Click the links below to watch the rest of the videos in the Just Stop Oil!? Series: Part 2: ruclips.net/video/-585aVUNz68/видео.html Part 3: ruclips.net/video/EhOhfRrvYI0/видео.html Part 4: ruclips.net/video/_C8rR5OR74Y/видео.html
Art Berman completely rocked my world when he originally presented this information on your podcast. It's so vital that people understand this, and I don't think many people do. Thanks for putting this information together so succinctly
Many of us understand it. We also understand that burning this stuff is going to snuff out our civilization. When that happens no one will have any use for oil at all! There will be no companies, no profits, no countries, only desperate survival for those humans that continue on. So pick your poison. How much is civilization worth to you?
Dear Nate, 100% agree with you on all this and the GS core thesis. One clarification - in this pod you said something like “if we get rid of the gasoline portion of the barrel, we will still need just as much oil for other stuff”. Which is true, but financially speaking, this changes the profit and therefore supply/demand equation. The return earned by the “gas” part of the barrel in a way subsidizes the remaining components. If the gas part was eliminated, and the extraction cost is the same, the price of all the other components would need to go up in order to provide equivalent ROI on extraction. The cost going up would result in decreased demand for these items. Not saying you are wrong, but the financial and market implications of say, waving a magic wand to eliminate gas has second order effects that are significant.
The obvious answer is things currently using propane or diesel or kerosene would partially switch to use that gasoline. The total oil consumed with be reduced.
Dear M. Hagens, I am french. a huge fan. I am watching all your interviews with immense interest. I have learnt a lot - especially when it comes to oil as per this video. I spend 5-6 hours a day watching interviews on climate change and this "transition" (i am insomniac). I have seen interviews with Spanish guests. I would like to suggest a few French ones. I will not recommend one more than another as they are all absolutely amazing: - Jean Marc Jancovici : Engineer. in charge by the French gvt of providing solutions + entrepreneur. Extremelly famous and followed in France. In short his vision is that oil resources will be depleted soon. go and try do a transition without oil keeping low solar / sun prices.. pro nuclear for just the time to degrow the economy. extremelly clever and to the point. - Jean Batiste Fressoz: Historian. one of my favorite. He basically demonstrates throughout history that there was never any transition. that even today the consumption of wood is by far larger than it was before (at the beginning of coal just for the constructions of mine, or railways or the first oil derreck). He is so interesting and knowledgable. - Arthur Keller : system engineer. He mentions your work and interviews. and explain very simply that with coal or oil you can build the tools produce electricity. they are primary sources. But that with sun or even atoms you cant do anything with it and that therefore the transition is not possible. - Aurore Stephant: she is a bit like M. Michaux. A mining specialist. she is amazing at describing the mining world, the waste, the pollution and the amount of minerals needed to build batteries and its non sense. she is also rather cute. - Aurelien Barrau: Astrophycist, philosoph, poet, probably the most poetic and captivating speaker of all time (in french... dont know how it will be in English but in french its like listening to Cyrano de Bergerac). his vision is simple: even if we find a ne source of energy 100% clean, we cannot go on this way destroying the natural environment and replacing forests by parking lots. voila just trying to help. Et vive la France.
merci beaucoup Phil - I just this week interviewed Jean Marc! What a great guy/spokesperson - so strange that we have never heard of eachother and our stories are so aligned. Will look into the rest. Amities, Nate
@@thegreatsimplification amazing. cant wait to see it. you ll see all the others are as good. M. Fressoz for the history side of transitions (that never happened) is just fascinating.... have a great week end
@@thegreatsimplification dont hesitate to ask JMJ about the people i reommended by the way. he knows all of them and could advise you much better than me. take care
Do you turn the screen brightness down at night? I also use an app to shift the colours to the red end of the spectrum and reduce blues/whites. I like to wind down watching things at night, and these measures help me.
@@FrogmortonHotchkiss LOL .... I guess we have the same problem. I removed the screen brightness totally and fall asleep listening to Nate or other speakers. I cannot sleep without it. As soon as it stops I start another one. I do have my favorite voices though....
