Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The crisis doesn’t undermine fossil fuels’ material benefits—it spotlights why they remain indispensable and why pretending otherwise is a luxury we can no longer afford. Pragmatic abundance, not ideological phase-outs, is the path to security and prosperity.
The crisis doesn’t undermine fossil fuels’ material benefits—it spotlights why they remain indispensable and why pretending otherwise is a luxury we can no longer afford. Pragmatic abundance, not ideological phase-outs, is the path to security and prosperity.
Recent calls for a more realistic shift from “decarbonization” to “low carbon” suggest that discomfort with ideology-driven climate policy is finally beginning to surface in public debate. For years, climate discussions in many countries have been dominated by abstract targets, slogans, and numerical commitments. Yet behind these lofty ideals lies a deeper and more practical question:
Have we come to understand energy far too narrowly?
Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 have made that question impossible to ignore.
Today, under the banner of decarbonization, energy is often treated as if it were synonymous with electricity. Public discussion tends to focus on how to generate electricity without carbon emissions, how quickly electric vehicles can replace conventional cars, or how far renewable electricity from wind turbines and solar panels can expand. These are important questions, but they are not the whole picture. From the perspective of a chemical engineer, reducing the energy debate to electricity alone is equivalent to seeing only half of civilization.
Fossil fuels are not merely inputs for electricity generation. They are also indispensable raw materials for the modern industrial world. In addition to supporting transportation systems, more than 6,000 products that sustain daily life—including clothing, medical equipment, fertilizers, plastics, synthetic fibers, housing materials, detergents, packaging, and countless industrial components—owe their existence to the material benefits of fossil fuels. Oil and natural gas are not simply burned; they are transformed into the feedstocks from which modern life is built.
This distinction is crucial. When policymakers and activists speak as though the problem can be solved simply by replacing fossil-fuel-based power generation with renewable electricity, they overlook the material foundation of modern civilization. Electricity alone cannot replace the petrochemical chains that support medicine, sanitation, food production, logistics, communication devices, transportation, and housing. Even a society that succeeds in electrifying much of its transport and power system would still face the question of how to secure the immense range of materials now derived from fossil resources.
That is why the petrochemical industry deserves far more attention than it usually receives in climate discussions. Fossil-fuel feedstocks are processed into basic petrochemical products such as ethylene and propylene, which then branch out into thousands of derivative products. This vast network of transformation supports not only clothing, food, transportation, and housing, but also the medical and sanitary systems upon which public health depends. In every sense, it forms part of the very fabric of modern civilization.
Once we understand this, it becomes obvious that a disruption in fossil-fuel supply would mean far more than higher gasoline prices or temporary pressure on power generation. If supplies were seriously interrupted, the consequences would reach into nearly every corner of daily life. The clothes we wear, the medicines we take, the smartphones we use, the fertilizers that sustain agriculture, and even the containers and packaging that transport food and medical goods would all be affected by shortages of raw materials.
The modern world is not merely powered by fossil fuels; it is materially structured by them. This is why recent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have such profound significance.
The issue is not limited to geopolitics, tanker traffic, or fluctuations in energy prices. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most critical chokepoints in the global energy system, and instability there exposes just how vulnerable advanced societies remain. When supply routes are threatened, what is at stake is not only energy security in the narrow sense, but also the continuity of the material systems that sustain ordinary life.
In the spring of 2026, the gap between ideology and reality became visible all at once. Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, together with the stark reminder that some countries, such as Japan, rely on finite imported fossil-fuel supplies measured in days, were not merely statistics.
They were a warning about the fragility of everyday life itself. Numbers like these may appear dry and technical, but behind them lies a simple truth: if supply chains are strained for long enough, the effects will be felt not only in fuel markets but across the full range of goods on which modern society depends.
What had long been obscured under the rhetoric of decarbonization was suddenly illuminated by crisis. The “thickness of civilization” became visible again. By this I mean the dense, interconnected, and often invisible material network that supports human well-being: industrial chemistry, manufacturing, transportation, sanitation, communications, healthcare, agriculture, and construction. These are not marginal or optional features of modern life. They are its substance. And this crisis revealed that more than 6,000 products essential to daily life could be placed at risk at the same time.
None of this means that environmental problems should be ignored, or that societies should abandon efforts to reduce waste, improve efficiency, and pursue cleaner technologies. But it does mean that energy policy must begin from a more honest understanding of reality. A civilization cannot be sustained on slogans. Nor can policymakers responsibly design the future while pretending that fossil fuels are nothing more than a dirty legacy to be discarded. They are also part of the material infrastructure of life as we know it.
The real challenge, therefore, is not to deny this dependence, but to manage it wisely. A mature energy policy should aim not at simplistic moral purity, but at resilience, prudence, and realism. It should ask how societies can preserve the quality of life, maintain stable supply chains, reduce unnecessary waste, and use limited resources intelligently. It should also recognize that technological transition takes time, and that forcing change without regard for material realities can produce shortages, instability, and needless harm.
To face reality is not an act of resignation. On the contrary, it is the most sincere and forward-looking course of action. It means acknowledging the tension between ideals and practical necessity, while continuing to take steady and responsible steps. From that starting point, we can begin to redesign energy policy in a way that is both sustainable and humane—one that respects the environment without forgetting the material foundations of civilization itself.
Ronald Stein, P.E. is a CO2 Coalition engineer, energy consultant, speaker, author of books and articles on energy literacy, environmental policy, and human rights, and Founder of PTS Advance, a California based company.
