MATERIAL WORLDS: GEOGRAPHIES OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Critically examine whether running out of oil or the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a bigger challenge for society in the 21st century?

Introduction The Industry Revolution in the eighteenth century has led to an explosively use of fossil fuels- the global use by humans has increased nearly 800-fold since 1750 and 12-fold in the twentieth century- coal dominated in the nineteenth century; oil prevailed in the twentieth century and now natural gas is sharing an mounting energy market. Although the exploitation of energy triggered and is currently initiating a larger proportion of humans progressive development, energy as a dominating role in contemporary economy and society, at the same time, makes (1)our civilization more vulnerable to decrease in supply (Charles Hall, etc, 2003) and (2) our environment more susceptible to human activities. And these two problems are embodied in the phenomena running out of oil and the accumulation of carbon dioxide respectively. This essay will first analysis the extent and degree human beings dependent on fossil fuels, and whether we can have a rapid and perfect transition in primary energy in less than 100 years. Then, the possibilities of these two phenomena will be discussed separately in this essay, and further the humans adaptability of these two threats will be compared. We will focus on their threat especially in the 21st century, thus the scope of time is also a factor needs to be concerned to decide which one is a bigger challenge to humans and their societies. Two of the biggest threats in humans history, the end of oil and the accumulation of carbon dioxide are both based on humans deeply and massively dependence on fossil fuels. On one hand, the peak oilers and the oil catastrophists are concerning rapidly depleting global oil stock and its far-reaching impact, believing that the oil era is over, which will be an inevitable doomsday followed by economic implosion (Ivanhoe, 1995) with massive unemployment, breadlines, homelessness, and a catastrophic end of industrial civilization(Duncan, 2001). On the other hand, the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), which mainly consists of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), is considered as the principal factor of global climate change; and the combustion of fossil fuels is the primary source of CO2 emission. As Arrhenius (1986) depicted as: a geometric increase of CO2 producing a nearly arithmetic rise in surface temperatures, its further consequences may includes more severe storms, more frequent droughts, larger ice caps melting, and significant rising sea levels, which is likely to submerge a great deal of current costal lands. Humans, therefore, faced three questions: (1) whether we can experience a seamless transition in primary energy from fossil fuels to a more durable and sustainable energy in a short- term - such as 100 years- to solve both problems; and (2) if we cannot, which threat is more challenging in the coming future, that is, should we put more effort on extraction more fossil fuels, especially on crude oil and improve its efficiency, or on scaling down the oil-consuming economy to restrain the emission of CO2. Achieving a Transition or Not in One Hundred Years Primary energy consists of three sources: fossil fuels, renewable energy, and nuclear power. Their proportions of the global energy consumption are shown in Figure 1. We can see that nearly 80 percent primary energy is supplied by fossil fuels, in which oil is dominated with 35 percent as shown in Figure 2. Moreover, big consumers of primary energy - electricity generation and transportation are all largely dependent on fossil fuels,