Thank you so much for trying to explain the BIG picture to everyone Nate. Most people see a tiny part and get all worked up about that. Who was it said 'For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong'.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong." 😂 A quick search finds this attributed to journalist/essayist H L Mencken. Absolute ripper. Other pearls of his include: "It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place" and "Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered, there is only error to be exposed." (thanks law-guy) Gold. Thanks for the first quote.
Great thoughts and questions, Nate. In the beginning portion you mentioned polymer precursors and then looked around your office, noticing things made of plastic. Each of us should do that. It's not just the cars we drive that are addicted to oil. It's also the homes we live in, the clothes we wear, the packaging that preserves our food, the bottles our pills come in, and so forth. When we imagine the world that will exist after the carbon blip we often fixate on how limited transport will be, how international shipping might change or die, and so forth. Next time you're at the grocery store take a look at the food in your basket. In addition to its growth and cultivation being essentially powered by oil, the bulk food was packaged in one time use temporary wrappings after harvest, and then sent to preprocessing facilities, after which it was packaged in more plastic as an ingredient and sold to food manufacturers, or portioned individually and wrapped in commercial plastic packaging for our use. And then after we preserve it in plastic tupperware and put that in our fridge, which is also made with plastic and rubber. What will replace all that in the future? How will we preserve food and medicine without polymers? Will hemp and wool make a triumphant return? If so where and how will they be farmed in a global scale?
I stopped driving as much as I can, so maybe I'm *naive*, but it's true, I still have to eat. There are ways to reduce the other things though. I don't think young people are all blind to what's necessary to stop oil though. For example, we need to stop plastics as well. We need to stop producing and selling unnecessary stuff in general. I think stuff like that is rolled into a need to Just Stop Oil. It's not just transportation, and it'd be bad to strawman environmentalists in this manner. We don't need credibility sapped away in this moment, considering what's at stake.
the waste from oil refining was dumped on us in the form of plastic packaging, cloth, etc But we can do without...Plants make wax, polymer fibers for our clothes. The pharmaceutical industry will still need petrochemical inputs, until we realize that it's a "sicken humans" industry for profit, Not a miracle godsend
Tupperware (etc.) is not even made from Oil. It is a Polyethylene. Which is made from Ethylene. (C2H4) which is made from Methane/Natural Gas (CH4). Your entire paragraph and premise is a make-believe problem. Not that things could not be better with re-use containers -- but Tupperware is already that, as well.
The human world evolved into where we are today with no plan and no systems approach to the right or wrong processes. Now we seem to want to replace what we have following the same pattern with minimal systems approach to what is a huge necessary challenge to determine what we do, what is possible and what is not. Just can't help but see loads of problems ahead and it will be largely left up to the individual and local communities to figure out a path forward with a lot less. keep up the great work Nate
Thank you Nate. Other people have made your points including Art Berman but as usual you have the ability to really cone in and speak in clear terms and hammer a point home better than anyone If you don't stop oil you don't stop emissions of carbon. The key is to reduce oil but by doing so we will be reducing all the other products derived from oil. Their price will rise which may reduce their consumption but not necessarily unless the price really rises a lot. The notion that we can use solar panels and windmills as a replacement for oil energy is nonsense. Most americans except some in very dense urban areas want little to do with Evs and they are piling up on dealer lots and their used prices are dropping like a stone. With all the increase in atmospheric turbulence and supercells from the gulf to Ontario our solar farms are at risk. Here in Wyoming and western Nebraska we just had a nasty hailstorm which annihilated a huge solar panel farm. The pictures of the destruction were amazing. Gone. Nada. Pearl Harbor. Our local online news aggregator Cowboy State daily had some great pics.
Although not directly fungible, and you mentioned cracking, it is probably possible to convert the shorter chain components into longer chains by reverse cracking to much reduce the total number of barrels required to support the other uses if gasoline is not needed. Nonetheless, your underlying argument is essentially correct, because those conversion products will generally also turn into CO2 in the end. But the number of barrels will go down, but just not by 40%.
