This study examines the impact of oil development on four interconnected themes: 1) the environment, including marine habitats and marine life; 2) climate and ocean change, including higher temperatures, expansion of oxygen minimum zones, and ocean acidification; 3) oil spills, caused by accidents involving tankers, barges, pipelines, refineries, drilling rigs, and storage facilities; and 4) land-based runoff, which is the top source of oil in the ocean.
The study found that natural seeps contribute to oil spills in 2014 to 2019, while Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) improves the flow properties of oil for faster production. Productivity fuels life in the ocean, drives its chemical cycles, and lowers atmospheric carbon dioxide. Oil spills in rivers, bays, and the ocean are most often caused by accidents involving tankers, barges, pipelines, refineries, drilling rigs, and storage facilities.
Land-based runoff is the top source of oil in the ocean, with an estimated volume up to 20 times higher than two decades ago. The presence of oil in water can hinder marine phytoplankton from photosynthesis, reducing dissolved oxygen content and changing the water’s composition. Offshore oil extraction currently accounts for 37% of global production, with 28% of global gas production taking place offshore.
Sandy beaches are affected to varying degrees due to coarse-grained sand, which facilitates oil penetration and slows the breakdown of oil. Population growth in coastal areas and improved vehicle fuel efficiency are changing how and in what volume oil reaches the ocean. Oil spills can harm sea creatures, ruin a day at the beach, and make seafood unsafe to eat.
In conclusion, oil development has significant impacts on the environment, marine life, and ecosystems.
📹 The End of Oil, Explained | FULL EPISODE | Vox + Netflix
Oil led to huge advancements — and vast inequities. Subscribe and turn on notifications so you don’t miss any videos: …
How does oil get out of the ocean?
The combination of high wind speeds, rougher seas, and elevated temperatures serves to accelerate the rate of evaporation and subsequent oil loss. The presence of waves and turbulence at the sea surface can result in slicks breaking up into fragments and droplets of varying sizes.
Does the ocean produce oil?
Fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, form in the sea over millions of years as the remains of animals and plants sink to the ocean floor. These fossil fuels are crucial for industrial societies, but their deposits are dwindling and prices are rising. Oil companies are now focusing on deep ocean oil and gas deposits, which were previously thought too difficult and expensive to tap. Over a third of the oil and gas extracted worldwide comes from offshore sources.
Reserves are accurately measured mineral deposits that can be extracted economically using current technology, while resources are geologically proven deposits that are not currently feasible for economic extraction. These deposits can reasonably be expected to occur based on the geological characteristics of the area. As extraction costs of conventional oil vary by type and region, companies are turning their attention to these resources to improve oil production in mature oil fields.
Where does oil go in the ocean?
Oil seeps are natural phenomena that occur on the ocean’s surface, forming continuous oil slicks miles above the source. These slicks can be seen as oil bubbles, a rainbow sheen, and a pungent smell. In the Gulf of Mexico, oil seeps are often associated with gas hydrates, solid ice-like structures that accumulate on the bottom around the seep. These gas-trapping cages are rigid but sensitive to temperature and pressure, breaking apart when temperature and pressure change. When they break apart, the gas is released into the water.
Researchers aim to determine the amount of oil and gas released by these natural seeps using video cameras to film the exit points of oil bubbles at the sea floor. These cameras are placed at depths of around 4, 000 feet (1, 200 meters), which is deeper than any diver can go. Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) are used to place the cameras at the right spot at the bottom of the ocean.
When the camera is returned, automated image processing techniques are used to count the bubbles filmed, providing an idea of how much oil and gas is released from natural seeps.
Does oil mix with the ocean?
Oil spills into shallow waters with muddy sediments, such as marshes or lagoons, can persist for a long time due to the fundamental chemistry of oil compounds. These compounds adhere to particles in the water or get incorporated into biological debris, which settle from the water column and become part of the sediments on the bottom. Some oil chemicals can persist for years or decades, depending on the environment.
In areas swept by high-energy currents, the material may be dispersed, while contaminated sediments become an environmental concern in areas where sediments accumulate, such as ship channels through urban harbors. This scientific knowledge helps policymakers make better decisions on dredge harbors, control pollution sources, clean up contaminated areas, and locate petroleum facilities.
What happens to oil when it enters the water?
Oil chemicals entering the ocean undergo various fates, including evaporation to the atmosphere, photochemical reactions, and degradation by bacteria. These processes are known as weathering and vary depending on the oil’s chemical structure, habitat conditions, and water mixing by wind, waves, and currents. Some oil spills may last for weeks to months. However, when oil spills into shallow waters with muddy sediments, such as marshes or lagoons, and conditions allow it to become mixed into the mud, it may persist for a long time due to the fundamental chemistry of oil compounds. These compounds adhere to water particles or biological debris, which settle from the water column and become part of the sediments on the bottom.
