A Buddhist Response to Climate Change, Part 4

Elephant in the Living Room

From deep within each person who begins to grasp the enormity of climate change and global warming, a profound sense of grief—and fear—begins to arise. Humanity’s dream of prosperity is now becoming a nightmare. We are now learning what the future of our world will be like. And with this realization comes another: that six-degrees future has already begun. And it is even more horrific than we had feared.

Climate change has been called the “elephant in the living room.” Think of it as a large, unruly guest who does whatever it wishes to do. But climate change is not the only elephant. Peaking oil, natural gas, coal and uranium reserves are another four. Then there is aquifer depletion and a human population the size of which the earth cannot sustain. It takes so much land and water to feed one human and we have only a finite amount of these resources in our world. Once we exceed that natural carrying capacity, there is no longer enough food and water for everyone.

Our current world situation is that we are at the brink of an energy crisis that began with global oil reserves peaking. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2007 that the peak occurred in May 2005. [1] It is more difficult to gauge natural gas reserves but it is generally accepted that they have either also peaked or are close to doing so. Coal and uranium are expected to peak around 2020 and before 2050, respectively. Oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, and hydroelectric currently provide 93 percent of the global energy supply. The remaining 7 percent is mainly hydropower followed by biomass with a fraction provided by renewables like solar and wind power.

Peak resources means we have reached the point in time when the maximum production rate of the resource has been reached. Once past the peak, these natural resources will become increasingly difficult and costly to extract and process. As the prices rise, each of us will reach our personal peak, the point where our life is impacted negatively by the high cost brought about by ever-increasing competition for the remaining oil.

Also, we are moving closer to the point at which the extraction and production costs outweigh the energy obtained. We can see the logic in this with our food. It would make no sense to expend one hundred calories to eat food that will only provide ten calories of energy.

In addition to extraction, production and distribution costs, there are the hidden costs like pollution, aquifer depletion, soil degradation, and human health issues. These costs are not calculated in the price at the pump when we fill up our cars or at the store when we buy a box of imported chocolate encased in layers of plastic packaging. The costs are being borne by taxpayers and those who were forced off the land by governments and international conglomerates who are focused on profit not on climate change or the suffering of humans. These millions of economic refuges have no choice but to move into cities where they cannot find work or raise the subsistence crops that used to feed their families. The costs are borne by the children who must breathe polluted air, drink contaminated water, and live in squalid conditions—children who have no future for they will not be able to make a living or farm the land. Nor will they be taught by those who dispossessed them, how to provide for their own families in the future.

Understanding what peak oil means, what happens when we reach it?

The United States, the largest oil consumer, reached the peak of its domestic oil reserves in the 1970s. Now, when the United States is relying more heavily on imported oil, India and China are also becoming major oil importers. This is happening at the same time that domestic demand is increasing within the oil exporting countries. So countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia need to supply the increasing needs of their own citizens as well as their foreign customers.

As the gap between supply and demand increases, the price per barrel will continue to hit new highs. This is already happening. In the fall of 2004 a barrel of oil hit $50. Just three and a half years later, on March 12, 2008, oil hit $109.72. Already we are seeing people in the developed world having to decide whether to spend money on heating oil or on food, agonizing decisions those in the developing world have faced for years. What do people choose? They are choosing to buy heating oil because it takes longer for children to starve to death than it does for them to freeze to death.

Even if we have reached the maximum of global production, don’t we still have a lot left? Surely we have plenty of time to come up with another solution to the increasing energy demands?

No, we do not have time because the ease and cost of extraction for the remaining reserves are very different from the already extracted oil both in quality and ease of extraction. Also, new solutions take a long time to develop. As reserves dwindle and become more difficult, and thus expensive, to extract, the quality grade of the oil also decreases as does the energy output per barrel. Higher oil prices reflect the additional production expense.

What about other energy-producing materials like tar sands?

Tar sands are actually bituminous sands that are a natural mixture of sand, water, and bitumen. The largest reserves are in the oil sands in Canada and the tar sands in Venezuela, with smaller reserves in the United States, Russia, and the Middle East. These oil sands are not viscous like oil, thus they must be mined. This process takes much water and large amounts of energy to extract and process. This heavy crude oil is in turn expensive to process into gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products.

Currently, the government of Alberta, Canada has approved the extraction of the petroleum from the sands even though environmentalist say this complex process will create an environmental nightmare and thus hasten global climate change. The oil companies keep exploiting our fragile planet just to prolong the comfort of the wealthy who do not want to give up their personal comfort and consumptive lifestyles.

What about natural gas?

The United States is now a net importer of natural gas. North American discoveries have been on a general decline since the early 1980s. Europe also hit the high of its natural gas discoveries about the same time. Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, former senior adviser to the National Iranian Oil Company in Tehran, reported to the Australian Senate in 2006 that natural gas would peak worldwide about 2008 or 2009. He also felt that Russia had already peaked, which in turn directly affected European imports.

Unlike oil, which can be easily transported in tankers, gas has to be used onsite, or transported through pipelines or in special tankers. So moving it around is more problematic than oil.

What about coal?

The World Coal Institute has been saying for many years that there are enough coal reserves to last for another 150 years. But the Energy Watch Group, working with more recently updated reserve numbers and factoring in the increasing rate of extraction due to increasing demand, has calculated that the coal peak will occur somewhere between 2020 and 2030. China, the largest consumer of coal is predicted to peak sooner.

Environmentally, coal is even more damaging than oil or natural gas, as well as being far less efficient. The Unites States has the world’s largest coal reserves, but what has been extracted is the higher grade anthracite coal, with a higher energy density than the lower grade lignite coal by a factor of five or six. Now, much of the remaining coal reserves are lignite not anthracite. So while coal production is increasing in the United States because of the lower quality of lignite, the energy output derived from this coal peaked around 1999. Consequently, the United States is now a net coal importer.

What about new technologies? Surely people are working on a solution. Won’t something be invented that will provide for our energy needs far into the future?

Yes, we are now seeing developments in technologies like solar and wind but these currently provide just a fraction of one percent of our current energy supply. It will take time to increase both demand and supply. Richard Heinberg, author and peak oil educator, has said that it would take fifteen years for people to gradually replace their current petroleum-powered vehicles. So there is no quick transition even when we develop other technologies. Also, these technologies have their own environmental impact as solar voltaic arrays, windmills, and the other necessary equipment need to be produced and shipped. Then we face the “not in my backyard” syndrome. Everyone wants the new technology in place, but they do not want to have to look at it.

Also, for the size of what we are talking about, we need a national and even international energy distribution infrastructure. We do not have a magic fuel that we can simply plug into existing distribution systems. It will take national and regional government action to build a new energy grid. This will enable individuals and companies who produce more energy than they require to be shared with others.

Before a new technology can be produced and used, national governments need to do studies of the technology. Politicians need to poll their constituents, listen to special interest groups, and vote. If a bill is passed, funding needs to be found, and finally building needs to be done. Then, as we get closer to real production, we have a chicken-and-egg problem. Before companies will commit to participating in this new distribution system, they will want to see customers ready to use the new form of energy. But before customers install the commercial and residential systems to use the new technology, they will want to be sure the companies will supply the new form of energy. So which comes first—supply or demand? The chicken or the egg?

As with any new technology, prices will be high to begin with. As production methods improve and more people purchase the item, the per unit cost will gradually be reduced and thus the new technology will become more affordable to a larger number of people. But even with lower costs, many people will want to wait for the old technology to wear out before replacing it with the new.

---

[1] Electric Power Annual for 2006 Report released October 22, 2007