Hi Nate, what's needed is an interview with an expert on alternatives for oil "derivates" in the broadest sense. All these products today made from oil and gas, from fleece to medicin, plastics to fertilizer, what are possible and realistic replacements. Realistic meaning that the total production process could be done without oil or gas/ coal, ie the required components and energy needed do not stem from oil, gas and secondary products. There must've been qualified research in this field, environmental scientists and engineers will have realized after the Club of Rome report that industrial stuff needed be replaced and done their work. Might be, as the French commenters implied, you'd have to find the most knowledgeable in other language fields, but they _must_ be there. Those replacements ought be major part of making the Simplification a bending process, less a totally disruptive break and crash
We need less fearmongering about a non-problem. No one is proposing the instantaneous end of all gasoline. The reduction in our use of gasoline will play out over decades, which is plenty of time to add whatever alkylation and cracking processes we need to meet future hydrocarbon demand.
I'm studying product design, so we do lots of prototyping with plastics. Everything we do puts more carbon into the atmosphere, and what's really shocking is that I can't think of anything I can make or build that would actually decrease the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Besides planting trees. Everything I'm studying right now just feels like the wrong thing at the wrong time in light of the place we find ourselves in the long arm of history. We don't need more *stuff* in the world. Or if we do, then it has to be carbon negative, and that just doesn't seem possible. It really pains me.
I build fine furniture and I have the same feelings. Every time I power my tools or apply a finish material. Every action I take puts pollution into the world.
You’re in a cult that tells you that you are a polluter (sinner) for the act of breathing out CO2. You need to leave the cult. CO2 is not a pollutant. You are not a sinner for existing. Live your life without guilt
Just doing my own thought experiment. Gasoline demand will slowly drop due to EVs. How much could plastics just be reduced in some cases? Lots of plastic stuff that isn't essential, would companies raise prices and sell less but maintain profits? Would someone be incentivized to improve sorting of plastics and make recycling more viable? Would plastic derived from other materials become more viable? Especially if some are currently viewed as waste products. If gasoline is cheap, would some current diesel burners just switch? Would some utilities use it as an emergency backup source of electricity? If there is less use of gasoline, that leads to less use of plastic and diesel, will there be less oil shipped? I've read shipment of fossil fuels is 1/3 of shipping. Basically, it seems like just targeting gasoline could have knock on effects that lead to reductions in other oil products.
As I already stated here... Before the chemical/pharma industry grew out of it's child shoes, a lot was done with cannabis/hemp for centuries, even millennia. It is this industry (plus the banks) that saw to it cannabis was made illegal, because it was a too big concurrent they could not beat. Most of all the refined products of crude oil we can replace, if we really set our minds to it. Fertilizers might be a difficult one, but maybe it is possible to upscale the production of 'terra preta'. And if we stop flushing 'the goods' down the toilet, there are some possibilities there too. The only one that could be a real problem is asphalt/tar. Like energy, we need a lot of it and so far we have no real replacement. There are 'rumours' of making concrete sequestering carbon out of the air, but that's still in it's development stage. Like fusion, it could stay a dream for decades.
The world functioned before plastic, i see no reason why we can't go back to natural materials or move to modern alternatives made from corn or rice. Sure, it is a giant task for the economy and every manufacturing company in particular, but when there isn't a feasable alternative the leviathan has to change it's course.
@@UnfollowYourDreams How do you propose we get corn and rice without fossil fuels? They require field preparation, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, processing, and shipping all by diesel fuel. How else do you plan to do this?