What’s New!
The CO2 Coalition has released its new episode of the Climate DebriefPodcast featuring Jim Steele. Watch the full video on YouTube here!
Canada has abundant, low-cost natural gas reserves—primarily in Alberta and British Columbia—that give it a major competitive edge for producing nitrogen-based fertilizers (like ammonia, urea, and ammonium nitrate). These fertilizers rely on natural gas both as a feedstock (for hydrogen via steam methane reforming) and as an energy source. Roughly 80% of the gas in the ammonia production process serves as feedstock.
Canada has abundant, low-cost natural gas reserves—primarily in Alberta and British Columbia—that give it a major competitive edge for producing nitrogen-based fertilizers (like ammonia, urea, and ammonium nitrate).
These fertilizers rely on natural gas both as a feedstock (for hydrogen via steam methane reforming) and as an energy source. Roughly 80% of the gas in the ammonia production process serves as feedstock.
Canada already ranks as a top global player in fertilizers, especially potash (from Saskatchewan mines like those operated by Nutrien, a world leader).
It also produces significant nitrogen fertilizers, with facilities concentrated in Western Canada.
In recent years, Canada has been a net exporter of fertilizers, with exports surging during global price spikes (e.g., post-2022).
However, Eastern Canada still imports some nitrogen products, and Western Canada occasionally imports urea despite overall strength.
Global nitrogen fertilizer supply faces risks from geopolitical instability.
About one-third of the world’s supply routes through the Strait of Hormuz, where production in places like the Middle East, India, and elsewhere depends on cheap natural gas.
Disruptions (e.g., conflicts affecting shipping or gas flows) can spike prices worldwide, as seen in early 2026 reports of fertilizer cost surges impacting farmers in Canada and the U.S. Canada benefits from stable, low AECO natural gas prices compared to many competitors, making domestic production more resilient and potentially profitable for export.
Recent commentary (e.g., from agricultural outlets) urges Canada to “get on it”: prioritize expanding nitrogen fertilizer capacity using its cheap gas instead of focusing solely on LNG exports or other sectors. This could:
Boost food security at home and abroad (nitrogen fertilizers help feed billions via higher crop yields).
Create high-value jobs and economic growth in Western Canada.
Reduce import dependence for specific products like urea.
Position Canada as a reliable supplier during global shortages, turning a potential crisis into opportunity.
Canada’s natural gas production is growing (around 19 Bcf/d recently, projected to rise significantly with more LNG tie-ins), but much of the push has gone toward LNG exports to Asia rather than value-added domestic processing like fertilizers. Proponents argue more focus on fertilizer plants would better leverage the resource for agriculture and manufacturing.
Is anyone else out there having trouble keeping up? A week ago I thought AI was the topic of the decade, either going to render humanity useless or lead to some sort of free-high-income ‘paradise’ where we don’t have to do anything at all. Kind of a big deal.
And yet this past week I’ve hardly heard a word about it. It must be all over. AI must have slipped us into the matrix so quietly and efficiently we didn’t even notice.
But probably not. Nothing like a good old war to bump AI off the front pages, that and…oil prices up 25 percent in a single day (or wherever they are now).
You all are here for energy news, which is not in short supply, because the internet is this week full of tens of thousands of brand new Strait of Hormuz experts, who moved on from being Venezuela oil experts a few weeks ago. Insta-geniuses are remarkably nimble with ChatGPT in the holster.
Such swarming is unfortunate, because actually there is a ton of good information out there from true experts that have come to the surface. These experts have been there for a long time, but no one cared. And now they do. And some of those facts about the Strait of Hormuz are definitely attention-grabbing, well beyond oil markets.
But first, about those oil markets, which remain absolutely important because the price of oil drives everything, and US President Trump is as sensitive to oil prices as one can possibly be.
Thirty years ago, there was a mighty beast that lurked in the oil markets, mostly dormant, but sometimes not, and the beast was known as ‘geopolitical risk’. At the first sign of trouble in the Middle East, oil prices would jump by a significant percentage almost immediately, and just hover there nervously until whatever skirmish dissolved back into the weeds.
For the past 15 years or so, markets got bored with that whole topic, and geopolitical risk was largely ignored, because the shale revolution flooded the market and held prices steady no matter what sort of bombastic goonery happened in the Middle East. In a period of remarkable growth, US oil production shot up dramatically, and seemed to be able to respond rapidly to price signal. Here’s a representative commentary circa 2015 that captures the spirit of the times, from the Strauss Center for International Security and Law: “The Shale Revolution may be changing some core structural dynamics in the oil and natural gas markets, in large part because shale production is believed to be more flexible and responsive to market conditions than most forms of conventional production. Shale production is more likely to be shut down when oil prices drop well below break-even points, and it can be ramped back up again more quickly than conventional production whenever prices rise. This is likely have significant long-term effects on the oil and gas industry…”
And it sure did. Until it doesn’t.
Without a doubt, shale resources are capable of a lot of production, and actually increasing production as well. But not at the trajectory the world became used to. And, despite the fact that wells can now be drilled in astonishingly quick times, that speed isn’t enough to keep up with global supply shocks, because drillers don’t respond to price shocks the way they used to.
A few decades ago, when Saudi Arabia was the true swing producer, they would jack the market around any which way they wanted to push price signals, and everyone believed them because they could and did rapidly shut in production to support prices, or do the reverse. Over time, they didn’t even have to actually take these actions; they simply said they would do it and markets reacted accordingly like a well-trained dog.
