In my last entry I claimed that the phenomena of peak oil would cause great economic and social hardships on the entire world. Here I hope to shed light on the more specific threats we can expect to see in the coming decades. Many may argue that they are perfectly content to just ride a bicycle or that they have no need for a car where they live, and a few people even claim they would be fine without electricity and all of the work that entails. However, this is not the extent of the problem. The problem is that all of us, regardless of our attachment to modern luxury, have to eat to survive and currently the worlds agriculture is very heavily dependent on oil. In a recent article published in the The Salt Lake Tribune it was bluntly stated that,
"Inhabitants of the United States literally eat oil. Oil is necessary to make the fertilizer and pesticides used on our crops; to irrigate them; and to fuel the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest them. In one study conducted in 1994, it was calculated that feeding each American each year required the equivalent of 400 gallons of oil, exclusive of the energy, mainly oil, needed for packaging, refrigeration, transportation, and cooking. The authors calculated that for every calorie of food energy delivered to the consumer, 10 calories of other energy, mostly oil, are required. The lesson is clear: Without oil we starve."Human life will go on without many of oils products such as the transportation, electronics and machinery but a break down in the farming system leads to famine. Human population has doubled in roughly 60 years and our oil consumption has increased even more exponentially. Traditional, pre-oil agriculture simply cannot feed 7 billion people. In a report sponsored by the European Union it was determined that the greatly enhanced yields from hydrocarbon aided farming produces about 75% of the worlds grain and feeds roughly 60% of the human population. As it stands, that is almost 4 billion people. Anything but the most optimistic of view points is rather troubling when all of this is considered.
Over the summer, my older brother Ben had an internship with Bayer Corporation. Through conversations with him, I learned that the field of agricultural research is concerned as much with helping farmers become more efficient as it is helping them improve their yields.
ReplyDeleteA quick search of the Internet uncovered many sites devoted to farming with less fossil fuel. In one article in particular, Farming with Less Fossil Fuel Won’t Mean Fewer Crops, an agronomy professor from Iowa State University, Matt Liebman stated that “many farmer s recognize that what [they] do now derives in a large part from relatively inexpensive energy” and that “[they] may have to reevaluate what’s the best system for our land and our climates.” In this article Liebman and his coworkers were said to be “experimenting with alternatives.” One alternative is crop rotation. Using a rotation of crops such as alfalfa acted as its own fertilizer by returning nutrients back to the soil. If soil was needed, natural fertilizers such as cow manure would be used which would cut down on the use of synthetics. “We were able to reduce our use of fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil fuels a lot without reducing crop production,” Liebman later said.
Another way farmers are avoiding the “break down in the farming system,” as you stated, is that they’re beginning to use more energy efficient farm equipment. According to Energy Efficiency and Farm Equipment, research is being conducted to not only reduce the energy needed for tractors but also that for motors and lighting for systems such as irrigation. Currently “18 percent of known and categorized energy uses on the farm” is for these systems. The same article states, “According to ACEEE researchers, the highest potential savings can come from pumps, fans, blowers, and compressors.” Clearly though much more may need to be done to reduce the American farmers’ use of fuel, many companies and organizations are working in that direction. Should the government provide funding to individuals and corporations so that the changes can happen more quickly?
Certainly, awareness is rising and steps are being made to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. I try not to sound too much like an alarmist in my posts about this but the problem may be that it is too little and too late. As I pointed out, practically all manufacturing relies on oil currently. So for us to even make needed equipment to "go green" such as solar panels and wind turbines, we need oil. Many experts are concerned that we are procrastinating as a nation and that when the very urgent need for another energy source is upon us we wont have the remaining infrastructure to make the switch.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your picture. It caught my attention with all of the color. I found your blog very scary. The reason it was scary is because I can see so much truth in it. I am a very optimist person and I believe that humans should come up with new ideas to try and replace oil in as many places as we can. It would not fix the problem completely but it could help. We should not just say that we are going to use up the oil and theres no turning back or slowing it down. We could slow the process down with small alternatives until we find something that can impact it greatly. An article from http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/What-Is-The-Future-of-Oil-Are-Alternatives-Ready-to-Take-up-the-Gauntlet.html that really caught my eye with some alternatives for now and the future.
ReplyDeleteIf Earth was an elevator, we'd all be crashing towards the basement. The very premise of our society can't support infinite growth--at least not without massacring the environment.
ReplyDeleteSo I welcome the coming of peak oil. Maybe this will convince our country to treat this issue seriously. It's as if there's this attitude that mankind has dominion over the world and is free to do as he pleases without consequence. Perhaps its the notion that it's a problem for tommorow rather than today. Maybe peak oil will finally snap people out of the daze; this will finally push industries into alternative energy by necessity.
I think the tile of your blog was connected to your argument well. I also think the picture was a great choice because it shows the Earth right by the sun and it draws the reader's attention to the picture. The overall argument of the blog was presented well also. I was able to flow from one standing point to another. The only thing I can say that could have been added was more sources that explained how oil is important to humanity.
ReplyDeleteIn http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_emergingtechnologies.htm, I found out that they are moving from fossil fuel to hygrogen. The term, “hydrogen economy” refers to a global economy powered by hydrogen. Maybe this can be something considered in the future.