Sure, if only they would have let you smoke your weed then everything would have been fine and dandy. That’s the real cause of our demise. Smoke another one…
The point is valid, but I see two problems with the overall argument. First, the immediate problem (short term, not long term) isn’t DRILLING oil, it’s BURNING oil - the fact that most of that barrel of oil winds up not in products, but rather in the atmosphere as CO2. Drilling for oil isn’t affecting the climate so much as burning it is. Second, markets aren’t constant. We use things like asphalt not because they are necessary, but rather because they’re readily available. Concrete can substitute for asphalt (although it has its own carbon problems). Diesel/gasoline can substitute for bunker fuel in hard-to-electrify shipping. Plastics can be synthesized from gasoline too. Destroy the market for gasoline, stop burning off most of the barrel of oil, and what’s left is a lot more fungible and a lot less harmful.
It misses the fact that the energy and transportation sector are the profit sectors for df the other applications are mostly just waste streams for byproducts not able to support the industry on their own.
Think you’ll find there are many in the “green movement” who know exactly what will happen in a world without Oil, but who’s brave enough to put their heads above the parapet in a public space like MSM and tell us our lifestyles have to go back to at least 1920’s, though Nate’s (Hagens) is to some extent pointing us in that direction, but with less rather than no Oil in “The Great Simplification”🤔
@@barrycarter8276Going back to the lifestyle of the 1920s won’t have any effect. It’s already way too late for that. We need to reverse decades of pollution as well as reverse the effects that’s had on the planet as well as find the sustainable solutions we should have figured out and implemented many decades ago. It’s like being millions in debt cause you spent wastefully for decades and now trying to solve the problem by going to Burger King instead of to restaurants every single week. It’s a start, sure, but it won’t make a dent.
@@barrycarter8276 We don't have to go back to the 1920's. All we have to do is stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We can still have plastics. No one is proposing that we stop all use of oil. They want to stop BURNING oil as a source of energy. We can do that. The gasoline fraction in crude is currently artificially expanded by cracking heavier fractions and alkylating lighter fractions. We can switch that around to whatever mix we need. We have plenty of time, as the transition will take decades. Everyone in the industry knows it's coming. It's not going to take us by surprise.
Thank you! This simply is not out there for whatever reasons and has to be in the discussion. There are so many ironically embarrassing scenarios playing out to do with this, that it seems transitions take longer than what we collectively would like, but Nature says it best; the two transition seasons in the year are as lengthy as summer and winter. 👍
Hi Nate, thank you for a thought provoking video - the refining process as you describe it isn't something that I've considered before (rather naively!) Regarding Just Stop Oil, I think the spirit of their campaign is to stop BURNING oil. That is surely the key point that we must strive for.
That's a fallacy too. Why are these people against Nuclear power. If China builds Coal powered plants( which is happening ) doesn't that just negate any other measures. Oil is the most efficient fuel there is. Wind & Solar is not going to make a difference no matter what, they take up much more space, Turbines have been shown to be unreliable. Their life span is small.
I'm so glad you pointed out such an obvious truth: if we want to stop increasing and then reduce GHG concentrations in the atmosphere we absolutely need to stop burning oil. But what is Nate saying? Wait and think? We cannot stop burning oil?
Considering its finite nature, it is important to ask: what next? At some point we will need an alternative for all of the applications of oil we want to continue. It seems sensible to question our abuse of oil and move the dial on what is possible. I was of the understanding that much of what we can do with hydrocarbons, we can also do with carbohydrates. Plants can be used to produce many plastics and building materials. The idea that we must continue separation of oil seems flawed on the basis that we can replace many of the materials by other means. Much work is happening in the chemistry and materials fields to make this possible.
@@noizydan Yes but what is there to use for the products that you make with plastic for instance. But what's happening is that we don't have the current technology(right now) to replace them. It is flawed that we can separate Oil from other things, But the ideas pushed don't match our current tech. We are not abusing oil. This is disinformation. We have found many better ways to extract it from the ground( not saying that it's perfect) but it is not going to "run out any time soon" including Natural GAS. You can't make people use EVs when you don't have Elec grid in place, you can't punish people for keeping their ICE cars when there is no alternative that people can afford. This whole thing is based on more money for Elites, charging others TAX to give them more money. It's a FLAWED NARRITIVE.