Shale drillers are different (as are most producers, not just shale). They respond to price signals; they don’t proactively manage them. And they have become a very skeptical bunch, not impressed by short term price fluctuations, not enough to go crazy with the drill bit anyway.
The Wall Street Journal ran an article on this very topic the other day called ‘Why American Frackers Aren’t Rushing to Pump More Oil’. Various quoted executives captured the mood: ‘ “What we’re doing today is nothing different than I did yesterday,” said Wes Perry, chairman of Permian driller PBEX. “We’re not running any new economics.” ‘
‘ “We don’t like to whipsaw these programs up or down,” ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Ryan Lance told analysts.’29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html
‘ “Do you really want to sign a contract at $75 plus oil, or let’s just say $90, and by the time you sign the rig contract, get the rig out there 90 days later, oil is straight back to $50?” Said a managing partner of Formentera Partners, a US oil and gas producer.
The most common theme amongst producers is that they would need to see prices rise and stay high for at least several months, and also show some strength in forward markets so that higher prices can be locked in for a period of time long enough to help ensure well payouts. Until that happens, producers will generally just take the extra cash to fortify themselves, pay down debt, or return to shareholders.
So we are in a new world order, where OPEC is pretty much tapped out as far as being able to ramp up energy prices at will, and the world’s largest producer only reacting to prices and not managing them as OPEC did when in its prime.
What’s scary this time around though is the reappearance of the beast, geopolitical risk, and this time it’s not messing around. (Best analysis I’ve found, one everyone should read, is here – a clear, concise explanation of the global machinery and strategies at play around Iran. This is not a US-bombs-a-country story. It is a geopolitical lynchpin to everything).
There is a reason so much attention is being focused on the Strait of Hormuz situation. It is not just a pinch point for oil supplies, a huge amount of other materials flows through there as well. This region is a major transshipment alley between Asia and Europe.
If energy people, and Alberta, and Canada, take one thing out of the Hormuz situation it is this, and it is a very big deal, possibly as big as it gets, and the solution is obvious and the right thing to do:
One third of the world’s supply of nitrogen fertilizer passes through the Strait of Hormuz. The reason so much fertilizer originates in that unstable part of the world is because of access to cheap natural gas. This is little else more relevant to Canada than that.
Are you listening politicians? Danielle Smith? Tim Hodgson? Mark Carney? It is possible that the world will be in a very desperate need for fertilizer soon, and there is no better place it should come from than Canada, with our pathetically low natural gas prices.
No, creating businesses is not the government’s business – getting out of the way, is. Clear the regulatory detritus! Canada can shine in a remarkable way, not just from our resources, but from…feeding the world. Even more than our awesome farmers already do. Politicians, put your crafty little heads together and clear the path. Stop chasing climate goblins and get to work.
Of course, none of those key governmental people are reading this. But someone is that knows someone that knows someone that can force these facts into their field of view, along with Alberta’s perpetual low gas price environment.
And also of course, there is no way Canada could develop a fertilizer industry in time to deal with this crisis. Possibly the current situation resolves itself, and there is peace in the Middle East forever more. You may calculate the odds on that at your leisure.
What the current situation in both Iran and Ukraine is teaching us is that modern warfare is a new kind of asymmetric – major upheavals that are very hard to eradicate can be triggered very cheaply. Bad actors can render key pinch points like the Strait helpless with relatively cheap and hard to detect drones or drone boats. The current imbalances are stark, where $3 million missiles are used to shoot down $40,000 drones. (This has always been the case; a handful of terrorists responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack have added who knows how much to global travel bills ever since in the form of enhanced airport security costs. Or look how the October 7 attack, at a cost of almost nothing, has roiled the world and now cost probably trillions. Terrorist acts are the epitome of cost asymmetry. But this current situation is all new in the sense that we can see that a third of the world’s nitrogen fertilizer supply can be cut off in this way.) If Canada has an ounce of strategic thinking capacity, it should be a gaping global security hole that this country could be in a relatively unique position to fix. AECO gas is a global outlier in terms of being so bad (for producers) but potentially great (for industrial users), if we don’t boat anchor any industries with unnecessary regulatory and climate costs.
Here’s a thought a little more blunt to help get their attention: Eight billion people do not survive without a healthy global fertilizer industry. The industry is built on affordable natural gas. Canada has vast quantities of natural gas, cheaper than almost anywhere in the world. Is that bullet-pointy enough, politicians?
There is no better way for Canada to regain relevance; the building blocks are there and ready to go, the people and technology same. Chasing Chinese EVs is ideological nonsense; building the world’s biggest fertilizer industry should be Canada’s number one priority.
At the peak of the energy wars, The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity challenged the narrative of imminent fossil fuel demise, facing into the storm. And now everyone is coming around to this realization as well. Read the energy story for those that don’t live in the energy world, but want to find out. And laugh. Available at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com.
Email Terry here. (His personal energy site, Public Energy Number One, is on hiatus until there are more hours in the day.)
Contrary to the claims of proponents of the Green New Deal and Net Zero, fossil fuels are the greenest fuels.
First, uniquely among energy sources, fossil fuel use emits CO2, which is the ultimate source of the elemental building block, carbon, found in all carbon-based life, i.e., virtually all life on Earth.
Contrary to the claims of proponents of the Green New Deal and Net Zero, fossil fuels are the greenest fuels.
