Futures

At some point in the future, the world will wake up to the danger of peak oil and try to do something about it. The key question is when?

The Optimistic Future

In the optimistic view, the world becomes aware suddenly and soon, rather in the same way that climate change, so long ignored, was on everyone's tongue almost overnight in the 1990s. It only takes one influential politician or scientist to set the snowball rolling and it will gather momentum on its own. Once people are aware of the problem, governments will have the licence to bring in energy conservation laws, and treaties will be signed between the oil consuming countries and producers to prevent resource-grabbing wars.

Populations reduction strategies will have to be introduced to lessen the demand on food and energy, overriding religious sensibilities on contraception and abortion. Our whole way of life will have to change (see chart F1) but the threat will be so grave that we will be forced to do so. Eventually, a smaller and more stable human population will emerge (estimated at about two billion).

F1. Transport Efficiency

The Pessimistic Future

Alternatively, the world continues with its blind, prodigal ways, ignoring the signs until the decline is well underway and impossible to ignore. Then there will be panic and desperate attempts by countries to secure the remaining oil for themselves, a national rather than a global survival strategy. Wars will break out between enemies, and trade barriers between 'friends', as societies try to avoid the inevitable change and try to keep the existing world going as long as possible.

Wars, famines, droughts and mass migrations destroy our intricate industrial society until we eventually end up with a greatly reduced population, maybe two billion or less, existing in a Medieval (or worse) society.

The Example of the Ozone Layer

The example of the damage to the ozone layer and the world's governments' response to it is a good example of what we can do and would need to do to combat peak oil. It is also an example of one of the biggest obstacles.

Ozone is an form of oxygen which sits in a layer high in the atmosphere and helps to protect us against the Sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Unfortunately it is destroyed by CFCs, a compound that was widely used in the last century for things such as refrigeration, aerosols, fire fighting and foam creation. No one was aware of this damage until 1974 when two scientific papers were published that showed that chlorine atoms would destroy ozone atoms, and CFCs were breaking up in the atmosphere and releasing chlorine atoms. The scientific and environmental communities began to lobby to end the manufacture of CFCs although the industry naturally resisted the change. In 1978, the use of CFCs as aerosol propellant was banned in the USA but this had little effect in the rest of the world.

In 1984, it was found that there was a 'hole' in the ozone layer over Antarctica and frightening photographs were published. This created another impetus to stop CFCs and, in 1987, the Montreal Protocol produced the first global reductions in the compounds (although most Third World countries did not sign). Eventually, as more evidence of the damage grew, a meeting in London in 1990 between 92 governments agreed to phase out all CFCs and several other chemicals. Ozone is still being damaged because of the lag in the atmosphere but at least we are on the right road.

This is an example of how we could deal with depletion. Governments can act together when they feel the desire, powerful industries can change, alternatives can be found. But the bad news from the ozone story is the timescale. It took 13 years from the first scientific papers to the Montreal Protocol. It will take around a generation to stop the production of CFCs completely. It will take more than a century for chlorine to be removed from the atmosphere. At the moment, most of the world is unaware of peak oil. It may be too late now. If it takes 30 years to do anything about the decline of oil, there will be little hope.

My View of the Near Future (next 50 years)

I personally am pessimistic and find it hard to believe that governments will take the necessary actions in time. Consider how much awareness and evidence there is of climate change (which is a relatively long term phenomenon) and the inability of the world to make significant alterations to our lifestyles for that. Yet peak oil will hit much sooner and harder, and the changes that we will need to make will be much harsher and more expensive.

Image courtesy of John Cirillo USA Yesterday and Today

As an example, there are two simple little actions (one for the USA, one for the UK) which would make a tiny step forward to survival. Neither is particularly painful – indeed, the UK action would actually be beneficial. But could you imagine either action taking place unless we were already in dire straits?

In the USA, the tax on petrol/gasoline is doubled. Since fuel tax is already very low (by European standards), it would not be that harsh but it might make people think twice about buying cars with inefficient engines.

In the UK, the speed limits on motorways could be reduced to 55 mph, thereby saving fuel with benefits for both the country and the individual. (It would probably also reduce deaths and decrease congestion).

Could you imagine a US president or British prime minister taking these actions, especially with the complete lack of awareness of peak oil? In actual fact, the Conservative party in their manifesto recently stated:

...we will look to improve the traffic flow on motorways by increasing the speed limit to 80 mph where it is safe to do so, and enforcing this speed limit rigorously.

There is little sign that governments are aware of and/or setting about facing the problems of peak oil. The UK government has proposed plans to expand airports with wild predictions that demand for air travel would triple to 500 million passenger journeys each year by 2030. By then, oil production would have probably dropped to half of present day values. These expensive, environmentally damaging airports are more likely to be sitting empty or filled with mothballed aircraft too expensive to fly.

In 2003, the Labour government made a U-turn on transport and decided to build and widen more roads instead of committing money to public transport. From the signs, an observer might believe that governments are expecting there to be a surplus of oil, rather than a deficit. Until the costs of oil begin to soar and we become very aware of the problems, we are unlikely to do anything. And then it will be too late.

I believe that it will require the emergence of an effective leader with a personality forceful enough to convince the governments and public of the danger, or a Great Stink* event to nudge our leaders into action. What that event could be, I don't know, but considering the situation, I fear it could be another oil war or the decision of OPEC to cut off oil to the west.

My View of the Far Future (beyond 50 years)

My view of the near future then is pessimistic, a view that the oil crisis will hit us hard with wars, famines and the environment drastically devastating the population. Assuming that we can avoid a nuclear war, I believe that the world would eventually settle down. It has been estimated that, without hydrocarbons to provide energy, fertilisers and pesticides, agriculture could not support a population greater than two billion. This reduction would take us back to pre-20th century levels but the disruption to society and its infrastructure would probably mean a reversion to pre-industrial revolution.

The industrial revolution though required an organised, peaceful society and plentiful supplies of wood and coal. After the crash, we will find that forests are limited and the easily accessible coal will already have been mined. With no coal to begin the revolution and no oil to continue it, there is certainly no way that humanity could ever reach the same levels of population and energy usage it now has. I think it is likely, a hundred years from now, that Homo Sapiens will be living in small communities, supplying most of their needs from the surrounding farmland, rather like medieval Europe. The one advantage they will have though is knowledge. It took thousands of years before the Norfolk Four Course crop rotation system was discovered in 18th century England. That is now available to anyone near a library, bookshop or Internet connection. While the medieval villager looked upon a windmill as something to grind corn or raise water, we could look upon it as a means to generate electricity (although that may not last beyond the Scavengery period (see What to Do). With light and heat available in the evenings and centuries of learning in books, there would be time to contemplate the future, consider solutions and possibly progress in ways not imagined now. The villages of the future would be an interesting subject for a science fiction novel. For our great grandchildren, it will be science fact.

For a closer examination of how I think the breakdown of society will occur, see the What to Do page.

*The Great Stink. For centuries, the River Thames was used as a giant sewer with consequent diseases and smells. Because of the cost and inconvenience, the Government kept putting off the decision to sort out the sewerage system. Then, in 1858, the hot summer created such a smell over the Thames that the MPs themselves were effected, forcing them to abandon their sitting. The result: the money and desire was immediately found to build a modern sewerage system.