How much oil pollutes the ocean?
Over 60 million gallons of oil enter the oceans annually, with the largest amount coming from industrial waste and automobiles. This oil seeps from oil-bearing rock layers into the ocean as part of a natural process. Tanker accidents deposit about 37 million gallons of oil annually, and oil becomes part of the run-off from waterways that empty into the ocean. Oil spills in the ocean can spread across miles of open water and up onto beaches, littering them with tar balls.
Intertidalzones, which are habitats for fish, birds, and other wildlife, are often the most vulnerable. Animals may perish when the oil slicks their fur or downy feathers, decreasing their surface area and making them no longer insulated from cold water. Or, animals may ingest the oil, becoming sick or unable to reproduce properly. The largest amount of oil entering the ocean through human activity is the 363 million gallons from industrial waste and automobiles.
What happens when oil is poured into the ocean?
The mousse formed by shaking oil in a jar is not very long-lasting, as it splits back into separate layers within minutes. Typically, oil spilled on the ocean forms a mousse and eventually separates from water, but sometimes it stays a mousse. The reason behind this phenomenon remains unknown, but researchers may one day discover the answer. The materials used in this experiment are non-toxic and can be disposed of.
What are the two main factors that control ocean primary productivity?
Primary production in the ocean is influenced by factors such as sunlight, nutrient availability, and compensation depth. Sunlight penetration decreases with depth and is influenced by water clarity. The Epipelagic Zone, also known as the Euphotic Zone, is where all photosynthesis occurs and is the part of the ocean most likely to have a thermocline. Compensation depth is the depth at which respiration equals photosynthesis production, where light intensity is just sufficient to balance oxygen production and consumption by algae. Compensation depth varies with latitude, water clarity, and nutrient availability.
How is oil affecting the ocean?
Oil can have significant effects on marine ecosystems, killing organisms, reducing their fitness, and disrupting their structure and function. These effects have been established in laboratory studies and after well-studied spills. However, determining the subtler long-term effects on populations, communities, and ecosystems at low doses and in the presence of other contaminants poses significant scientific challenges. Marine ecosystems change naturally on various time scales, ranging from hours to millennia, and on space scales ranging from meters to ocean basins.
Other causes of ecological change include human disturbance, physical habitat alteration, other pollution, fishing, alteration of predation patterns, weather, and climate. Oil spills affect the oceans at spatial scales of tens of square meters to thousands of square kilometers, with chronic pollution affecting areas as small as a few square centimeters and as large as thousands of square kilometers.
Climate changes can complicate the interpretation of contaminant impacts, especially if they have different effects on control and impact stations in experimental designs or if a long time series of data is used to establish the “norm”. Climate change can be cyclical, such as the Southern Ocean Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, or secular, like gradual rise in upper ocean temperature.
How does the ocean contribute to primary productivity?
Phytoplankton, which is primarily found in the water column between the ocean’s surface and bottom, is responsible for the majority of primary production in pelagic water. The melting of sea ice allows for increased light penetration, which in turn promotes rapid algae growth.
What affects ocean productivity?
Ocean productivity is primarily the production of organic matter by phytoplankton, which are photoautotrophs that harvest light to convert inorganic to organic carbon. These phytoplankton supply this organic carbon to diverse heterotrophs, which obtain their energy solely from the respiration of organic matter. Open ocean heterotrophs include bacteria, zooplankton, nekton, and benthos.
Ocean productivity is associated with various nested cycles of carbon. Gross primary production (GPP) refers to the total rate of organic carbon production by autotrophs, while respiration refers to the energy-yielding oxidation of organic carbon back to carbon dioxide. Net primary production (NPP) is GPP minus the autotrophs’ own rate of respiration, indicating the rate at which the full metabolism of phytoplankton produces biomass.
Secondary production (SP) typically refers to the growth rate of heterotrophic biomass, with only a small fraction of the organic matter used to grow, the majority being respired back to dissolved inorganic carbon and nutrients that can be reused by autotrophs. Fisheries rely on SP and depend on both NPP and the efficiency with which organic matter is transferred up the foodweb.
Net ecosystem production (NEP) is GPP minus the respiration by all organisms in the ecosystem. The value of NEP depends on the boundaries defined for the ecosystem. For example, NEP for the sunlit surface ocean down to the 1 light level over an entire year is equivalent to particulate organic carbon sinking into the dark ocean interior plus the dissolved organic carbon being circulated out of the euphotic zone.
