Geo Destinies
Walter Youngquist
[1997 / Part 2 of 2]
Myth:
There are billions of barrels of oil which can be readily
recovered from oil shale in the U.S.
As the United States has the world's largest and richest deposits
of oil shale, the optimistic statements which sometimes arise from
that fact are among the more commonly heard in regard to the U.S.
energy future. An enthusiastic article about oil shale in the
prestigious Fortune magazine is titled: "Shale Oil is Braced
for Big Role." It concludes, "Shale oil is not the whole
answer to the energy problem but it's one of the few pieces that is
already within the nation's grasp."(l9) The article was written
in 1979. As of 1997 no oil from oil shale is being produced in the
U.S.... or anywhere else.
Reality:
The supposedly great prospects for the production of oil from oil
shale in the United States has been one of the most widely promoted
and heard energy myths for many years. Statements even made by
government agencies can be quite misleading. These arise perhaps
because it is good government policy to take as optimistic view as
possible toward any national problem. The statements also are due to
a less than careful examination of the facts, and perhaps a bit of
promotion for the agency involved. The statement is made by a U.S.
government organization that "...using demonstrated methods of
extraction, recovery of about 80 billion barrels of oil from
accessible high-grade deposits of the Green River Formation is
possible at costs competitive with petroleum of comparable quality."(l2)
This is a clear misstatement of the facts. At the time it was
written (1981) there had been no demonstrated methods of oil
recovery at costs competitive with oil of comparable quality, nor
have there been any such methods demonstrated to this date. A
variety of processes have been tried. All have failed. Unocal,
Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, and other companies and the U.S. Bureau
of Mines have made substantial efforts but with no commercial
results. A state government agency issued a pamphlet on oil shale
stating, "The deposits are estimated to contain 562 billion
barrels of recoverable oil. This is more than 64 percent of the
world's total proven crude oil reserves."(29) The implication
here is that the oil which could be "recoverable" could be
produced at a net energy profit as if it were barrels of oil from a
conventional well.
The average citizen seeing this statement in a government
publication is led to believe that the United States really has no
oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil"
equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven
crude oil reserves." Presumably the United States could tap
into this great oil reserve at any time. This is not true at all.
All attempts to get this "oil" out of shale have failed
economically. Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil
as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the
net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If
oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation
is a failure. Also, the environmental impacts of developing shale
oil, especially related to the available water supply (the
headwaters of the already over used Colorado river), and the
disposal of wastes, do not seem manageable, at least a the present
time, and perhaps not all.
The clear implication of both of these government statements is
that oil shale is a huge readily available source. Because of the
enormous amount of "oil" which has been claimed that could
be recovered, this gives a large sense of energy security which does
not exist. For this reason it is a particularly dangerous myth.
Myth:
Canada's oilsands with 1.7 trillion barrels of oil will be a major
world oil supply
It appears to be true that in the Athabasca oilsands and nearby
related heavy oil and bitumen deposits of northern Alberta there is
more oil than in all of the Persian Gulf deposits put together.
Reality:
The impressive figure of 1.7 trillion barrels of oil is
deceiving. It is likely that only a relatively small amount of that
total can be economically recovered. The oil is true crude oil but
it cannot be recovered by conventional well drilling. Almost all of
it is now recovered by strip mining. The overburden is removed and
the oilsand is dug up and hauled to a processing plant. There the
oil is removed by a water floatation process. The waste sand has to
be disposed of.
Much of the oilsand is too deep to be reached by strip mining.
Other methods are being tried to recover this deeper oil, but the
economics are marginal. With the strip mining and refining process
now in use, it takes the energy equivalent of two barrels of oil to
produce one barrel. To expand the strip mining operation to the
extent which could, for example, produce the 18 million barrels of
oft used each day in the United States would involve the world's
biggest mining operation, on a scale which is simply not possible in
the foreseeable future, if ever. Canada will probably gradually
increase the oil production from these deposits, but until the
conventional oil of the world is largely depleted these Canadian
deposits are likely to represent only a very small fraction of world
production. The production will always be insignificant relative to
potential demand. Oilsands are now and will be important to Canada
as a long-term source of energy and income. But they will not be a
source of oil as are the world's oil wells today.
Other Myths
Myth:
Energy from any Source is readily used
Energy can be defined as the "capacity for doing work."
(Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition). Alternative
energy sources are sometimes thought of as easily interchangeable.
Energy is energy: there are no great problems in switching from one
energy source to another. This is a myth.
Reality:
An important fact, commonly ignored in discussing alternative
energy sources, is that energy sources come in very different forms.
Adapting these various forms to various end uses presents many
problems. Electricity and gasoline can each do work, but these
energy sources present very different problems when it comes to
using them in particular applications. This is generally ignored by
people who suggest on bumper stickers, for example, that "Solar
Is The answer," or "Go Solar." Sounds simple. It
isn't.