First, uniquely among energy sources, fossil fuel use emits CO2, which is the ultimate source of the elemental building block, carbon, found in all carbon-based life, i.e., virtually all life on Earth.
The increased amplitude of the seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 and satellite-borne instrumentation to measure solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from plants provide direct evidence that global photosynthetic activity (or Gross Primary Production, GPP, a measure of the change in global biomass) has increased over the past several decades (Frankenberg et al. 2011; Graven et al. 2013). Observed variations (Campbell et al. 2017) of atmospheric CO2 over the past two centuries are consistent with increasing primary productivity.
Other satellite studies also show that the earth has been greening continually in recent decades (Zhu et al. 2016; Piao et al. 2020). Second, fossil fuel dependent technologies have increased agricultural yields directly or indirectly by at least 167% (Goklany 2021).
This increase in agricultural productivity is due to the use of fossil-fuel-dependent technologies, specifically, nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides and carbon dioxide fertilization resulting from fossil fuel emissions.
This has enabled human beings to meet their demands for food using less cropland, which then spares land for the rest of nature.
Thus, in the absence of fossil fuels, at least 167% more land would have to be cultivated to maintain global food production at current levels. That would be equivalent to increasing current cropland from 12.2% of global land area (GLA) (FAO 2019) to 32.7%.
But diversion of habitat (land) to agriculture is already deemed to be the greatest threat to global biodiversity. Fossil fuels have, therefore, not only increased productivity of already-converted habitat, but they have also forestalled conversion of at least an additional 20.4% of GLA.
Consequently, the world sustains 10 times more people today (7.97 billion) than at the start of the Industrial Revolution (786 million in 1750), while supporting more biomass.
Moreover, to compare the impacts of the various energy options on habitat, we should consider the physical footprint needed to produce an equivalent amount of energy via each option (solar, wind and the various fossil fuels). Second, for wind and solar to be viable substitutes for fossil fuel energy, they should be coupled with batteries to solve their intermittency problem which requires substantial amounts of metals and other materials that must be mined, smelted and refined which necessarily would disturb the land.
The Greening of the Earth and the Increase in Biomass
Based on satellite data, Zhu et al. (2016) found that from 1982–2009, 25–50% of global vegetated area had become greener while 4% had become browner. They attributed 70% of the greening to CO2 fertilization from emissions from fossil fuel combustion (which increases photosynthesis and water use efficiency, WUE, of most vegetation), 9% to nitrogen deposition (also from the use of fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers), 8% to climate change, and 4% to land use change. The first three, responsible cumulatively for 87% of the greening, are related to the use of fossil fuels.
Chen et al. (2019) report that global leaf area increased by 5.4 million km2 over 2000–2017, equivalent to the area of the Amazon rainforest (Piao et al. 2020). They noted, per MODIS data, that 34% of the globe is greening while 5% is browning. Leaf area increased at the rate of 2.3% per decade from 2000‒2017. China and India accounted for 25% and 6.8% of the global net increase in leaf area despite only having 6.6% and 2.7% of global vegetated area, respectively. Greening occurred mainly in forests and croplands in China, and croplands (82%) in India, suggesting that greening is from reforestation and agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizers and multi-cropping).
Song et al. (2018) found that, contrary to prevailing wisdom, global tree cover increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1%) from 1982–2016. A net loss in the tropics was outgained by increases in the extra tropics.
Global bare ground cover decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. 60% of all land use/cover changes were associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect factors such as climate change, which indicates net reforestation and net de-desertification over the study period, partly attributed to climate change. Reforestation was probably enabled by increased productivity of agricultural lands substantially due to the use of fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers and pesticides and increases in CO2 fertilization (indirectly from using fossil fuels). Together, they rendered land surplus to agricultural needs.
Using data from 1982-2011, Gao et al. (2019: 9) found that productivity, using annual maximum Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) as a proxy, increased significantly in 45.8% of global grasslands while declining significantly in 1.5%.
Using data from 1982-2011, Cheng et al. (2017) found that global gross primary productivity (GPP) increased, mainly due to increased WUE of vegetation, an expected, but underemphasized, consequence of increasing CO2 concentrations. Despite large-scale occurrence of droughts and disturbances over the study period, annual GPP increased 0.6 ± 0.2% per year. About 65% of vegetated land showed significant positive trends in GPP. Ecosystem WUE also increased significantly in 78% of vegetated areas.
In a review article on global greening drawing upon the above studies, among others, Piao et al. (2020) note that:
“Greening is pronounced over intensively farmed or afforested areas, such as in China and India, reflecting human activities. However, strong greening also occurs in biomes with low human footprint, such as the Arctic, where global change drivers play a dominant role. Vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of greening on the global scale, with other factors being notable at the regional scale.”
Satellite-derived empirical trends in greening from 1982 to 2018, using the mean growing season (GS) leaf area index (LAI) as a surrogate, are shown in Figure 1 (Piao et al. 2020).
Figure 1. Changes in mean growing season (GS) leaf area index (LAI) based on empirical satellite-derived data. (a) Based on changes in Advanced Very- High-Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) LAI from 1982–2009. The AVHRR LAI dataset is the average of three sets of satellite data products (GIMMS13, GLOBMAP23 and GL ASS192). (b) Based on changes over four regions from 1982–2009. (c) Based on changes in Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) LAI from 2000–2018. (d) Based on changes in MODIS LAI over four regions during 2000–2018. Source: Piao et al.2020.