Productivity in the surface ocean is connected to nutrient cycling. The blue cycle for “net ecosystem production” (NEP) encompasses the “new” nutrient supply from the ocean interior, its uptake by autotrophic phytoplankton growth, packaging into large particles by heterotrophic grazing organisms, and sinking of organic matter out of the surface ocean. The red cycle illustrates the fate of most organic matter produced in the surface ocean, which is to be respired by heterotrophic organisms to meet their energy requirements and release nutrients back into the surface water. The green cycle represents the internal respiration of phytoplankton themselves, using photosynthesis products for purposes other than growth.
📹 Rigs to Reefs: The Future of Offshore Oil and Gas | Amber Jackson and Emily Callahan | TEDxLAHS
Amber Jackson graduated from UC Berkeley with a B.A. in Marine Science. She also has a M.A.S. in in Marine Biodiversity and …
It’s unfair to talk of the ‘developing’ countries increasing contribution to Co2 levels without pointing out that the main reason they are increasing output is because they are now the ones manufacturing the West’s products. In other words, Europe, Nth America etc are just farming out the damage they are doing, they are still the bigger problem.
1. Plunder nations into poverty. 2. Pretend to fix the damage while finding new ways to plunder even more. 3. Give back a fraction of what was taken and call it aid, like you’re doing them a favor. 4. Complain about spending anything to help plundered nations and blame them for their poverty. 5. Remember that none of these steps was “Stop plundering”
I think city planning and transportation also play a role in our energy consumption. Too many people opt for private vehicle because cities and towns have been built for them, not the people. The reliance on private vehicles is further exacerbated by inferior public transit systems and induced demand for cars wrought on by too many road projects. If we were to address this part of the problem I think we would be able to reduce energy consumption significantly.
As a Nigerian, I can tell you that although there’s currently a lot of rhetoric about net zero, the reality on ground points to very little if any intentions of cutting down on carbon emissions in the near future, and the argument is basically around the unfairness of the developed world asking this of us just when we’re beginning to get our act together having not too long ago come out of the doldrums of colonialism followed by military dictatorships, wars and political instability.
Something overlooked in the article was the opportunity to talk about car dependency, which is the single greatest cause of oil dependency. In the U.S., transportation represents two thirds of all petroleum usage. If the entire world were to have a per capita car ownership equivalent to that of the U.S. (the most car-dependent large nation), it would result in over 6.4 billion vehicles on the road worldwide, and over 4.5 times increase over the current amount. Having all of those being powered by gasoline would be catastrophic to the environment, not to mention it would accelerate peak oil. There are serious concerns about whether there are enough viable mineral resources to create enough batteries to replace our current fleet of ICE vehicles with EVs, plus mining for the required materials poses environmental and human rights issues of its own. The only workaround to these issues is to move past the notion of widespread car ownership. We have to be smart with how we design and re-develop our cities in the future, especially as the world continues to urbanize. Cities of the future need to avoid being like the resource-hungry, financially-insolvent urban sprawl that’s sadly endemic in North America. The way we’ve designed cities for the past 70 years makes it to where most people have to own their own vehicle just to function in society. There are no real alternatives to the automobile in most American and Canadian cities, as walking and cycling are often dangerous and lack suitable infrastructure to support it, and transit is usually woefully inadequate and underfunded.
Damilola Ogunbiyi spoke really well about these issues. Both African people were outstanding in their understanding of the problem and how infeasible it is to just expect developing countries to phase out fossil fuels, especially when they have nowhere near the same resources. Plus, the developing countries are not burning fossil fuels as a hobby, it’s for industrial use, of which the end consumers are worldwide and often these massive conglomerates are owned by developed countries. Really, there’s no use to point fingers at anyone, we all will suffer if we don’t work together. If the end of the world as we know it doesn’t bring humanity together, I don’t know what will. And honestly, I’m kinda really worried we might not make it. Maybe this is the Great Filter of civilisations: whether greed can outweigh morals.
Lol the emissions of developing countries are to produce cheap goods for the developed countries. There should be a rule that developed countries should subsidize the carbon emissions of developing countries so that your daily necessities can continue to be cheap and affordable. Most developing countries people are using more public transportation while every family in the US drives and waste more food that has to be burned off. How about you all fix your own lifestyles before critizing poorer countries?
It got on my nerve when the lady was suggesting ‘us’ developed nations and ‘they’ developing nations. Hope she do know that these so called developed nations plunged, looted and wrecked havoc in creating the poor nations of today. Destiny has played the justice card so now the rich has to pay the poor for their survival.
nobody AINT rich enough to live on solar wind .. this change its a politic agenbda to drive us in a economic collapse .. why not making people life better ? more money less prices how? NUCLEAR FUSION FOSSILS.. green energy needs too much land top produce significanty ammounts… witch they never will
Why not embrace CO2 for one thing it can be pumped into depleting gas fields and prevent sink holes all over the Artic circle and this is happening in Alaska and the Russian Federation. The last reading a CO2 generator can be built using less stages than a traditional gas turbine using Kerosene or natural gas so it will be cheaper. I looked into the equation and using the chemical industry a CO2 generator can be over 50 percent efficient more than coal or nuclear so a serious thought of engineering is needed.