The conversion of the intermittently available very low-grade
solar energy into an energy form which could be used to power the
automobile as we use the automobile today is a complex process, and
has not yet been satisfactorily solved. In many cases it is not
possible to conveniently or easily substitute one energy source for
another. Each has its own characteristics which may be useful in
some circumstances and a decided problem in another situation. Coal
can be used to produce electricity quite easily in a conventional
coal-fired electric power plant. But using coal directly to power an
airplane, or using the electricity produced by coal to power an
airplane does not now, at least, seem possible, and may never be.
Energy from a variety of sources is not universally
interchangeable in its applications. The transition from one energy
source to another will in many cases be difficult, and may cause
major adjustments in lifestyles.
Myth:
We can conserve our way out of the energy supply problem The
movement to conserve our way out of the energy crises and supply
problems has been vigorously promoted from time to time when energy
shortages have occurred. In between such times, energy conservation
seems to fade a bit as a general concern. But the widespread concept
remains that conservation can solve the energy problem.
Reality:
Energy and mineral conservation and recycling are useful goals,
but conservation is only a temporary solution to the overall problem
of continued growth of energy demand from an ever-increasing
population. To accommodate more and more people, each person might
use less and less resources, but at some point there is a minimum
amount of the resource which has to be used. Reducing the amount
beyond that point is not feasible. If one uses a vehicle for
business, by a careful planning of the necessary travel route, one
can reduce the need for fuel, but one cannot continue indefinitely
to reduce the amount of fuel needed. Eventually there is simply not
enough fuel to do the job. At some point the real problem must be
addressed-the demand for the resource-and this demand comes from
numbers of people, and lifestyle. There is no way to ultimately
conserve out of the energy supply problem against an ever-increasing
population. Demand can be reduced but if at the same time, an
increase in population absorbs those savings there is no gain.
Demands cannot be reduced to zero. Conservation and recycling can
only buy time in which to stabilize population to a size which can
exist on a renewable resource economy, which also has to be devised.
Myth:
The political campaign promise-"we will achieve energy
independence" During the 1970s and early 1980s, because of the
recent oil crises, a popular political campaign promise was that a
presidential candidate and his party would achieve "energy
independence" for the United States. Presumably this would be
accomplished in four years or no more than eight as there is a
two-term limit on the U.S. presidency. Citizens look for cures to
their problems, and the candidate who can most convincingly promise
them may be the winner.
Without making specific reference as to which politicians (some
of them were elected) made such promises, it may be noted that, win
or lose, soon after the campaigns have been over, the goal of energy
independence seems to have been lost in the shuffle of everyday
politics as usual.
Reality:
It may be hoped that U.S. energy independence can eventually be
achieved, but it will never be based on oil produced in the United
States. Unless oil consumption is greatly reduced, the United States
henceforth will be increasingly dependent on foreign supplies.
As part of the "energy independence" program came the
headline statement from one presidential candidate, "We Will
Find New Fuels". That promise was made in 1979. The candidate
lost, and we have not made much progress on new fuels, now importing
twice as much oil as then.
A promise made by a sitting U.S. president in the 1970s was an
edict stating, "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both
Government and private research with the goal of producing an
unconventionally powered, virtually pollution-free automobile within
5 years." As the electric car was known then (and indeed
electric cars existed before gasoline-powered cars) presumably the "unconventionally
powered" car would have to be something else.
That promise is now more than two decades old and the promised
new era automobile has not arrived. These statements are made
primarily to gain public favor-and votes. But in the process the
public is led down unrealistic paths. Politicians making such
statements owe it to the people who give them public trust, to more
carefully examine the facts, and not simply express cheerful hopes.
Political posturing and optimism will not solve the energy supply
problem. However, political decisions can encourage development of
alternative energy supplies, and subsidize research toward that end.
This should be done.
Energy independence for the United States is at present becoming
less and less a near term possibility. The economy continues to be
based very largely on petroleum, and oil imports continue to
increase each year. Any political candidate who states that energy
independence can be achieved for the United States in any
presidential term of office (or even in two or three decades) is
simply either not being honest or is totally ignorant of energy
supply, and the prospects for viable alternatives.
A national move toward energy independence, which has to be
expressed by the citizens through their elected representatives in
the Congress, has not materialized. Energy independence for the U.S.
will remain a myth if the present energy course is continued. It
need not be a myth but the will to make the effort, and the
reorganization of society which it would take to make energy
independence a reality are nowhere in sight. Also, even if there
were a consensus now, it would take many years to do the things
necessary to achieve energy independence, and the capital
expenditures necessary to do this would be huge. Any promise of
energy independence for the U.S., at least within the next several
decades, remains clearly a myth, hopeful vote-luring political
statements notwithstanding.
