we have a global ecological overshoot (see Fig. Footprint and Biocapacity factors that influence overshoot from [2]). For the U.S. it is -4.4 hectares per capita [2], which explains why the U.S. has to import so many goods. Our use of ecosystem services and resources is sustainable when we demand less than the Earth can supply, i.e., when the global ecological footprint equals or is less than the global biocapacity. Unfortunately, the footprint now exceeds the biocapacity, and the gap between the two is increasing. The Figure Ecological footprint Biocapacity Overshoot [2] illustrates an optimistic scenario in which we act quickly to close the gap between supply and demand. In the unsustainable situation when demand is greater than supply, as it is now, we build up an ecological debt. If we decrease the demand until it is less than the supply, then we can build up a reserve.

Cornucopianists argue that advances in technology could make the term T in I = P*C*T vanishingly small, so that both population and consumption are relatively unconstrained. To understand their reasoning I give the following quote from Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience, in which Wilson uses the term “Exemptionalist” synonymously with Cornucopianist: “Of course the exemptionalists will say that new technology and the rising tide of the free-market economy can solve the problem. The solution, they explain, is straightforward: Just use more land, fertilizer, and high-yield crops, and work harder to improve distribution. And, of course, encourage more education, technology transfer, and free trade. Oh, and discourage ethnic strife and political corruption. All that will certainly help, and should have high priority, but it cannot solve the main problem, which is the finite resources of planet Earth. It is true that only 11 percent of the world’s land surface is under cultivation. But that already includes the most arable part. The bulk of the remaining 89 percent has limited use, or none at all.” [3]

1. Speth, J.G., The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. 2008, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 295.

2. Hails, C., ed. Living Planet Report. 2008, WWF, ZSL, and the Global Footprint Network. 48. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=505

3. Wilson, E.O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. 1998, New York, NY: Vintage Books. 367.

Case study: DuPont Plant, New Johnsonville, TN

For a number of years I took students in my graduate course Aqueous Geochemistry to tour the DuPont Plant in New Johnsonville, TN, about two hours west of Nashville. The plant manufactures Titanium Dioxide TiO₂ by mining the mineral ilmenite FeTiO₃ and reacting it Hydrochloric acid HCl as follows: FeTiO₃ + 2HCl = FeCl₂ (aq) + TiO₂ + H₂O. The Titanium dioxide is a pigment that gives Kilz paint, Oreos, and many types of toothpaste their brilliant white color. There are two problems with this process. One is that the product solution is still very acidic. The other problem is that ilmenite contains many toxic heavy metals that are soluble in the acidic solution. In the 1960’s when people didn’t know better, DuPont was allowed to dispose of hundreds of thousands of gallons of this toxic acid solution directly into the Tennessee River, which of course killed all fish and bottom feeders downstream. Later they switched to the more environmentally friendly but more expensive process of deep-well injection. They drilled wells between 1000-2000 feet deep and then pumped the acidic waste into a confined, deep limestone layer. The thinking was that the limestone (which contains calcite CaCO₃ and dolomite CaMg(CO₃)₂) would neutralize the acid: CaCO₃ + 2H⁺ = Ca²⁺ + H₂O + CO₂. The confining (impermeable) layer above would keep the waste isolated from shallow aquifers that supplied drinking water. Once again, there were two problems with this plan, which my class would remind the DuPont engineers of every year, and every year they would claim ignorance. First, the acidic solution dissolves the limestone, which results in the formation of large caves deep underground. Eventually the weight of the overlying rock layers causes them to collapse, breaking into pieces, falling, and filling the caves. This shatters the confining layer and makes it permeable, so that the wastes can rise up into the aquifers. The other problem is that, as shown in the reaction, limestone dissolution produces CO₂ gas, and the pressure of that gas can build until it shatters the overlying rock and escapes. Either way, it seemed likely that the confining layer would eventually be compromised. So, to their credit, DuPont came up with a new solution that was even more environmentally friendly but (they claimed) even more expensive. Since around the year 2000 DuPont has been reacting the ilmenite with sodium carbonate, and according to the DuPont engineers the only by-product is harmless FeCO₃ (the mineral siderite), which is used to make bricks for construction. However, recently it was learned that this process produces dioxin as a by-product. Pure Dioxin is the strongest poison known to man (it is the neurotoxin in Agent Orange), and the New Johnsonville Plant is the fourth-largest producer of dioxin in the U.S..