Now with only 1/2 of all the oil that was ever in the ground, we are burning through it at the astonishing rate of 2.1% per year. That leaves us only 47 years worth of oil if we continue at this rate and even less if it is used faster. And there just isn’t really any other way right now to move around goods and people, to create the vast amounts of concrete and fertilizer the way we do other than with oil. Since most economies depend on these things to at least some extent if not completely, the world is in a really difficult situation.
Finally. Someone speaks about the hypocrisy of developed countries. They got everything, but now fhey demand poorer countries not to use oil and other non-removable energy sources. But these people on poorer countries have to have dignified life and access to energy too. Just saying, that “you should not use oil” does not work. Then come and build wind turbines and solar panels for free for poor countries. Then you can blame others
Argumento 1: 10:52 11:38 Argumento 2 (El problema ambiental y el incremento de temperatura): 11:47 13:19 Argumento 3 (Se tiene que evadir el uso de el gas para obtener electricidad en las ciudades que no cuentan con ella) (transición de electricidad): 15:39 19:20 Argumento 4: (conclusiones y soluciones): 13:18 15:12
15:00 – its hilarious to see some American lady puts her concerns for growing emissions in developing world.. Colonial powers and US Imperialists have exploited the resources of developing countries which was aided by the history of 80+ years of coups and military interventions (in the name of bringing “democracy” or ending “weapons of mass destruction”). funny to see them now criticizing developing nations for carbon emissions..!!! Remember, it was Donald Trump who infamously withdraw from Paris agreement and told media that global warming doesn’t exist. I think US should first fix politicians like him and its multi-billion corporations which carry its operation elsewhere in the word..!
14:56 oofadoofa. You wanna maybe ait bacm down with that colonialist privilege right there. “Even IF the US and EU all work together” which they aren’t. The US military alone is one of the biggest polluters on the planet and that’s not even taking the public and business sectors of the country into account. When the developed nations get in order and help developing nations, then you get to float the idea of 3rd world pollution. Good lord, the ignorant privilege on some of these people 🤦♂️
$100 billion/yr from rich countries to developing countries sounds like a lot, but it really isn’t. The population of the OECD is over 1 billion, so it’s an average tax of $100 per person per year (some people pay a lot more, some a lot less). Considering how much this money will help reduce global emissions, it is very much worth it.
I’m working as an Energy Transition professional. The consensus in my field is that if all countries meet the Paris goals, we will be between 2,8-3,8 degrees Celsius. With each degree of warming being a factor 10 more negatively impactful than the latter, we are basically already doomed, if we don’t all take massively drastic action, now.
Fossil fuel comes from before there was major decomposers so dead plants and animals don’t decompose before getting buried by other dead organisms. This created thick layers of material that depending on the soil conditions turned into coal, oil, and natural gasses. The majority of it was plants, not animals because scavengers would eat most of the material from dead animals before it was buried. The reason fossil fuels aren’t replenished is plants decompose before getting buried now.
I love all the points made. Although I have read all these stats and statements before on multiple websites, it is good to upload a article of such amazing quality. Having said that I don’t believe solving this issue is just about reducing co2 emissions (it is) but it is also about how we choose to live together on this planet and the fact that we need a huge paradigm change in your current state of society.
The problem lies where, the developed nations telling developing nations to go reduce emissions But the climate change which occurs now are the remnants of the developed nations emission Although it’s unfair to tell the developing nations to cut off emissions because they are still developing In India many of the places still don’t have electricity, and average usage is very much lower than the US I don’t think my country India can reduce the emissions even though it doesn’t have the money and we have to focus on the basic needs and infrastructure Only thing is developed nations help us and I don’t think they ever do..
Yikes, the sticky situation we’re in. The technology trap is real. We know what happens when a country industrializes too quickly, it’s like a plaque. It spreads quickly and engulfs nearly every person in consumerism (to some degree). Imagine the entire world with a car, 3 bedroom house, and a large chunk of energy to burn. There would be even less space, more pollution, and conflict over what diminishing resources are left. We would essentially have even less time to try and find a long-term fix to these problems. But yes, lighting the last of our resources on fire in order to have a big bonfire everyone can enjoy for a very brief second in time would be quite worth it. Actually, this doesn’t really sound like a good idea. We can all do with a little less, making fewer children, and looking after what little we have left in this world in order to give us a better chance at getting ourselves out of this mess we are in.