Myth:
< "At current rate of consumption ..."
This is commonly used as a comforting statement to assure the
public that there is no looming shortage of a given resource. "At
the current rate of consumption" a given resource will last for
at least X number of years. Usually, this is quite a long time.
There is no problem.
Reality:
This very misleading myth is that the "current rate of
consumption" does not represent the future. The rate of
consumption of almost ail resources, particularly energy, is
increasing every year. The increase in resource consumption is
caused by three factors: population growth, a demand for an increase
in per capita consumption of a resource to increase living
standards, and a larger number of uses found for a given resource.
Oil is the classic example which illustrates increased demand from
all three causes. Present demand for oil is increasing at the rate
of about two percent annually, which means demand will double in 35
years. "Current rate of consumption" has no realistic
relationship to the future.
Demand does not grow arithmetically, but increases exponentially.
That is, it goes up as a percentage each year over the previous
year. Therefore, the statement that a depletable resource will last
for X number of years "at current rate of consumption" has
little relation to the reality of the actual life of the resource. A
resource may have a life of 100 years at the "current rate of
consumption." But, at the seemingly low rate of a five percent
annual increase in demand, the resource will only last about 36
years. Because almost all resources are finite, and the population
has no theoretical limit to growth, ultimately the population by its
exponential growth of demand will overwhelm the available resource.
That we are living in a time of exponential growth is ably
presented by Lapp in his classic book The Logarithmic Century.(18)
That the general public does not appreciate the importance of the
effect of exponential growth has been pointed out by Bartlett who
has written a convincing discussion of the myth of "at current
rate of consumption," and the large numbers which quickly
result from a seemingly insignificant annual rate of increase in use
of a resource.(3) In other writings and in numerous lectures,
Bartlett has pointed out, by several striking examples, that this is
one of the most dangerously misleading myths to which the public is
continually exposed. He states, "The greatest shortcoming of
the human race is our inability to understand the exponential
function."
A recent example of such a misleading statement regarding oil
supplies is that made by a ranking oil industry analyst on a popular
Friday night Public Broadcasting System program.(30) The statement,
regarding world oil reserves, was that current supplies are "...enough
to last us for 40 years at current consumption rates." This
statement is grossly misleading for two reasons: First, "current
consumption rates" are transitory, and demand for oil will
continue to increase. "Current consumption rates" have
little relevance to the future.
Second, if the statement was to be taken literally it would mean
that for 40 years we would have the same amount of oil available as
we have today, but in the 41st year there would be none. This also
has no relation to reality.
The production of a finite resource is never a flat line. In
broad form, smoothing out irregularities caused by political,
economic, and technological events, the production is a bell-shaped
curve. (Figure 8) It is estimated now that world oil production will
continue to increase until about the year 2010 (see Ivanhoe, Chapter
28 and Figure 9), and then begin a permanent decline.
There is little, if any, possibility that the amount of oil
available worldwide 40 years hence will be the same as today. It
will be less, and the critical point is when world oil production
begins to decline, not when the last drop of oil is ever pumped from
the ground.
One might peripherally observe that the statement made that the
world has 40 years' oil supply at current rate of consumption was
made in the context of being reassuring. However, 40 years hence is
within the life expectancy of many, if not most people living in
today's highly oil-dependent industrialized societies. However, the
figure of 40 years is both illogical and irrelevant, and misleads
the average citizen to thinking there is no problem for at least 40
years. The reality is that a permanent world oil crisis will occur
when world oil production begins to decline early in the 21st
century. Most of the present world's citizens will see that time.
Figure 8.
Curves of discoveries and production during a complete production
cycle of a finite resource.
(After Hubbert, 1956)
Myth:
Mining the moon
It may seem to younger persons who were not part of the time of
great enthusiasm for space exploration that to suggest mining the
moon is ridiculous. But older persons recall the heady days of early
lunar exploration when this idea was proposed. Mining the moon was
one of the seriously suggested reasons widely discussed and
advocated for lunar exploration. The minerals would be brought back
to Earth for processing, or mineral processing stations could be set
up on the moon and the refined product brought to Earth.
Reality:
Small samples of moon rock have been brought back to Earth.
Unfortunately, from the samples taken, the moon appears to be made
up largely of a rock very similar to basalt here on Earth, of which
there is a vast supply and which has no commercially useful mineral
composition. The surface moon rocks do apparently have a slightly
higher iron content than the average composition of the Earth, but
going to the moon to mine iron does not seem to have attractive
economics in either the near or foreseeable future. The energy cost
of transportation would be astronomical.
Myth:
Export the population problem to outer space
This also may seem like an idea too absurd to discuss. However,
it is amazing what can be suggested even in high government circles.