This case study illustrates many different points. First, it is difficult to anticipate all of the potential outcomes of a complex industrial process. That is why ecologists advocate the precautionary principle. Second, industrial chemistry sorely needs to be “greened”. Green chemistry is a field just now coming into its own, and it has the potential to reduce greatly the environmental impact of the chemical industry. Third, despite repeated attempts at trying to “green” the chemical process, the production of Titanium Dioxide still causes serious environmental problems. DuPont is being sued by numerous plaintiffs who live near or work at their Titanium Dioxide plant in DeLisle, Mississippi, who claim that dioxin has seriously damaged their health or caused the death of loved ones (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7693391300780002092). At New Johnsonville, TN, many citizens are afraid to talk about the health risks posed by the DuPont plant because they work for the plant, their livelihood depends on its success, and they fear retaliation (http://www.dupontsafetyrevealed.org/newjohnsonville.htm). This raises many questions: Should we allow chemical companies to manufacture goods like Titanium Dioxide that are nonessential (it is simply used for aesthetic reasons) but that cause great harm to human health and the environment? Or should we close the plants, even if it meant that thousands of people would lose their jobs? The plants in New Johnsonville DeLisle are by far the largest local employers, so closing them would be an economic disaster for those communities. In fact, years ago when DuPont reapplied to the State of Tennessee for a permit for deep well injection, a representative of the Tennessee Environmental Council asked me if I would testify against the application. I refused, saying that deep well injection seemed to be the best of the alternatives known at the time, and that I couldn’t bear the thought of helping to put all of those people in New Johnsonville out of work. Yes, I am pro-environment, so I believe we should always be looking for ways to protect the environment, but the overall benefits of change have to outweigh the overall negatives, and in this case, the economic vitality of New Johnsonville seemed to me to outweigh the potential risks of deep-well injection.

The Behavior of Water Pollutants

In their textbook "Ecological Economics" (2004), Herman Daly and Joshua Farley say that the limits to human population growth may lie not in resource depletion, but in the waste absorption capacity of the environment. This can be understood with the following analogy. Water purification filters usually contain a resin that turns color when it becomes saturated, i.e., it cannot absorb any more pollutants. The interface between the two colors of resin (the reaction front) will migrate through the column from the inlet towards the outlet. Water flowing from the outlet will be purified until the interface reaches the end of the column, at which point the column resin is saturated in pollutants and cannot absorb any more. From that time on the outlet water will be just as polluted as the input water. In this case, the waste absorption capacity of the filter has been exceeded. Our environment acts as a filter, purifying water that passes through it, but eventually the filter will become saturated.

Let’s examine this in a little more detail. What happens when the concentration of a pollutant in a sediment-water system (lake or stream) keeps increasing? Examine langmuir 10-007. Imagine that we pour uranium U into a beaker containing water and sediment. Some of the U will dissolve in the solution, but some will adsorb onto the surface of mineral grains in the sediment. At first the proportions of U in solution and adsorbed to sediment will be constant as the total U concentration increases (move along a straight line away from the origin). As concentrations get higher the number of available sites for U to sorb onto mineral surfaces begins to decrease, and a greater proportion of U enters the fluid, causing the adsorption isotherm to level off and approach a slope of zero when the adsorption sites become “saturated”. Eventually even the solution becomes saturated, i.e., it can’t dissolve any more U. What happens then? Any additional U added to the system will precipitate out as a U-rich mineral (in this case Schoepite) that is added to the sediment and therefore causes the sediment concentration of uranium to begin increasing again. Note that as long as the solutions remains saturated in Schoepite, any additional U we add will go into the sediment, increasing the U concentration in the sediment. Conversely, no matter how much additional U we add, the concentration of U in the solution is fixed at its highest possible concentration. In this case, we have saturated our filter.