especially transportation: the engines configuration of nearly every automobile is specially designed for using petroleum. At the same time, a perfect substitutes for fossil fuels, especially oil, is unclear at the present: natural gas (also fossil fuels), once thought to be the biggest hope turned us down with its biggest difficulty in transportation and storage with its much lower density; methane hydrates, our new hope, still lacks of enough knowledge and corresponding technology; nuclear, other than fossil fuels, is restrained due to its higher cost, public safety concerns and waste disposal; renewable resources, which are only renewable as long as the rate of consumption is below the rate of renewing the supply, is doubted with its capacity to sustain our growing appetite of energy. Also, as now people are used to dependent on using fossil fuels and most infrastructures and facilities are designed for fossil fuels, although policy makers are aware of the potential threats on this deeply dependence, a major shift is not expected to happen in a few years, since this threat is not so urgent to deal. In a likely sense, Vaclav Smil (2003) expressed his opinion of this transition the in his famous works energy at the cross road: Given the inherently inertial nature of complex energy systems there is a very low probability that any fundamental, large-scale shifts in the use of principal energy resources will take place during the next 10-15 years.Conversely, when looking ahead 100 years, there is also a very low probability that fossil fuels will energize the world of the early twenty-second century to the same extent as they do now. Which Challenge is Bigger Previous analysis indicates that an immediate perfect transmission is unlikely under the given circumstance. Thus the question where our effort should be put- running out of oil or the accumulation of carbon dioxide- need to be further discussed and here two things will be considered- its possibility and humans adaptability. Possibility The current recurring theme of peak oil raises a global fear of the end of the Age of Oil. The believers hold three claims that after the peak oil, (1) it is expected that global oil production will gradually decline in subsequent years; (2) the ratio of conventional oil production to oil demand will fall consistently; and (3) price will rise radically in respond to the rising cost of oil. (Bridge G, 2010) They gave the facts that nowadays oil consumption has already proceeds oil exploration, the production of oil is relatively declining. Most of their predictions are based on a bell-shaped curve as Figure 3 and the peak times are ranging from 1985 to 2003. The optimists or cornucopian, mostly economists, on the other hand, argues that those conclusions of imminent peak lack of understanding basic economic factors: energy demand, the role of price, and also, they ignore technical capability and humans adaptability. In this context, resource and reserve (those resources available through current technology) are distinguished, and the relationship of which can be explained through Mckelveys Box in Figure 4. It is used to prove that current available reserve is only part of the whole resource and resource exhaustion is not a matter of physical depletion. Moreover a globally declining Reserve/ Production (R/P) ratio (calculated by dividing known reserves of a commodity by its annual output as a measure of future supply) is often mentioned as their proof to demonstrate that oil exploration is still in their

comparatively early stages. Above all, the biggest argument focuses on our knowledge gap of future demand and unknown reserves because of the improvable space of our technology capabilities. While the catastrophists claim that official published oil reserves are inflated (Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrre, 1998), the cornucopian insist that technological advancement in exploration and production could increases our estimates of reserves (Red Cavaney, 2006). Future demand of oil is also unknown but the optimists believe that our extraction of oil will cease long before we approach their global physical exhaustion, either because their high cost or the emergence of their perfect substitutes (Vaclav Smil, 2003). Here, we can find that cornucopians view is more reasonable in theory, and it is also more convincing in reality. Consider, even if we accepted the idea of imminent peak oil and its predictions methods, we are not expected to have an immediate end of age of oil. First, we are told by catastrophists near the oil peak, and given their predicted symmetric curves, which shows obviously that the physical exhaustion of oil still needs a long time. Then, take an example of U.S. According to M. King Hubbert, U.S., has already pass its oil peak, but now, rather than running out of oil, potentially vast oil and natural gas reserves remain to be developed (Red Cavaney, 2006), which are proved by statistics in government reports. Moreover, the U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected that fossil fuels will continue to dominate U.S. energy consumption, with oil and natural gas providing two-thirds of that consumption in the year 2025 and there are sufficient oil resources to meet demand for at least the next 30 years in U.S. . Therefore, based on the previous analysis, a conclusion can be made, in a global scale, an immediate and catastrophic end of Age of Oil is not likely to happen, although it cannot be sure whether it can sustain until we enter the 22st century. The accumulation of CO2, which is primary source of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), on the other hand, is no doubt to hike as long as fossil fuels are selected as primary energy, even if technical advancement could make oil and coal more efficiency and natural gas are reported to be much cleaner. In this context, the possibility of accumulation of CO2 is inevitable but is only a matter of its accumulation rate. Here, thus, the biggest challenge to humans and societies is not like, running of oil, the fact itself, but the most significant impact it brings- global warming. It is no doubt that global carbon emission has rose drastically since industrial revolution as shown in Figure 5 and recent world temperature has increased a great deal compared to the previous records as shown in Figure 6. Nevertheless, there are still three questions need to be discussed: (1) Is burning fossil fuels the only cause of the accumulation of CO2; (2) Is the emission of CO2 (or GHG) the only cause of global warming; and (3) is global warming detrimental to humans and societies in the 21st century? For the first two questions, the answer seems much easier. There are two determinants of the accumulation of carbon dioxide, sources and sinks. As for sources, there are natural sources through respiration and decay by plants and animals, and anthropogenic sources mainly caused by burning fossil fuels. Likely, there are natural sinks through plants photosynthesis and ocean absorption (mostly) and manmade sinks through chemical