Finally, Sun et al. (2020) estimated that GPP increased at the rate of 0.16% per year from 2000 to 2014 largely due to CO2 fertilization. Combining this estimate with Campbell at al.’s estimate of a 31% increase in GPP during the 20th century, gives a cumulative increase of 34% from 1900 to 2014.
The increased productivity from higher photosynthetic rates and WUE due to higher CO2 concentrations implies the biosphere produces more plant matter, i.e., more food for all carbon-based organisms even under water-stressed conditions, which further enables earth to sustain higher biomass, that is, more organisms and/or a larger variety of species while also increasing its resiliency to drought, a chronic condition detrimental to most life forms (but which may favor drought-tolerant species).
Habitat Saved by Fossil Fuel Usage from Conversion to Human Use
Use of fossil fuel technologies has enabled human beings to spare 20.4% of GLA for the rest of nature. This exceeds both the habitat lost currently to cropland (12.2% of GLA) and the global cumulative area currently reserved or identified as conservation areas (estimated at 14.6% of GLA) (Goklany 2021). Clearly, conversion of this magnitude of habitat to agriculture would devastate global biodiversity.
The increased agricultural productivity allowed cropland in many areas to revert to forest or other non-agricultural use. For example, between 1990 and 2020 forestland in the USA and Western Europe increased 2.4% and 10.1% despite population increases of 30% and 11%, respectively (FAOSTAT 2022).
Physical Footprint of Various Electrical Generating Facilities
Different energy sources have different demands on land. Figure 2 compares the physical footprint needed to site a 1 MW power plant using different energy sources. The estimates shown include direct and indirect land requirements based on U.S. practices as of 2015. They include estimates of land used during resource production, for transport and transmission lines, and store waste materials. Both one-time and continuous land-use requirements were considered (Stevens et al. 2017).
Figure 2. Physical footprint per megawatt of energy produced using various energy technologies, based on practices as of 2015. (Source: Stevens et al. 2017)
Figure 2 shows that compared to fossil fuels, solar would need more than three times as much land; wind, five times as much; and hydropower, 25 times as much.
Land Needed for “Clean” and Fossil Fuel Energy Systems
To replace fossil fuel and nuclear generation, wind and solar would need to be coupled, at a minimum, with battery backup to provide electricity round-the-clock. However, the manufacture of batteries, as well as solar panels and wind turbines involves relatively vast quantities of metals and minerals. This necessarily entails equally vast mining operations and land disturbance.
Although, the amount of mining would no doubt increase, the estimated global areal extent of mining operations is very small relative to agricultural operations (5.7 million hectares vs. almost 5 billion hectares, about one-third of which is cropland and the remainder, pastureland and meadow for livestock) (Maus 2020, FAO 2019).
Thus, the additional amount of surface disturbance may be relatively minor. This is because while agriculture depends substantially on the energy harvested from the sun which is a function of the surface area occupied by the array of solar panels or windmills, mining involves the excavation and processing (including transportation, smelting, and refining) of vast quantities of material (volume operations). Nevertheless, these operations themselves require substantial energy consumption and emit significant amounts of air and water pollution.
The International Energy Agency (2022) notes that solar and wind powered energy systems typically require more metals and minerals than their fossil fueled analogs. For instance, it notes that a typical electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a natural gas-fired power plant, while offshore wind plants require fifteen times as much as natural gas.
Figure 3 shows the demand estimated by the International Energy Agency for various metals to generate 1 MW of power using different energy technologies (IEA 2022). It shows that demand for these metals is substantially larger for renewable energy technologies. However, this figure excludes demand for concrete and cement, steel and aluminum. The demand for those materials is shown in Figure 4 (in tonnes per TWh of electricity generated).
Figure 3. Metals demand for clean energy technologies compared to other power generation sources. Note: Steel and aluminum are not included. The values for offshore wind and onshore wind are based on the direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator system (including array cables) and the doubly-fed induction generator system respectively. The values for coal and natural gas are based on ultra-supercritical plants and combined-cycle gas turbines. Actual consumption can vary by project depending on technology choice, project size and installation environment. Note: Lithium demand is included in the “rare earths” category. Source: IEA 2022, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.
We see from Figure 3 that fossil fuels (natural gas and coal, in that order) have substantially lower demand for metals (and, therefore, associated land disruption), followed by nuclear, solar and, finally, wind. [Metals demand for hydropower was not provided in the IEA report.]
Figure 4. Demand for concrete, steel and aluminum (in tonnes per TWh) for different energy technologies. Source: World Nuclear Association 2022). Note: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in combination with coal and gas are included although CCS is not generally economically viable.
Figure 4 shows that fossil fuels and nuclear have the lowest total demand for concrete, steel and aluminum, followed by solar, wind and hydroelectric (in that order). Once again, we see that land disturbance would be substantially greater for renewables than for fossil fuel and nuclear.
Figure 4 also includes demand for concrete, aluminum and steel for plants that may use carbon capture and storage (CCS) in combination with coal and gas although CCS has not been proven to be economically viable even in special circumstances where the CCS product can be used in captive facilities, e.g., for enhanced oil recovery. Notably, the advantage of coal and gas over nuclear (regarding demand for these three materials) disappears if CCS is employed. However, it should also be noted that economic viability does not seem to constrain policymakers nowadays.
Conclusion
Fossil fuel combustion has increased the amount of carbon dioxide available to green the earth. This has contributed the major share of the approximately 34% increase in the earth’s GPP that has occurred since 1900 that has literally greened the earth. Second, by enhancing agricultural productivity, fossil fuel-dependent technologies have forestalled the conversion of at least 20.4% of global land area to agricultural uses.