@@noizydan I totaly agree with you. One caveat, though, is that we can't afford to turn over too much productive land to producing non-food materials, otherwise we will quickly run into the same issues that biofuels face. Climate change will likely decrease yields overall and human population is still growing. I wonder whether a process like precision fermentaion could come to our aid, both in terms of food production and new carbohydrate materials?
You are completely right! We need to develop what you could call a ‘multi transition’, where we move all products away to sustainable alternatives: for gasoline, diesel/yet fuel, plastics, etc etc.
If just stop oil got their wish, the general public would quickly realize that humanity is in overshoot. Cheap oil is what allowed us to reach a population of 8 billion. As we start heading into the down slope of the carbon pulse, we will quickly realize that 8 billion is not a sustainable population size.
The systems question is an interesting one, but mostly for the entrepreneur, the economist or the petrochemical engineer among others. As a consumer - I don't care. I'm making an economic decision based on my circumstances. And if those circumstances are similar for many consumers, as seems to be the case with respect to EVs, then as the effect grows you will see a disproportionate impact on the demand for gasoline relative to other hydrocarbons. If this has no impact on production of gasoline because of the vertical nature of hydrocarbon production then the price must necessarily go down. If the response is that oil companies slow extraction of crude oil to prop up the price then this in some measure will affect the pricing of all hydrocarbons which makes alternatives look relatively more favourable. Ultimately, if the underlying trends prove the be persistent then the economics supporting petrochemicals breaks down.
Just to clarify, “Just Stop Oil” is only demanding the cessation of new fossil fuel drilling licenses in the UK & not completely eradicating oil from our daily lives. Their background & demands should be listed on their website. 🙏🌍🌱
Nice presentation. All agreed, and how do we stop our atmosphere from heating further? It was 124 in Palm Springs - there is no limit for heat. CO2 pollution becomes toxic at 8 or 900 ppm. We are at 423 ppm now. [this is self-resolving - but not in a good way]
The only way I’m afraid is to unleash a virus that kills the majority of people on this planet. If the people who survive manage to use the renewable sources of energy to suck the CO2 out of the air and to really focus all of the collective human intelligence on finding ways to slow down or even reverse the what we call irreversible feedback loops as well as working out mitigation strategies such as self sustaining ecosystems below the surface of the earth then maybe we have a chance. Otherwise we will likely destroy this planet to a degree where there will be no atmosphere left and the planet will turn into something resembling Mars. As for what you say about CO2 being toxic: isn’t it already? It’s going to kill billions of humans. Isn’t being responsible for someone’s death the very essence of the word toxic?
Without oil (gas), my family and I would die. Without gas, I would have to walk everywhere. Two miles one way to get anything. No Lyft or Uber around here. Couldn't take my ill husband to the doctor. Couldn't take the dogs to the vet. Nothing. Cannot move either. Everything is too expensive. Would be screwed. I respect the Planet and consume wisely. And electricity ain't the total answer.
Sadly, "Life as we know it" has become utterly dependent on fossil fuels. To abruptly stop or severely diminish its use would result in unimaginable catastrophe. That sad conundrum has no viable solution. Certainly not on a planet with 8 billion people who have become smugly dependent on our petroleum-based infrastructure. I am utterly sympathetic with the angst of the XR movement but I also understand the naive impracticality of their demands. Confusion ensues...
No one from xr or stop oil wants an immediate stop to oil, what they want is a serious timescale for transfer from the high dependency of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Oil will still be needed in some sectors, for example as lubricants. What they want to stop now is the massive subsidies to oil companies and the money be redirected into research and development of alternative sources, a sadly neglected pursuit. Good luck, have a great one😊.
Not to mention global dimming, which almost no one in the climate movement seems to even be aware of. Without understanding that, they actually hurt progress by reducing emissions
@briancampbell8449 even that is counter productive because they aren't acknowledging the effects of aerosols. They also fail to support obvious solutions we can do now, such as veganism. Eventually you have to ask how they can be so ignorant
if my understanding is correct JSO (just stop oil) are calling for no new oil licences to be issued in the UK. this in turn prompts the conversation around finding ways, moving forwards, to wean ourselves off everything oil ...
