The following is a continuation of the previous post.
Burning coal presents a whole other set of potential problems. As is to be expected burning coal releases a lot of carbon into the air, increasing the carbon ratio in the atmosphere, and contributing to global warming (unless, of course, you’re a global warming skeptic, in which case none of that is true.) Additionally, however, burning coal produces lots of other by-products, including various forms of sulfur and nitrogen, some of which are toxic. The result is toxic substances are also added to the air we breathe. Even some of the safe sulfur and nitrogen compounds that result from coal combustion can have terrible effects. Consider sulfur dioxide, for example. Sulfur dioxide can react with oxygen to create sulfur trioxide, which then reacts with water in the atmosphere to produce sulfuric acid, which then falls to the ground as acid rain. Acid rain can destroy ecosystems.
Coal is made primarily of carbon and hydrogen. However, coal also contains other elements such as sulfur and nitrogen as already mentioned. Yet coal may contain many other elements, including things like arsenic, lead, mercury, uranium, and thorium. You may recognize that some of these elements are heavy metals, which are generally considered to have a negative effect on human and animal health. When the coal remains in the earth these elements also remain in the earth. Once coal is mined and especially once it is burned then these elements make their way into the atmosphere, waterways, etc. You may also recognize that a few of the elements listed are radioactive. An interesting (and scary?) note is that due to the volume of coal burned throughout the world there is more nuclear waste as the result of coal than nuclear power plants.
Petroleum is another fossil fuel used as a major energy source throughout the world. But petroleum too has plenty of problems associated with it at every stage, from extraction to combustion. Consider that offshore drilling often requires dredging the ocean floor, which totally destroys the ancient ecosystems there. Probably the worst environmental damage due to extraction is for “non-conventional” oil such as “tar sands”. Mining tar sands often involves wholesale ecological destruction such as clearing whatever plant life might exist, be that brush or forests or anything between. Then what is referred to as the “overburden” is removed. “Overburden” is a technical term that means all the soil, rock, etc. that is above the tar sands. The rest of the extraction for tar sands is just as horrific, involving water contamination and waste.
Once oil has been extracted that oil is then transported to other regions of the world to convert it into other forms or products. This always runs the risk of an oil spill, whether from a pipeline, a truck, or a ship. We all remember the stories of the various oil spill disasters in the ocean. While all oil spills are destructive, the oil spills in water are particularly catastrophic since they are impossible to contain. The result is an amazing death toll of lifeforms throughout the affected region.
When petroleum is used as fuel its combustion emits all sorts of things into the atmosphere, including many of the same compounds as coal such as nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, and sulfur compounds. As we all know gasoline-powered engines emit carbon monoxide, which is dangerous to human health.
Natural gas is often touted as the “clean fossil fuel” because it emits less carbon into the atmosphere when burned when compared to coal or petroleum. However, natural gas still emits carbon into the atmosphere that wouldn’t be emitted if it wasn’t extracted and burned.
Thus far I’ve listed just the obvious problems with fossil fuels. But there are plenty of other problems that we don’t often consider. For example, what is the toll we pay for fossil fuel extraction in terms of the loss of human rights? Consider that historically and still today indigenous people are displaced through coercion or outright violence to gain access to the fossil fuels on their land. Also, there are plenty of examples where powerful governments such as the United States has supported or does support authoritarian regimes where they have an interest in maintaining access to fossil fuels in those regions.
We should also consider some of the other costs associated with fossil fuels that are much subtler and much more open to interpretation.
The use of fossil fuels correlates to the rise in world population. Fossil fuels have allowed for many scientific discoveries and technologies that allow the earth to support a population much larger than it would otherwise. One of the most striking examples is the “green revolution” which started in the 1950s. Fossil fuels are a significant and critical part of the changes of the green revolution. Natural gas is used for fertilizers. Petroleum is used for pesticides. And fossil fuels are used to power irrigation systems. The green revolution saw an increase in grain production of 250% from 1950 to 1984.