In those early space exploration times, some thought that the answer
to the population problem was to export it from Earth. Hardin has
identified the source of this myth stating: "In 1958, four
years after the founding of NASA -the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration-its congressional guardian, the Science and
Astronautics Committee, supported the idea of space migration as an
ultimate solution to the problem of a 'bursting population."'
Hardin adds, ". . . when an agency is fighting for space that
counts-space at the public trough-its administrators are in no hurry
to correct statements that increase the size of their budget."(14)
Regardless of their logic or otherwise, ideas of populating space
persist. In 1996, an article in a national magazine proposed that
most industrial plants on Earth be replaced by those built on the
moon and that the population pressures on Earth be solved by
colonizing Mars. Some quotes from that article follow:
"The only way to keep the economy expanding infinitely is to
expand our resource base infinitely. The universe is a big place.
Human ingenuity is such that we will find innumerable ways to
economically prosper in space"
"We will have escaped the trap of a closed, cyclical
economy; the riches of the solar system will lie before us."
"The moon, with no ecosystem to damage, can become the seat
of heavy industry. The earth, relieved of its population pressure
and industrial burden as people migrate, can be allowed to regreen."(16)
Reality:
Just to keep even with population growth, much less reduce the
people pressure on this already overcrowded planet, approximately
250,000 people a day would have to be rocketed off to "somewhere"
in outer space! The only merit might be that it would generate a lot
of employment in a very large aerospace industry to produce the
spaceships needed daily. The amount of energy needed to propel these
vehicles was never calculated or how it was to be continually
obtained.
Mining the moon and sending people off into space to solve the
population problem were myths at one time advocated by people who
wanted to promote their special interests in the space program. That
these suggestions would come from U.S. Government agencies is almost
incredible.
Similar suggestions made more recently stem from a recognition
that we face increasing environmental problems and demands on
limited resources.(16)
With this there can be little disagreement, but continuing to
escort people to space to solve the problem is not reasonable, to
put it mildly. The support systems necessary to keep people alive in
space already seen in our current very small space program are very
expensive in terms of resources. To provide such for the 250,000
people a day launched into space just to keep the Earth's population
stable is almost beyond comprehension, and this would have to be
done indefinitely. Humans are adjusted to the environment on Earth,
and space is a vast and very hostile environment unfit for human
habitation. Space does not offer a viable alternative to the
environment on Earth. The dream of colonizing space will remain just
that. Any credibility given it only serves to momentarily divert
attention from the reality of the closed resource system which is
the Earth and with which we must deal.
Cohen has stated what we may hope will be the final word on the
concept of exporting excess population to outer space:
"Let me dispense once and for all with extraterrestrial
emigration. To achieve a reduction in the global population growth
from say 1.6 percent to 1.5 percent would currently require
departure of 0.001 x 5.7 billion =3D 5.7 million astronauts in the
first year and increasing numbers in each later year. To export this
number of people would bankrupt the remaining Earthlings and would
still leave a population that doubled every 46 years.
Demographically speaking space is not the place."(10)
A final fundamental fact related to moon mining and space travel
in general is the cost. At present the cost of moving the space
shuttle, satellites, and other payloads into orbit is about $10,000
a pound. In 1996, Lockheed Martin Corporation was awarded a billion
dollar contract by the U.S. government to develop what is called the
X-33 next generation of space shuttle. One of these is expected to
be operational before 2010, and could bring the cost down to $1,000
a pound or perhaps slightly less for payload transport to space.
However, this too, seems excessive for an extensive use, and
reinforces a view which has been expressed regarding vehicles
designed to access space that it is the "most effective device
know to man for destroying dollar bills."
Let us hear no more about the absurdity of space colonization.
These examples of myths emphasize the continual need to use reality
in examining statements made, even by government officials, with
regard to our energy and mineral resources, and population problem.
These are basic to our very existence, and it is most important that
plans for the future, by both government and the private sector, be
firmly based on realities.
Myth: The omnipotence of science and technology-it can do
anything There continues to be a belief in some circles that
technology and science can indeed solve all problems of human
material existence indefinitely, as noted by the following and what
might be regarded as the ultimate myth.
In 1995, a large volume appeared wherein a number of scientists
and others expressed some moderately positive and reasonable views
of the present human condition and the future. However, the
introduction contained the following statements:
"Technology exists now to produce in virtually inexhaustible
quantities just about all the products made by nature-foodstuffs,
oil, even pearls, and diamonds- and make them cheaper in most cases
than the cost of gathering them in the wild natural state."
"We have in our hands now-actually, in our libraries-the
technology to feed clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing
population for the next seven billion years...Indeed, the last
necessary additions to this body of technology-nuclear fission and
space travel-occurred decades ago. Even if no new knowledge were
ever invented after those advances, we would be able to go on
increasing our population forever, while improving our standard of
living and control over our environment."(25)
Reality:
If it were not for the fact that this volume was published under
the auspices of a presumably creditable national research institute,
these statements would not merit comment. A few brief observations
are made here.