This is 25% larger than the entire area of North America. Remarkably, this exceeds the total amount of land currently set aside globally for both cropland (12.2%) and conservation worldwide (14.6%). Third, relative to renewable energy sources, fossil fuels have smaller physical footprints and lower demand for metals and other minerals.
The latter substantially limits mining and other land disturbance. Such disturbance would inevitably result in “browning” of the land. Hence, fossil fuels are indeed the greenest energy sources. But “greenest” does not necessarily mean the “cleanest”. That distinction may have to be reserved for nuclear energy, but that is another topic.
Acknowledgments
My thanks to Drs. Will Happer and Greg Wrightstone for their incisive and constructive comments, which have resulted in a much-improved paper. Any flaws and omissions, however, are my responsibility.
References
Campbell JE, Berry JA, Seibt U, Smith SJ, Montzka SA, Launois T, Belviso S, Bopp L, Laine M. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production. Nature. 2017 Apr;544(7648):84-7.
Chen, C. et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land- use management. Nat. Sustain. 2, 122–129 (2019a).
Cheng, Lei, Lu Zhang, Ying-Ping Wang, Josep G. Canadell, Francis HS Chiew, Jason Beringer, Longhui Li, Diego G. Miralles, Shilong Piao, and Yongqiang Zhang. 2017. Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle. Nature Communications, 8(1): 110.
Forkel M, Carvalhais N, Rödenbeck C, Keeling R, Heimann M, Thonicke K, Zaehle S, Reichstein M. Enhanced seasonal CO2 exchange caused by amplified plant productivity in northern ecosystems. Science. 2016 Feb 12;351(6274):696-9.
Frankenberg C, Fisher JB, Worden J, Badgley G, Saatchi SS, Lee JE, Toon GC, Butz A, Jung M, Kuze A, Yokota T. New global observations of the terrestrial carbon cycle from GOSAT: Patterns of plant fluorescence with gross primary productivity. Geophysical Research Letters. 2011 Sep;38(17).
Gao, Qingzhu, Mark Schwartz, Wenquan Zhu, Yunfan Wan, Xiaobo Qin, Xin Ma, Shuo Liu, Matthew Williamson, Casey Peters, and Yue Li. 2016. Changes in global grassland productivity during 1982 to 2011 attributable to climatic factors. Remote Sensing, 8(5): 384.
Goklany IM. Reduction in global habitat loss from fossil‐fuel‐dependent increases in cropland productivity. Conservation Biology. 2021 Jun;35(3):766-74.
Graven HD, Keeling RF, Piper SC, Patra PK, Stephens BB, Wofsy SC, Welp LR, Sweeney C, Tans PP, Kelley JJ, Daube BC. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960. Science. 2013 Sep 6;341(6150):1085-9.
International Energy Agency 2022. The Role of Critical World Energy Outlook Special Report Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.
Maus V, Giljum S, Gutschlhofer J, da Silva DM, Probst M, Gass SL, Luckeneder S, Lieber M, McCallum I. A global-scale data set of mining areas. Scientific data. 2020 Sep 8;7(1):1-3.
Piao S, Wang X, Park T, Chen C, Lian XU, He Y, Bjerke JW, Chen A, Ciais P, Tømmervik H, Nemani RR. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2020 Jan;1(1):14-27.
Song, Xiao-Peng, Matthew C. Hansen, Stephen V. Stehman, Peter V. Potapov, Alexandra Tyukavina, Eric F. Vermote, and John R. Townshend. 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560(7720): 639.
Zhu, Zaichun, Shilong Piao, Ranga B. Myneni, Mengtian Huang, Zhenzhong Zeng, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais et al. 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature climate change 6(8): 791.
Authored by Indur M. Goklany
Indur Goklany is a Member of the CO2 Coalition. He is an author, researcher, and longtime civil servant. He became involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since before its inception. His degrees are PhD and MS (Electrical Engineering and Systems Science) and Bachelor of Technology (Electrical Engineering).
Natural gas and crude oil are commonly needed fossil fuels to manufacture insulation, wires, and computers used in all methods of generating electricity. This is because components of natural gas and oil are essential feedstocks for creating plastics, which are used for insulation and many computer parts.
Fossil fuels are also required for the vast energy needed throughout the manufacturing process.
Natural gas and crude oil are commonly needed fossil fuels to manufacture insulation, wires, and computers used in all methods of generating electricity. This is because components of natural gas and oil are essential feedstocks for creating plastics, which are used for insulation and many computer parts.
Fossil fuels are also required for the vast energy needed throughout the manufacturing process.
Insulation
Many of the polymer plastics used for insulation, like polyethylene (PE), cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), are made from feedstocks derived from fossil fuels. Natural gas liquids, primarily ethane, are heated in cracker plants to produce ethylene, which is then used to create polyethylene for electrical wires and cables. Crude oil fractions, particularly naphtha, are also used to make ethylene and other petrochemical feedstocks for different types of plastics.
Wind turbines and solar panels only generate electricity, so where is the transition away from fossil fuels?
Wires
While wires themselves are made of copper, a high conductor of electricity, the fossil fuel industry is deeply connected to their production process. Insulation: The manufacturing of the insulating plastics for wires and cables depends on feedstock from natural gas and oil. Energy: The mining, refining, and manufacturing of copper wires is an energy-intensive process that relies heavily on fossil fuels.