Setting aside for a minute the concern over whether or not peak oil is real and what the implications might be for agriculture if oil production is in decline. And setting aside also the concern over whether or not it is possible to meet the agricultural demands of a still-growing population. I think those are both issues worth considering. But there is also another issue that is more immediately important. What have been the resulting consequences of the population increases supported by fossil fuels? Just because fossil fuels have been able to provide the energy necessary to power an agricultural system (sustainable or not) to meet the needs of 6.5+ billion people doesn’t necessarily mean that there aren’t other negative consequences to consider. More people means more demand for other things too…like water. And the amount of water on the planet is basically fixed. We aren’t going to be able to use fossil fuels to make significantly more water. More people also means greater land requirements. That means we are pushing plants and animals off their land. That means losses to biodiversity. That weakens the entire system’s ability to adapt to changes.
Even if we don’t want to consider the environmental impacts or the impacts on personal health of fossil fuel use, there is still the social impact to consider. As I wrote previously, the use of fossil fuels has dramatically changed our way of life. Without fossil fuels we wouldn’t have electricity, telephony, automobiles, trains, airplanes, polyester, plastic, or any of the countless marvels (or mundanities) of modern life. It is difficult to know what all of the social impacts have been, though I suppose one of the ways we can guess is to simply compare our modern experience with that of modern traditional primitive (I use this word in a neutral or even a positive intent, meaning primary or natural) groups or perhaps our understanding of historical primitive groups. What is different socially?
I’m not expert on these matters. I’m not an anthropologist. But I’ll venture a few speculations. It seems to me that one really major change is about extreme mobility. Today it is possible for the average American to take an airplane to China, for example. I would guess that primitive groups, though perhaps nomadic in nature, simply don’t experience that sort of mobility. They may move a few hundred miles in a lifetime, but not tens of thousands of miles in a weekend. What are the implications of this sort of extreme mobility? Well, I can only speak from my own personal experience and my observation of the experiences of those I know. I live thousands of miles away from my parents. My sister lives hundreds of miles away from my parents. Is this good or bad? I don’t know. But it’s a fact. Perhaps all the Christian fundamentalists who cry over the “loss of family values” ought to be out protesting oil companies along with the indigenous people of places like Ecuador instead of supporting foreign wars in the middle east. But I’m not a Christian fundamentalist, and I guess I just don’t understand the thinking there well enough.
Fossil fuels have almost certainly changed the ways in which we spend most of our days. Far fewer people today live self-reliant lives. Almost all of us are now dependent on various systems even for basic things like water. As a result we are expected to pay back these systems by working. Our professions are often the sort of things that only exist in a society powered by fossil fuels. For example, even in other historical empires there were never computer programmers, and certainly in subsistence cultures this sort of division of labor was much less pronounced. (Note that I’m not claiming that division of labor is not present in societies without fossil fuels. I’m just observing that the division of labor seems to be much more pronounced as a result of our use of fossil fuels.)
Not only do I live thousands of miles from my parents, but I also live far away from lots of other places where I used to live. I’ve moved to probably five different cities in fewer than five years. What is the effect of this? How does it affect our social behavior, our attitudes, our relationships, etc.? Does this hyper-mobility destroy community? Does it reduce our attention span? Does it reduce our patience? Are we more likely to bail out when the going gets tough because we believe somewhere else will be better? What toll does that exact on our souls? Is it any wonder many of us in modern society feel isolated and alone? Perhaps we’ve lost out on the sort of intimacy and maturity that can develop through sticking it out.
Does fossil fuel entertainment similarly move us in an increasingly isolated and restless direction? Recorded music is available at any time, and you can listen by yourself or with the people you select. But without recorded music what changes? In a primitive context music is social out of necessity. It may not be convenient. It may not be on my terms. I may have to be around people I don’t want to be around. It may be at a time when I’d rather be doing something else. But are these inherently negatives?
The endless forms of entertainment made possible by fossil fuels such as cinema, television, and video on the Internet changes us too, I think. It seems to me that we’re all cynics. And we view entertainment as competitive, pitting one movie against another as though it was tournament. Has the art been lost then? Has the community been lost? Has the spirit of it been lost?
Another thing that occurs to me is the way in which all the comforts and conveniences afforded by fossil fuels may well make us less vitally alive, less appreciative, less joyous. I enjoy warmth in the winter. But it’s worth questioning whether such conveniences are without a cost. What do we lose by having heated homes and cars and offices and such? Do we lose touch with our fellow humans, our plant and animal brethren, and even our home, the planet? Do we forget that we can’t control everything? Do we forget that convenience and comfort are just possible experiences, not necessarily better or worse than, say, inconvenience and discomfort. Perhaps there are lessons and wisdom we miss out on by avoiding inconvenience and discomfort.