Essentially, the western countries went through their industrial revolution to obtain their global wealth status today. And in the process of doing so contribute significantly to global warming and climate change leading to where we are now. Mass consumption and waste come mostly from developed nations. But developing countries have either yet to go through their industrial revolution or is in the process of it. Now western countries are mandating that developing countries forgo it and live in poverty in perpetuity in order to cut back on C02 emissions and green-house gas. Halting their growth and economy. Some of which are already living far below their means and usage and for a long time now. That is a double standard. Where is the fairness in that? Are the first-world countries going to donate funds, education, and resources to build sustainable and renewable energy in these much poorer countries free of charge with no strings attached?
This documentary makes it seem like the rich countries have solutions. They don’t. I would like to make some predictions: 1. We won’t reach net zero emissions by 2050. More than likely it will be 2100 if at all. Conservatives will make it take twice as long. 2. There will be at least one major global war fought over oil as the supply starts to run out. 3. The poorer countries are about to get a lot more greedy a lot faster than you think. The younger generation is expecting to live like Americans. That greed will result in major conflicts the scale of which we haven’t seen in the next 10-20 years.
This makes me want to scream. I want an electric car, I can see it’s the future, but here in the US I’m wondering how we’re going to supply enough electricity. We’d need 62 new Nuclear power plants to supply enough electricity for all Americans to drive EVs. How the heck can we expect a developing country to switch to EV’s when they can’t even keep their electricity on for half the day? We need to start building Nuclear power plants like not even yesterday, more like 10 years ago.
As an Indian it is deeply sad for me to see my nation, India, aspire to join the Global North instead of leading the Global South into a better future. For a civilization that pride ourselves in our harmony with nature we are looking more and more to copy the West of the last century. Just remember this – When the environment collapses and it looks like it will sooner than later all that will matter is the survival of humanity not our economics, not our nationalities, not our political systems!
In my view, most of the “clean energy” solutions being pursued are a shell game. Electric cars, for example, use batteries that require rare earths that are ridiculously petro-energy consuming to extract, transport and refine. Those same cars juice up from electrical grids that are carbon powered. Finally, disposal of those batteries is also energy intensive. All we’ve done is move the pollution from one highly visible source to another that’s more unseen. It’s the Big Lie we all tell ourselves that our children will have to deal with.
Another global warming article Keep Shotguning the topic into every article, how bout welloff nations start assisting other nations that look at crued oil as a cheaper resource to survive or keep up & I’m not talking about imposing sanctions on importing & exporting fossil fuels to them. You can do better. People in poorer country don’t care about the future, they care about surviving now.
We should quantify every countries total carbon emission since the beginning of the industrial age. Whatever % of emissions you are responsible for is the percentage of the cost towards zero emissions that you need to contribute towards the global cost. If you benefitted from fossil fuels, then you should be responsible for migrating away from it.
I highly appreciate how you mentioned biofuels as one of the solutions. A lot of people underestimate how much ships and planes pollute. As well as that, a car that ran on 100% biofuel is much more environmentally-friendly than one that runs on 100% electricity. That’s because their emissions would be solely dependent on their production methods (lithium batteries in particular). Biofuels/efuels are likely gonna be the future for most forms of transportation.
The oil industry contributed trillions to the global economy and changed the lives of hundreds of millions. I like how this documentary acknowledges that to a certain degree, unlike other climate activists who made oil the reason for our destruction. There should be a global fund in the world that accelerates the energy transition, and sourcing the funds through extracting a small percentage of a nation’s GDP based on their emission contribution to the atmosphere throughout the last century. But asking the developing world to ditch the main contributor of growth is bizarrely laughable, and it will never happen.
Why is the solution suggested always to throw money at the problem. Nigeria, like most other 3rd world countries we send money too, has a corruption problem. I think we need to get better at tracking how the money we send is spent, and these recipient countries need to start looking inward for solutions to their own problems.
I’ve worked in the hydrocarbon, mining and adjacent industries for most of my adult life. I’m totally on board with a transition away from fossil fuels as an energy source, but I’m also a realist. As John Browne rightly points out, we’re going to have hydrocarbons for some time yet. So much of what our society function relies on them and there are large technological problems that haven’t been solved. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep investing in next generation technology, though. Some hard decisions will need to be made and also some shibboleths about technologies such as nuclear power need to be rethought. A total reliance on renewables like solar and wind aren’t going to get us to the objective, unless there is a significant breakthrough in storage technology. Transition technologies will need to be implemented and that process has started with natural gas replacing coal. Nuclear and hydrogen could also play a big part in the future, but they need to be made cheap and safe enough to be used anywhere in the world (including developing nations).