The terms "virtually inexhaustible" cannot reasonably be
applied to anything on this Earth except perhaps the ocean water,
and rocks. Also, to support the concept that "we would be able
to go on increasing our population forever" or at least for a
minimum of "seven billion years" one might assume that
some sort of calculations were made to back up the statement. No
calculations were presented.
The author of the "7 billion years" published statement
is later reported to have said it was a misprint and should have
been "7 million years" of population growth. University of
Colorado physicist Albert Bartlett made the calculations, however,
stating in regard to the reduction in number from 7 billion to 7
million, "it is too early to breathe easily." Using the 7
million figure and based on a 1% annual population growth rate
(current annual rate is 1.7%), he determined that the population
after 7 million years would be 2.3 x 1030409.7137 and added that "it
is hard to imagine the meaning [of such a large number]...The number
is something like 30 kilo-orders of magnitude larger than the number
of atoms estimated to be in the known universe!"(5)
The editor of the book who wrote the fanciful introduction is not
a scientist nor technologist. It is an observable fact that people
other than scientists and technologists are frequently more
confident of what these disciplines can do for the future than are
the scientists and technologists themselves-the people who are aware
of the basic facts of the availability of resources and what might
be done with them, or to replace them.
Faith that science and technology can solve all resource supply
problems is evidenced by the widely expressed public view that "you
scientists will think of something." It ignores the fact that
something cannot be made from nothing, and in order to have a
resource one must have some material thing with which to work. This
fact, however, is met with the thought that substitutions can be
made. This is true, within the reality that eventually substitutions
also become exhausted. Also, there are definite limits as to what
substitutions can be made.
There is, for example, no substitute for water. The age of
alchemy is not here nor is it ever likely to arrive. Alchemy is the
medieval chemical "science" which strived to turn base
metals into gold. In general it is thought of as the ability to
transform some common material into something more valuable. If this
were possible one could make some wonderful substitutions-oil from
granite. This is an absurdity. Yet there are shades of this concept
expressed. In discussing copper as a resource, Simon states that
there is no problem, "because copper can be made from other
metals..."(24) This statement has no basis of fact, and it is
highly unlikely that such will ever be possible. No scientific
research suggests that this could be done on any commercial scale.
Minute amounts of copper might be produced from other materials in a
so-called "atom-smasher" at a huge cost of energy. The
nature of matter is such that transmutation of elements is not a
practicality.
However, Simon goes on, "Even the total weight of the earth
is not a theoretical limit to the amount of copper that might be
available to earthlings in the future. Only the total weight of the
universe...would be a theoretical limit."(24)
In discussing energy, Simon states, "With respect to energy,
it is particularly obvious that the Earth does not bound the
quantity available to us. Our sun (and perhaps other suns) is the
basic source of energy in the long run..."(23) Should an energy
policy be based on the idea that we can draw on "other suns?"
This astounding statement that we might be able to draw on "other
suns" is by a professor in a reputable state university, and
was published in the venerable magazine Science.
Simon also expresses faith in the ability of science and
technology to supply the world with natural resources in unlimited
amounts and in his book he has titled a chapter, Can the Supply of
Natural Resources Really be Infinite ? Yes!
He states,
"...we shall be compelled to reject the simple depletion
theory. The revised theory will suggest that natural resource are
not finite in any meaningful economic sense mind-boggling though
this assertion may be. That is, there is no solid reason to believe
that there will ever be a greater scarcity of these extractive
resources in the long-run future than there is now. Rather, we can
confidently expect copper and other minerals to get progressively
less scarce."(24)
Bartlett has written a well-reasoned review of Simon's concept
that there is no meaningful limit to resource availability.(4)
Science and technology do have limits imposed by the immutable
laws of physics, chemistry, and mathematics. At the present time it
seems clear that if current trends continue in growth of population,
the demands of the human race will soon overwhelm the ability of
science and technology to solve the problems of availability of
resources, which are the basis for human existence.
Alan Overton of the American Mining Congress states: "the
American people have forgotten one important fact: It takes stuff to
make things." Pesticides, paint, medicines, and fertilizer
cannot be made from solar energy.
In 1992, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal
Society of London together issued a statement warning that "if
current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns
of human activity on the planet remain unchanged, science and
technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible
degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the
world." If present trends continue, ultimately scientists and
technologists will not be able "to think of something."
Ryerson, commenting on the concept of a "technology fix"
with respect to population growth, states:
"Some of the more outlandish claims of the 'technology fix'
advocates-for example, that we could ship our excess people to other
planets-have almost been forgotten (imagine sending aloft 90 million
people per year). Yet, while extraterrestrial migration is no longer
taken seriously by most people, many of the unsubstantiated claims
of new technologies that will 'save the day' are still seen by many
as a reason not to worry about population growth."(22)
It is important to understand that a "technology fix"
is not the answer to unrestrained population growth. And future
plans should not be based on unrealistic expectations.