reactions. In this context, apart from burning the fossil fuels, deforestation could also be viewed as a factor. In a like sense, the emission of CO2 or GHG is not the only cause of global climate change. Natural factors, such as variation in the Suns energy output (associated with sunspots), changes in the earths orbit and axis (known as Astronomical Theory) and anthropogenic aerosols also contributed to global warming. Although, here, we cannot deny burning fossil fuels is not the primary cause of recent unprecedented rising temperatures, but existing so many factors implies that we have many alternative methods to lessen it. The third question can be answered from the existing global climate models (GCMs), predictions of the climate for the next century are made by which with several specified prior assumptions about the pattern of GHG emissions (see Figure 7). From the different assumptions or scenarios, it can be seen a warming by 2100 ranging from 2.1C to 4.8 C, which shows the rate of temperature increasing is 10 times faster over the past 10 000 years. Although, GCMs itself carries a few weaknesses, the increasing trend of rising temperature during the next 100 years is an undisputable fact that is likely to have substantial impacts on human societies. Humans adaptability Humans adaptability and technology capability are embodied on enlarging oil reserves and finding perfect substitutes. With introducing new technologies as Directional Drilling, Horizontal Drilling or 3-D Seismic Technology, we have largely increased our estimate of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, especially on offshore drilling. Also, due to technology advancement, the boundaries between conventional and non-conventional reserves are dissolving (Vaclav Smil, 2006), which means a lower cost of energy production and an enlarged reserves of oil. In this sense, the oil resources may far more than predictions and we can use it more selectively and more efficiently (Vaclav Smil, 2006). Also, as the demand for energy and oil intensify, we will put more effort on felicitating a seamless transition in primary energy. More importantly, oil is just one kind of fossil fuel, running out of oil does not equally means running out of fossil fuel. We can see that, the global consumption of oil is more than one third of the consumption of fossil fuels. Just as the metaphor used by Red Cavaney (2006),that men left the Stone Age not because he ran out of stones and we will not leave the Age of Oil because we will run out. , the end of oil era, no matter when it comes, will not be a catastrophe in a long-run. Current substitutes, which quoted in the previous analysis, although shows their limits in terms of being readily used to replace oil, their current restraints can be solved with the advancement in technology. Thus, in a short-run, whether running out of oil will be a bigger challenge is counted on our technology improvement. In response to the rapid global warming, the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997, which implies that humans have already tried to deal with this problem. Also, a great number of policies are designed for restricting CO2 emission. Three common policy instruments are pollution subsides, pollution tax and tradable pollution permits Generally, to mitigate the rapid accumulation of carbon dioxide, three adjustments are proposed on source, sink and prevention, respectively: cutting down the emission, reforestation, and building dams. However, since fossil fuels are still humans primary

energy, it is hard to shrink the amount of GHG emission by scale down humans and economic activities, thus our only hope is through technology advancement. Moreover, dealing with this problem needs the joint awareness and effort of every nation, even every human being. Unfortunately, it might because an opaque future and knowledge gap of its consequences, there still needs the cooperation of governments and intensification of policies. Otherwise, global warming, which may seem not a big problem in a short-run, would be detrimental in the long-term. To sum up, from the previous analysis, both problems needs time and technology, and most important, humans awareness and attention. In a short-run or in terms of the 21st century, running out of oil is a more urgent issue, while in a long term, the accumulation of carbon dioxide may seem more challenging to human society.