No Shipping, No Planes which means No International Shipping and Trade between countries (Without Oil) There are over 3500 by products that uses Oil, from Rubber to all Plastics. Go around your home and count how many things that are made from Plastic and open up your Car and see how many things are made from Rubber. It would be impossible to live as we do now without Oil.
i really feel like we need to reconsider nuclear energy, maybe it’s implementation in africa could lift a lot of people out of the crisis they’re currently facing, i saw no mention of nuclear energy in this article. i can acknowledge that the waste products are not environmentally friendly, but there are ways to manage nuclear waste and with enough research im sure we can find a viable solution to that problem. nuclear could be a stepping stone to a carbon free future for africa without having to compromise a tight budget on expensive new technologies that haven’t necessarily been proven yet. it would be a massive undertaking but honestly it could work in the short term and help africa catch up to the rest of the world
Disappointed to see that this is the typical “Blame the developing world” on emissions. The developing world only emits so much now because the western world has offset almost all of it’s manufacturing to China/India/etc. Of course the emissions of the western world are dropping while those of developing nations are increasing.
The countries and companies that made most profit out of oil/ gas must count the total taxes collected and profit gained in the past centuries and distribute the same equally to all inhabitants of this world that are affected and for restoration. This could be the least thing done to repay the loss that have been caused by them. BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon and USA, Russia Saudi …. can you hear us or you want to remain criminals. From now onwards never boast that you are countries of opportunity (created by criminal activities). Also, the other countries should not follow the same path! And their people not support such ideas.
17:09 That’s the root of the problem, she should stick to the public transport, and give up the desire of owning a car. The cars should be banned all over the world, they are causing 30% of total emissions, people should use bicycles or public transport. So nice to see that people still believe in myths, like technology’s going to save us, when the technology causes the majority of our problems
We are very much on the downswing of supply; many countries dont know or wont say how deeply buried the oil is. The other problem is a lot of these “proven reserves” are garbage petrol (tar sands). They pollute very heavily and require massive processing. The PROBLEM is that non-fossil fuels alone wont work. The practical solution is mostly green, with a backbone of nuclear and natural gas. That’s very achievable wi 25y. We’re at 38% “carbon free” power by including nuclear power. We can reach 60-65% in 25 years or less. Without very clever planning, Dubai, Saudi, etc, will be desolate bodies of poverty by 2050. Water will be 3-6x more expensive and oil… wont be. Shale oil burns through water at an almost unheralded pace. Oil overall kills the water supply in many ways and we’re going to live in a global desert by 2065-2085.
Yeahhhh, we won’t fry, that is the problem and massive misconception that does more harm than good. We will probably be the only species still able to thrive, but not all, the rich and poor disparity would be bigger than any time in history; wars, famine caused by the destruction of whole ecosystems that we rely on without the majority knowing, or yet undiscovered is what will make it a bad situation. Massive immigration too, just a bad situation… And saying the world is on fire, or will be, is ignorant to such extreme degree that it really is more of a joke and takes attention away from the main, focal point which is, we destroy the world simply by living, how much depends, but we should all strive to respect it and not play gods. This whole thing will backfire, trying to find a way to reduce co2 without changing the way we live, and how people think… Plus you know, co2 emissions are a squared, if not cubic relationship, so really the catastrophe is not some far away nightmare, but it is in motion already, it’s a reality, it’s already here, just the worst part is yet to come; really it is too late already, not for us, but for the world.
The section from about 16:00 onwards about emergy in developing countries is really putting me off. The whole narrative about these countries needing to be developed, being behind the developed countries by 200-300 years, whats that about? In fact it’s systematic geopolitical and economic oppression, or the consequences thereof. And now we’re telling them that their way of recovering from that, or their attempt at dealing the hand we dealt them does not meet our recently adopted standards? Because it might push us beyond a tipping point we have placed ourselves at? Its redonculous.
Europes population is dying out. And developing countries population is constantly growing, that is impacting oil consumption primarily in that region. Maybe it also should be under consideration for developing countries to have less kids? Oh no, this is something that this article produces forgot to mention.
Bicycles are the most efficient form of transportation. Many Wish they could use bicycles to commute to work, grocery shopping and to school. But the road are full of careless drivers. IF they were green ways (Roads for bicycles) that were convenient and safe a good percent of people would driver much less. But Americans in most places are forced to drive motor vehicles.