Myth: Because past predictions of resource and population
problems have proved incorrect, all future such predictions will not
come true, therefore there is no need to be concerned.
This view stems in part from past predictions of disasters which
did not materialize as scheduled. Notable were those by Malthus in
1798. The argument presented by those who apparently see no need now
to relate population to resources is that if Malthus' predictions of
two centuries ago proved so wrong, why should similar predictions be
taken seriously today.
Reality:
Malthus-then and now
Malthus' predictions were wrong because he did not foresee the
coming industrial and scientific revolution. The Industrial
Revolution provided much improved housing with adequate space
heating, greatly improved sanitary facilities, and machines and the
energy to run them. It provided the basis for supporting a much
expanded population. Huge resources not known to Malthus were
discovered and developed.
But with this much improved scene today, why should there be
concern for the future?
The problem is that science and technology will not be able to
continue to discover and develop the amount of new resources
necessary to support a population growing at an exponential rate.
And resources which might be thought of as something which could be
depended on indefinitely such as soil and groundwater are being
degraded. Population demands on resources are beginning to outpace
the ability of science and technology to provide them. This is due
to the fact that resources are not limitless. The availability of
material resources to sustain the quality of life cannot keep pace
with a continued exponential growth of population. Advanced
exploration and production technologies have allowed geologists and
engineers in a less than two hundred years to discover and develop
the huge store of mineral and energy resources which accumulated
slowly over billions of years. In a fraction of a second in terms of
the length of human existence, Earth resources basic to civilization
have been brought into production in volumes never before seen.
Soils, oil, high grade metal and coal deposits and now those of
lower grade, groundwater, and other resources including dam sites,
are being used up at an unparalleled rate. Since 1900, world
population has increased nearly four times, but the world economy
has expanded more than 20 times. =46ossil fuel use has increased by
a factor of 30 and industrial production has grown by a factor of
50, and four-fifths of these increases have occurred since 1950.
Civilization exists now in a new reality which is far different from
that of Malthus's time. Population grows but mineral and energy
resources do not increase. By discovery and advanced recovery
technology, the immediate supply can be made to increase, but in
total, minerals and energy sources with the exception of sunlight,
are depletable.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the speed of
human assault upon Earth's resources has greatly increased. More
petroleum, coal, and metals have been used since 1950 than in all
previous human history. In the United States the high grade, easily
won, low cost deposits of iron ore (hematite), copper, and petroleum
have been depleted. In some other regions of the world, high grade
deposits still exist but are rapidly being developed and used. There
are few major dam sites in the United States on which to build large
reservoirs for additional hydroelectric power, and irrigation
projects. Elsewhere more do exist but are now being developed, as,
for example, the huge Yangtze River project. Dam sites are
non-renewable and when the reservoirs completely silt up as has
already happened at some localities, that resource is gone. All over
the world, groundwater tables are dropping, in many areas
precipitously, as in China, India, Australia, the Middle East and in
parts of western United States. In Malthus' time none of these
things had occurred.
For hundreds of thousands of years the human population had made
only a minor impact on mineral and energy resources. With low living
standards, and little or no medical services, the population grew
very slowly, and sometimes was even briefly reversed by famines and
plagues. But these hazards have been largely eliminated and
population has soared. It took from the beginning of human existence
to approximately the year 1850 to reach the first billion world
population mark. It will take less than 10 years to increase the
present five and three quarter billion by another billion.
What is different from the time of Malthus? The population in his
time was small and the potential resources were large and
undeveloped. Subsequently, the Industrial Revolution was rather
rapidly able to produce enormous resource and material wealth in
contrast to the past. It was the hare of energy and mineral
development leaping ahead of the tortoise of population. In part,
the population growth was tortoise in speed because of the lack of
modern medicine, including vaccines and the knowledge of what caused
plagues which would decimate populations. And, to a large extent,
that hare of mineral and energy has kept ahead of population. This
has been achieved by expanding the search, discovery and development
of vital raw materials to a worldwide endeavor. That was not
possible during Malthus' life.
But now with the present worldwide transportation network made
possible chiefly by oil not available to Malthus, mineral and energy
supplies can be searched for and produced on one area and
transported great distances to another region. When one area
experiences declining production, discoveries are made in other
regions. Britain's metal deposits and coal resources were small but
they supplied the basis for the start of the Industrial Revolution.
But eventually the supply base moved to the rich undeveloped North
American continent, and then oil was discovered. But now these North
American metal and oil deposits have been largely developed and some
are in decline. The oil development has gone more and more to the
Middle East. Metal exploitation has moved to South America, New
Guinea, Australia, and Africa. Worldwide, petroleum and metals are
still in abundance. This tends to give a false expectation of a
continual cornucopia of Earth resources, and an unjustified
complacency especially in political circles toward the future.