Let’s look at some slightly more complicated models in which the sediment but not the solution becomes saturated. Polluted water enters a beaker with sediment, equilibrates with the sediment, and then is replaced with another batch of polluted water. At first, a large proportion of the pollutant will sorb onto the sediment, causing the concentration in the solution to decrease substantially. As more batches of polluted water equilibrate with the sediment, the concentration of pollutant in the sediment will increase, and therefore the concentration of pollutant in the water that exits the beaker will increase in direct proportion. As the sediment approaches “saturation”, it can sorb less pollutant, so most of the pollutant remains in solution, and our sediment filter become increasingly ineffective.

What if we stop polluting? Can the system recover? Start adding batches of fresh water. You would observe that the water that exits the beaker would at first have high concentrations of pollutant because our sediment filter was saturated in pollutants. But with time, the concentration of pollutant in the sediment and in the exiting fluid would decrease and eventually go to zero. Thus, we can “flush” pollutants out of a sediment-water system such as a stream or lake, but it may take a long time and a lot of fresh water to remove all of the pollutant, especially if the pollutant strongly sorbs to the sediment (which is why PCB’s are still in Hudson River sediments after many decades).

Now imagine a reservoir such as a swamp with one stream entering and one stream exiting. If the stream entering the swamp is polluted, sediments near its entrance point will strip pollutants out of solution. With time, a concentration gradient will develop across the swamp, with high pollutant levels near the input stream and low levels near the output stream. As polluted water flows across the swamp, it encounters sediments with decreasing pollutant concentrations, so the concentration of the pollutant in the solution will continuously decrease. The water becomes increasingly pure as it traverses the swamp. In nature, swamps do an excellent job of filtering pollutants from water. However, if pollutants continue to enter the swamp, the total pollutant concentration in the swamp will keep increasing. Eventually sediments near the input stream will become saturated, and that “saturation front” will slowly migrate across the swamp until it reaches the output stream. At that point the entire swamp system has become saturated, and the output water will be just as polluted as the input water. As in our beaker example, if we stop polluting and the water in the input stream becomes pure again, then over time the process will be reversed, and the pollutants will slowly be flushed out of the swamp.

How Much Oil in Alaska?

*Note: my spring semester is over, so I will be publishing at a much greater frequency.

My goal is to dispel the falsehoods spread by talk show hosts and politicians. Last night an acquaintance said he had heard from several sources that there is about 60 years of oil for the U.S. in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge ANWR. I told him that what I had heard was that, given our current oil consumption rate, it was more like a two year supply (if it was our only source of oil).  To last 60 years the ANWR would have to contain more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had, and that gave him pause.

The problem is that people listen to talk-show hosts and believe everything they say. The talk-show host is not an expert on the subject, and what he says may be totally unreasonable, but many people accept his statements uncritically, and don't make an effort to find out for themselves.

When I got home that night, I looked up the statistics. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy) "the total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices..[24] … In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3), of which 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) lie within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area.[17] … In 2007, the United States consumed 20.68 m bbls of petroleum products per day."

Using the mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels, and an annual consumption rate of 20.68E6*365=7.54E9 barrels per year, it would take only 10.4E9/7.54E9=1.38 years to consume all of the oil. For the upper limit of 16 billion barrels we would have 16E9/7.54E9=2.1 years. Considering our rate of consumption of oil is continuously increasing, an estimate of two years supply is a reasonable upper limit.  So regardless of what Sarah Palin says, no, we don't have enough oil in Alaska to solve our energy problem.  In addition, if we do open the ANWR up to drilling, it would not contribute significantly to domestic crude oil production until 2018 (Wikipedia).