Discuss some water-resistant physical crops. Remember the different terms used in chemistry. Explain the alkaline effect in water? Distinguish between primary and secondary differences. Mention the reason for hard water? Determine the best way to separate the distributions and its sewers. Summarize the burning process clearly
Let’s talk again in 5 years time. I think people will be caught off guard at how quickly the automotive landscape is going to change. EV sales (albeit BEV and PHEV) experienced 100% growth in 2021, to make up 9% of new car sales globally. And I suspect it will grow even more in 2022. If so, then 20%, or more of new cars sold will be EVs at the end of 2022. And a short 3 years from now, in 2025, it will not be uncommon to find EVs that cost basically as much as petrol/diesel versions. From what I know this time frame has been the goal for automotive giants, like VW, for years already. EV sales will only surge from there. 2026-2028… The time when the total number of petrol/diesel cars in the world will likely start going down. Cars do not last forever – Most are scrapped within 10 years in developed economies. Let that sink in. The demand for oil will start going down in this decade already. Don’t be fooled by new investment. In the cutthroat world of fossil fuels a lot of short term profits are possible. 5 Years is still enough time to see attractive ROIs. So no surprise there. After that though… Get ready to do some new interviews to get some new opinions not too long from now 🙂
Hawaii already over 30% renewables primarily due to private, residential rooftop solar not government or electric companies. I save $500/month with solar and EV on gas and home electricity. I can not control healthcare costs but can control energy costs. My EV is 7 years old with only maintenance are tires. No oil filters in land fills every 5000 miles. My EV has never visited the dealership as super reliable as only a few moving parts.
It’s not entirely correct to claim that the US has reduced its overall emissions and compare it with developing countries. The US shift towards “cleaner natural gas” is a type of greenwashing. Although natural gases do emit fewer emissions, they release methane, which is more powerful and often underreported.
China will deliver the low cost Solar & EV technology for Africa. It already make solar PV cheap for the world, and is pioneering low cost, simple EV technology for it’s domestic market that is below the cost of ICE vehicles. Nice small EVs are already on the market for US$4,000 and below, these are suitable for Africa. Tesla will not do this, not enough profit for them.
“Energy is that golden threat that connects people to opportunity” Perhaps from a purely economic perspective, but the woes of the world – and the driving factor of the ongoing climate crisis – remains the existence of currencies. If young people now truly want opportunities for their future, then we need to rid ourselves of this obsolete money system. Money: – Leads to inequality, in terms of wealth inequality within countries, wealth inequality between countries, inequality of opportunity (see Nigeria and the UK), etc… – Enforces greed, leading to inequality and corruption – Hinders too many people from reaching their full potential, because they are more busy surviving than with living – Wastes so many resources just for ‘creative bookkeeping’ to make companies and governments look ‘good’ that the offenders should be jailed for this insidious crime – Is – in modern times – about as valuable as empty air, but we give it value for the sake of it. Even if we fix the oil crisis, the existence of currencies will not do away with the vast amounts of inequality across the globe.
Oil is projected to dwindle after 2045, and it will be already strategic – special – source to be supplied for specific industry by 2035. But all in all, Oil will be gone after 2055 completely. Last drops of well be operational until after few years and that is end soon. By 2045 it will be complete chaos for energy of transportation and for lubricant materials as there are no cheap source for that. Electric cannot compete as lubricant or it is not energy holder/accumulator. It will be rough years by 2040’s – many people but no way to feed and satisfy them.
I know I’m perusal this a late but it’s a bit rich having the Nigerian commentator complaining about there not being enough western investment…right after noting the problems are Nigeria all boil down to corruption. There is more than enough money flowing through all OPEC members to be first world nations but OPEC members are all largely corrupt nations.
You seriously thinks these big sharks like BP, Shell, etc will let people live without the need of oil. They will create situations or circumstances where generations will still depend upon oil. What’s the reason of politicians and government not investing heavily in electric cars 🤔? I know why, something off here, right !
It’s been warned us over 1400 years ago. QS Ar Rome 41 : Corruption and disorder have appeared on land and in the sea because of what the hands of people have (done and) earned (of evil deeds). Thus He causes them to taste the consequence of some of what they have done, so that they may (take heed, repent and reform, and so) return (to the right way).
I was sad at the attempt around 15:00 to shift the focus to the developing world… most of the emissions from these countries are by companies based in developed countries, to make products that will be shipped and used in developed countries. They just exported the manufacture (and therefore emissions) because labor is cheaper in the developing world. As with most global problems, the developed countries and their extremely consumeristic and trash-based culture is causing most of the problems here.
so basically rich western countries are saying- we made a lot of money from YOUR oil and we left a lot of carbon emissions, now we are rich and successful and we want you developing countries to stop doing what we did to develop and move towards green energy. Also yeah we will not help you because we technically exploited your resource, but still we want you to change, and quick. P.S. we are still open to invest in our oil companies :0
The only thing I tell the developing world is to stop overpopulating the planet. Yes, developed countries have higher emissions but the population of the continent of Europe is half that of India. It’s not the developed world’s fault that India has 1.4 billion people. You can either emit or you can have 8 children but you can’t have both – the choice is yours.