However, we are running out of more world to explore and exploit.
Only the ice-covered Antarctic continent remains untouched. In
Malthus' time, the entire world's mineral and energy resources were
virtually undeveloped, and the means to exploit them did not exist.
In Malthus' time, there was a small population and huge
undeveloped world energy and mineral resources. The situation is now
reversing. The difference is the present peaking or declining energy
and mineral production in many parts of the world, and an already
huge and continually expanding population. We live on a finite globe
which now has been rather thoroughly explored. There are no more
continents on which to continue to move as one region becomes
depleted. The globe has been encircled. Malthus was simply ahead of
his time.
Promotion of Myths
The media-newspapers, magazines, television, radio-report the
news. But in the competitive haste to do so, sometimes they become
accessory to spreading misinformation. The statements by uninformed
people, politicians pursuing votes, unscrupulous promoters, or
citizen groups trying to further a particular point of view may
ignore realities. Too often these statements are picked up by the
media and reported as fact.
Two such are cited. In a three-hour television special on energy
(August 31, 1977), a CBS reporter stated in regard to how oil from
shale might replace oil: "Most experts estimate that oil shale
deposits like those near Rifle, Colorado, could provide more than
100-year oil supply." In another media report during the U.S.
oil crisis of 1973, two young men in timber country announced that
they planned to build plants using wood wastes which would be
converted to gasoline and would "put the oil companies out of
business." Subsequently in audiences at lectures I was giving,
these two statements about alternative fuel supplies were brought up
as genuine possibilities. Bartlett cites the CBS oil shale
television program and convincingly points out that because the
exponential factor of growth in use had been ignored, the resource
could not possibly supply U.S. oil needs for 100 years.(3)
Furthermore, at the time the CBS statement was made there was no
evidence, just as there still is no evidence, that shale oil could
replace conventional oil to any significant degree or that it could
be produced at a net energy profit.
The statement was totally unrealistic, but with the 1973 oil
crisis still fresh in mind, the program served to lull the public
into a false sense of oil security. People like programs and
statements which make them feel comfortable.
In the second situation, oil from wood wastes, very simple
calculations would have shown that the volumes of wood waste
available would not be even remotely sufficient to supply the raw
material to provide any significant amount of gasoline in terms of
U.S. consumption. The reporter on that story could have asked for
some statistical data to back up the claims which he was about to
print, and it would have made him a much better reporter for it.
It is perhaps too much to ask the media to thoroughly examine
facts behind such statements. But there should be at least some
minimal effort to do so because there is an unfortunate tendency for
people not to critically read what is in the papers, or thoughtfully
examine what television and radio brings them. Most do not have the
background to make critical examinations. In the case of broad
sweeping statements on things so vital as energy supplies, the media
could at least quite quickly get a second opinion and present that
also, which would give a useful balance to the reporting.
Degrees of Myths
It may be noted from the foregoing myths that there are degrees
of such. Some may be regarded as marginal, and with some unforeseen
technology (also to some degree a myth), the myth might become
plausible. The myth of "562 billion barrels of recoverable oil"
in oil shale might be regarded in this category, although at present
it is definitely a myth. The myth that "We now have in our
hands-actually in our libraries-the technology to feed, clothe, and
supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next seven
billion years"(25), and the myth that we could put our
industrial facilities on the moon and that "human settlements
on Mars could help to alleviate population and environmental
problems"(16) plainly belong in the category of the absurd.
It is distressing to see that in many instances the general
public cannot differentiate between what might be in the faint realm
of possibility, from the absurd and utterly impossible. Sommers has
commented on this stating in regard to our educational system that,
"...many students now graduate from college knowing little or
nothing about math or science, thus creating a void into which 'flow
negative and bizarre views.'...A consensus emerged at a conference
of over 200 scientists, physicians, and humanists: Scientists must
speak up against the popular manifestations of irrationalism."(26)
Sommers adds, "Harvard Prof. Holton has noted that parascience
and pseudo-science 'became a time bomb waiting to explode' when
incorporated into political movements...A scandalously inadequate
system of science education and diminished public regard for clear
thinking and objective truth are just early casualties." (26)
If society is to survive, reason and clear recognition of reality
must prevail, and plans made on that basis. Part of education should
be directed toward that important end. The political leadership
especially must be able to correctly differentiate between the
possible and the absurd. This is particularly important when it
comes to decisions relative to the foundations of civilization-the
energy and mineral resources upon which everything else depends.
Conclusions
It has been said that "optimists have more fun in life, but
pessimists may be right." Hardin has aptly noted, "If the
reception of The Limits to Growth and The Global 2000 Report taught
us nothing else it should have taught us that the Greeks were right.