Again, wind turbines and solar panels only generate electricity, so where is the transition away from fossil fuels?
Computers
The production of computers and the electronics they contain is one of the most fossil fuel-intensive manufacturing processes per unit of weight. Components: Plastics derived from fossil fuels are used in many parts of a computer, including the casing, circuit boards, and connectors. Energy consumption: The energy required to mine, refine, and manufacture all the different components of a computer comes largely from fossil fuels. One 2004 study found that producing a single desktop computer required ten times its weight in fossil fuels.
Once again, wind turbines and solar panels only generate electricity, so where is the transition away from fossil fuels?
Fertilizers
Conventional nitrogen fertilizers are made using fossil fuels, primarily natural gas, in a process that turns atmospheric nitrogen and fossil-fuel-derived hydrogen into ammonia. This energy-intensive process, called the Haber-Bosch process, is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. While phosphorus and potassium fertilizers are made from mined minerals, most agricultural production is reliant on synthetic fertilizers derived from fossil fuels.
Multiple sources estimate that approximately half of the world’s food production is dependent on synthetic fertilizers.
Without the use of fertilizers, global crop harvests would be reduced by an estimated 30–50%.
Key statistics on global fertilizer dependency:
Feeds billions: Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers alone are estimated to feed roughly half of the global population. The Haber-Bosch process, which creates these fertilizers, is believed to have enabled the lives of at least 3 to 3.5 billion people today.
Yield increases: Studies on crop production have attributed anywhere from 30% to over 60% of crop yield increases to synthetic fertilizer inputs, with some analyses suggesting even higher dependency in tropical climates.
Specific crops: The dependency varies by crop and region. In some countries, a disproportionate amount of fertilizer is used for a single crop, such as maize in the United States, soybeans in Brazil, or palm oil in Malaysia.
Different nutrients: While nitrogen (N) is the most widely discussed nutrient for food production, fertilizers containing phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) are also critical. Over half of the phosphorus fertilizer used is from nonrenewable sources.
Why is there such a high dependency on fertilizers?
Population growth: The global population has surged from 1.65 billion in 1900 to over 8 billion today. This growth has been supported by the dramatic increase in food production made possible by synthetic fertilizers.
Increased yields: Fertilizers provide the essential macronutrients that plants need to grow. Without them, it would be impossible to achieve the high-crop yields necessary to sustain the world’s population on the existing amount of arable land.
Land conservation: By intensifying agriculture on existing farmland, fertilizers reduce the need to convert more natural ecosystems into farms.
Historical trends: Global fertilizer consumption has grown substantially over the last several decades, from 46.3 million metric tons in 1965 to 187.92 million metric tons in 2022. This growth reflects a widespread reliance on modern agricultural methods.
Net-zero ideologies ignore this fundamental truth that wind turbines and solar panels only generate electricity and cannot support the supply chain of products demanded by humanity and, by doing so, risk leaving future generations with scarcity and instability.
This PBS piece, hosted by John Yang, is unusual in that the guest on the program, Jonas Jägermeyr, a climate scientist from Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, admitted that carbon dioxide is positively affecting plant growth.
PBS News Weekend claimed in a recent video, “How climate change is disrupting the global food supply,” that climate change will harm the global food supply in the future, but this unlikely. The claim is refuted by food production trends over recent decades of warming, and an understanding of agronomy.
This PBS piece, hosted by John Yang, is unusual in that the guest on the program, Jonas Jägermeyr, a climate scientist from Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, admitted that carbon dioxide is positively affecting plant growth.
Jägermeyr told PBS that the three main drivers for crop production are temperature, precipitation, and the presence of atmospheric carbon dioxide. So far, so good. Where Jägermeyr’s argument falls apart is when he follows that statement up with the claim that recent warming creates “extreme events such as droughts, heat waves[…] hail, and flooding,” which impact agriculture negatively.
Available data do not show increases in any of those extreme weather categories. As Climate Realism has covered in greater detail before: although everyplace has drought periodically, there is no evidence droughts are getting worse or more becoming more frequent; heatwaves are not becoming more severe; hail has been decreasing in the United States at least since 2005. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not claim that flooding is getting worse due to climate change.
He goes on to admit that carbon dioxide is needed and loved by crop plants, albeit to different degrees, but then makes the puzzling statement that corn or maize does not benefit greatly from additional CO2 fertilization, and is “really seeing the largest negative impact.”
Pulling up the data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization on corn production and yield, it is unclear what negative impact Jägermeyr is referring to. Over the past three decades, which is supposed to be the most intense period of warming, corn production has steadily climbed worldwide.
Since just 1990, worldwide:
Corn production has increased by 140 percent;
Yield has increased by 54 percent. (see the figure, below)
Despite admitting that “climate change isn’t just a negative blanket of adverse impacts,” Jägermeyr gave himself cover from his climate science peers by saying “we want to be really careful because potential positive or potential gains are difficult to realize.” That’s clearly false. By contrast, it seems that negative trends fairly attributable to climate change are almost impossible to identify.
One particularly puzzling claim made during the PBS interview, was that accelerated plant growth due to CO2 fertilization will “dilute” the nutritional quality of crops, because “the protein content, micronutrients such as zinc and vitamins and iron, these components aren’t taken up, aren’t produced by the crop at the same pace they’re growing.” This, Jägermeyr says, raises concerns about global nutrition. This claim is not new, and it is just as lame as it has always been.