Great documentary but it misse the most important factor: human psychology. Humans tend to put their self preservation above all else, anything that threatens their way of life is off limits. And the way it works is short term always ahead of any long term concerns. We are animals and that’s an instinct, we are programed to be prepared for winter, not for what comes in 30 years. We will just go full speed against the wall because it’s our nature. Braking will only be a solution when the problem enters our short term view.
We need to free the world of the Oil Industry,whose lobbyists and money had degraded human life and health, all for a small population of rich people’s greed fulfillment. They had killed off research and scientists and had hushed scientific advancements in other fields due to greed. While I do agree oil helped to advance technology initially, but we have become more relying on it, which is unhealthy.
Please don’t be moral police. There is principle incorporated in Paris climate i.e. CBDR. YES, there is responsibility of everyone, but developed countries must lead first. If developed countries asks every other countries to transition on their time chosen, then it is not fair and right. Dear VOX, please take the opinion of people living in region where there is no electricity or roads, medical care. You people take the opinion of people living the penthouse and travel by chartered plane to deliver a speech on climate change.
Climate change is undoubtedly real. However, the way in which we deal with that challenge is perhaps the most important desicion humans will make this decade. Keep in mind that the problem with many of the green technologies is scalability and the need for huge amounts of prescious metals. Most of the key types of prescious metals needed for green technologies are found in russia and china. The idea that we can procure the massive amounts of prescious metals needed for a transition is highly unlikely, at this time and the foreseeable future.
I believe Climate change is one of the greatest problems we face but I don’t think banning plastic straws or having more people buy electric cars will solve it. Governments are using the general public as a scapegoat and are not actually doing anything to change themselves. So until the governemts change and implement radical new ideas I will enjoy my gas 🚗 and every other luxury that fails to put even a microscopic dent in the environment as we’re not the ones who will solve it.
Oil has given mankind a boost towards a higher level of development but at a high price on the long run. The more developped western world will find a way out by new forms of energy and the oil based countries will become very poor and the biggest taboo of all … the extreme overpopulation of the entire world especially in third world countries ( the southern hemesfere of earth ) will lead towards catastrophies unseen before. To put large numbers of children into a world without any hope and future is also totally unresponsable … Nigeria has doubled its population since … but who will feed them ?
The division of profits between oil companies and the host country where the reserves lied may look unfair, but you need to consider that some of those countries would have never been able to extract that oil since they lacked the technology. Nationalizing seems extreme, seems they are forcefully taking decades of research and innovation done from the country of the oil company.
It will be impossible to get to net zero by 2050 because China and other countries are expanding consumption of fossil fuels. Also, all products in the stores contain oil in them. Another problem is that when I try to go green I cannot afford to buy the EVs and the solar panels. There is no plan to address these problems so it will not happen
I agree that the countries responsible for the exploitation of poorer countries should help the transition but we all know that’s not going to happen. The poorer countries have a responsibility to transition to clean energy immediately because they will be the first to suffer the effects of climate change. I also don’t think that anyone is expecting a poor person to buy a new EV when they want to buy an old car. The embedded carbon in the purchase of the new EV reduces the carbon savings when compared to an older vehicle. If they wanted to buy a new car then an EV would be the better option.
Emissions are growing in developing world, but it’s still a fraction of the per capita emission in the West. It’s a long long way to go. Let’s bring that to the same level first. The woke population of the west travels around the world and waste tons of food while they are calling out for lower emissions.
Humanity will use oil until its end. Most plastics are made from oil and plastic is used everywhere. Energy, fuel and oil production are different directions. Developing countries can continue to produce oil for the oil refining industry, and at the same time can be replaced more green fuel for machins.
Build a giant electric heating element 20 feet in diameter, capable of melting rock to the molten stage. then build pumps that are capable of pumping this melted rock to the surface, keeping it hot and molten. Sink these heating elements in shafts that go down 20 kms below the earth’s surface, almost to the point where the rock itself is molten. Then stop, and leave the heating elements down there. Now use that shaft to generate geothermal power. Simple.
National aquaduct construction from Gulf of Mexico to Pacific to Atlantic, possibly to Great Lakes also: harvesting sea minerals, hemp/corn (ethanol)/food crop irrigation, drinking water production, and…ENERGY creation using hydroelectric, wind, hydrogen, and solar methods. Natural gas/coal would be used as backup resource for critical systems. Write your government officials, use social media, and request investment in these opportunities.