In the public relations game only optimism." Hardin quotes
Teiresias in Euripides' The Phoenician Woman, "A man's a fool
to use the prophet's trade. For if he happens to bring bitter news
he's hated by the man for whom he works."(15) Hardin might have
further noted that in political elections which are the quintessence
of a public relations game, the same applies.
Regardless of the popularity of optimism over realism, the wisest
route for humanity would be that plans and decisions be based on
today's scientific and technological realities and reasonably
visible resources, rather than on hopes for things which may never
arrive. Optimism is vital in looking toward the future. One must be
optimistic as a basis for making an effort. But optimism should be
tempered with facts. The media and government leaders should try to
learn the facts, and then have the courage to state them. Campaigns
for public of office should not lead the citizenry into false hopes.
As civilization proceeds, it will be much more convenient and less
disruptive to be pleasantly surprised along the way than
unpleasantly surprised. Myths must be replaced by reality on which
intelligent decisions are made.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,
1995, Basic Petroleum Data Book: Washington, D. C., v. 15, n. 1,
(no pagination, large volume).
- ANONYMOUS, 1975, Fact and
Fancy: The Wall Street Journal, December 12.
- BARTLETT, A. A., 1978,
Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis: The American Journal
of Physics, v. 46, p. 876-888.
- BARTLETT, A. A., 1985, Review
of The Ultimate Resource, by J. L. SIMON: American Journal of
Physics, v. 53, n.3, p.282-285.
- BARTLETT, A. A., 1996, The
Exponential Function, XI, The New Flat Earth Society: The Physics
Teacher, v. 34, September.
- BECHTEL CORPORATION, 1980,
Biomass Liquefication at Albany, Oregon: Report to U.S. Department
of Energy under government contract no. EG-77-C-03-1338,18 p.
- BECK, R. J., and BELL, LAURA,
1995, Rally in Fourth Quarter 1994 Fails to Bolster OGJ Group
Profits: Oil and Gas Journal, June 12, p. 27-32.
- BROWN, L. R., 1993,
Postmodern Malthus: Are There Too Many of Us to Survive?: The
Washington Post, July 18.
- BYLINSKY, GENE, 1979,
Biomass: The Self-replacing Energy Source: Fortune, September 24,
p. 78-81.
- COHEN, J. E., 1995, How Many
People Can the Earth Support?: The Sciences, November/December,
p.18-23.
- CROWE, C. T.,1981, Our Energy
Fix-No Quick Fix: Quest, Spring issue, Washington State Univ.,
Pullman, Washington, p.14-17.
- DUNCAN, D. C.,1981, Oil
Shale: A Potential Source of Energy: [pamphlet!, U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, D. C., 15 p.
- FOWLER, J. M.,1984, Energy
and the Environment: McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 655 p.
- HARDIN, GARRETT, 1959,
Interstellar Migration and the Population Problem: Journal of
Heredity, v. 50, p. 68-70.
- HARDIN, GARRETT, 1993, Living
Within Limits. Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos: Oxford
Univ. Press, New York, 339 p.
- HOWERTON, B. A., 1996, Why
Bother About Space? The Futurist, January/February, p. 23-26.
- HUBBERT, M. K., 1956, Nuclear
energy and fossil fuels: Drilling and Production Practices,
American Petroleum Institute, p. 7-25.
- LAPP, R. E., 1973, The
Logarithmic Century: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cuffs, New
Jersey, 263 p.
- NULTY, PETER, 1979, Shale Oil
is Braced for Big Role: Fortune, September 24, p. 43-48.
- OIL & GAS JOURNAL, 1995,
OGJ Gasoline Prices: Oil 8 Gas Journal, July 31, p. 101.
- ROYKO, MIKE, 1996, Gas-crisis
Hysteria May Just Be a Case of Sniffing Volumes: Chicago Tribune,
May 2.
- RYERSON, W. N.,1995, Sixteen
Myths About Population Growth: Focus, v. 5, n.1, Carrying Capacity
Network, Washington, D. C., p. 22-37.
- SIMON, J. L., 1980,
Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad
News: Science, v. 208, June 27, p. 1431-1437.
- SIMON, J. L.,1981, The
Ultimate Resource: Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey,
415 p.
- SIMON, J. L., (ad.), 1995,
The State of Humanity: Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 676 p.
- SOMMERS, C. H., 1995, The
Flight From Science and Reason: The Wall Street Journal, July 10.
- SULLIVAN, ALLANNA,1995,
Alaska Refuge Oil-reserve Estimates are Slashed: The Wall Street
Journal, August 7.
- TICKELL, SIR CRISPIN, 1994,
The Future and Its Consequences: The British Association Lectures
1993, The Geological Society, London, p. 20-24.
Return
to Part 1