The argument relies on the assumption that all other metrics – fertilizer, soil mineral content, et cetera—will stay constant amid increased CO2 fertilization. So, although more crops are produced on the same amount of land, it is dividing the same quantity of available micronutrients between them. If this was a real unsolvable problem, greenhouse operators who grow tomatoes and other vegetables in CO2-enriched atmospheres, sometimes upwards of thousands of PPM, would be producing significantly less nutritious produce. They are not, so what is the secret? Adding enough nutrients back to the soil in the form of fertilizers.
There are other factors to consider as well, such as the variety of the crop being grown, because not all wheat species, for example, have the same nutritional value in the first place.
Jägermeyr told PBS that poorer countries have a harder time adapting or handling extreme weather events when they do happen, which is true, but that’s true whether or not climate change has a net-negative impact on weather.
All things considered, the modest warming and especially the increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased crop yields, a trend which should continue in the future. Fearmongering about diluted micronutrients and future scenarios have not presented themselves outside of computer models. Thus, hyping such as yet imaginary fears, as PBS does, is counterproductive at best. Shame on PBS for hyping alarming, unverified claims of climate harm, while downplaying the good news about crop production.
Over the last 200 years, when the world populated from 1 to 8 billion, we learned that crude oil is virtually useless unless it’s manufactured (refineries) into oil derivatives that are the basis of the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 jets moving people and products, and more than 50,000 merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs.
World wide cargo transport concept. Vector illustration
Over the last 200 years, when the world populated from 1 to 8 billion, we learned that crude oil is virtually useless unless it’s manufactured (refineries) into oil derivatives that are the basis of the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 jets moving people and products, and more than 50,000 merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs.
Today, chemical products, such as plastics, solvents, and fertilizers, include more than 6,000 oil-based products that are essential for supporting modern lifestyles.
Recognizing that eradicating the world of oil without a replacement in mind would be immoral and evil, as extreme shortages of the products now manufactured from fossil fuels will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths, and could be the greatest threat to the world’s eight billion population.
The “energy conundrum is that “renewables” only generate electricity, yet most products derive from oil.
Wind turbines and solar panels can only generate intermittent electricity. They cannot manufacture any products for society.
Crude oil, on the other hand, is virtually useless unless it’s manufactured (refineries) into the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 jets moving people and products and more than 50,000 merchant ships for global trade flows basis of more than 6,000 products in our daily lives that did not exist before the 1900s, and the military and space programs.
The proverb “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” tells us that you can’t rid the world of crude oil and continue to enjoy the products and fuels manufactured from fossil fuels that can be manufactured into something usable like the fuels for the heavy-weight and long-range transportation infrastructures of ships and jets and the derivatives that make the more than 6,000 products and fuels that have made our lives more comfortable.
Globally, excluding China, about 3 million barrels per day of refining capacity closed since January 2020. The future does not bode well, as 20 percent of the 700 worldwide refineries are expected to close in the next five years, i.e., 140 closures. Further inflation and shortages in perpetuity are guaranteed, as those refineries are manufacturing the fuels for the jets moving people and products, and the merchant ships for global trade flows, of the products for society and the military and space programs.
China is coming to the rescue with Asia’s 88 new refineries for manufactured oil derivatives that are the basis of almost every product being used by mankind, as well as the manufactured fuels used by every transportation infrastructure and the military.
Like the national debt Ponzi, the shortages of the products, fuels, pesticides, and fertilizers MANUFACTURED from fossil fuels will also contribute to shortages and further inflation in perpetuity as wind turbines and solar panels are both incapable of manufacturing ANYTHING; they just generate occasional electricity.
We may have long-range plans to generate electricity from wind, solar, or nuclear fusion, but no plans to replace crude oil that is manufactured into everything in our daily lives. Thus, efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change, and lead the world to an era of guaranteed extreme shortages of fossil fuel products, as we had in the decarbonized world in the 1800s, which may result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths trying to live without the 50,000-merchant ship and 50,000 jets, that are moving more than 6,000 products currently benefiting worldwide humanity.
The American Government of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators are laser-focused on ending the “climate crisis” by switching to “clean” ELECTRICTY. It has few qualms about importing critically needed materials from foreign countries, primarily China – regardless of economic, defense, national security, ecological, or human rights implications.
The dismal track record of virtually every program implemented by the Government is broken, and most likely, the clean electricity program will have results similar to previous programs such as:
Social Security established 88 years ago in 1935 and is now broken.
Fanny Mae established 85 years ago in 1938 and is now broken.
Medicare and Medicaid established 58 years ago in 1965 and are now broken.
Freddie Mac established 53 years ago in 1970 and is now broken.
United States Department of Energy established 46 years ago in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Now, with 16,000 employees and a 31 billion dollar annual budget, and 46 years later, we’re importing more oil than ever!
A private industry company such Walmart, the most successful and profitable business in America with 2.2 million employees and more than 10,000 stores, may be a better choice to run any energy program being mandated. Is it time to drain the swamp and hire Walmart to run the Government?
World leaders are not cognizant enough to know that wind turbines and solar panels only generate occasional electricity and have no plans to replace the products and fuels now manufactured from fossil fuels, which are the basis of every infrastructure segment supporting the 8 billion on this planet!
It’s shocking that the media continues to refrain from asking the government leaders and policymakers of current green electricity mandates a John Stossel-styled “give-me-a-break” question: Can you imagine our world without jets, merchant ships, militaries, and space programs?
Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.