Hi Nate, Great tutorial for those unfamiliar with chemical engineering and refinery processes. My conclusion is simple; humanity will burn every kg and liter of natural gas, oil and coal because Western Industrial Civilization cannot survive without fossil fuels. This true simply because the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks that run the economic, political and social systems will ensure their profits, perks and privileges till the bitter end. We will not see significant change until fossil fuel reserves diminish to the point that the present political economies are no longer viable. One suspects that will be within the next 100 hundred years or so.
We should try to inhibit such an outcome. Learning how things really work is the way to build strength in our arguments to promote sane ideas for a world that may have a chance to survive.
@@David-l4p7d Humanity will survive. The only question is how will the decline of Western Industrial Civilization unfold. For those that expect Western Industrial Civilization to continue without end, they will be sorely disappointed as fossil fuel depletion slowly unwinds the systems, services and products that are taken for granted today. For those clinging to the idea that solar panels and windmills will enable the continuation of Western Industrial Civilization, Simon Michaux has put an end to that dream with his analysis on the limits to raw resources other than fossil fuels. Humanities reality is pretty simple. We are in for a very bumpy ride as the fossil fuels deplete and Western Industrial Civilization slowly collapses.
No one (who has thought about if for more than 5 minutes) has ever said "Stop Oil". There are many great products from oil some quite positive for the environment and efficiency improving other industries. We just need to stop a couple aspects of oil: - stop burning it - stop disposable use of it for simple convenience. And start more effort into recycling the products of oil, or dispose of it more carefully. The extraction and processing of oil has similar (though larger) problems of environmental damage and human consequences as most other industries. The larger problems only really come when burning or disposing the stuff. But the stop burning it thing is a real problem for gasoline, diesel and bunker fuel volumes...any of the fuels really but those three in particular. We need to find more efficient ways to burn the fuel (start gasoline power plants to charge our electric cars or something like that) instead of the current inefficient ways we burn it. Or we do need to actually start reducing plastics and petrochemical demand as well to match the falling demand for fuels. Either way production, refining, demand and burning of fuels needs to reduce drastically because there consequences to the global citiens are just too high. If we can find ways to do this without reducing other petroleum products then that is OK I guess. But as this channel is a proponent of the great simplification, reducing demand for everything in our economy, reducing the burning of fuels is just going to be part of that however it happens. And for the GDP/economic consequences discussion; I am of the opinion that those who obtructed change and reducing fuel demand slowly through decades of warning, shal face the consequences when it happens to them suddenly out of their control.
What we can do is set moratorium/manage more closely the extraction/supply of oil. It's taking a stand to physically limit oil use. We can then manage oil extraction as system dynamics adjust. Ofc much more to this but happy to talk
" About 45 percent of a typical barrel of crude oil is refined into gasoline. An additional 29 percent is refined to diesel fuel" (University of Wisconsin- facts "Facts About Oil") So that's 74% we shall not need. The thing about carbon molecules is that they are so adaptable. Cracking is not just a one way process. There is also the reverse process Gas to Liquid ("GTL") and a series of well established processes of turning lighter fractions into heavier fractions. Of course there will be an energy cost but with a surplus from renewables where there are times of the day when renewable energy has a negative value, that should not be a problem. The problems are a) vested interests in business as usual b) lack of imagination among political and industrial leaders c) a joined up process of smooth and planned adaptation instead of the chaos of disruption that we are likely to experience. So yes. You can "Just Stop Oil" . However, the campaign strategy and tactics of the UK pressure group is extremely controversial and, in my view, far too confrontational. Misguided efforts can be counterproductive.
Other important factors derived from hydrocarbons: energy density & storage/transport. We are nowhere close with any alternatives. Not to mention the repeated failures of renewables to beat existing infrastructure on a life-cycle basis, EVs, wind turbines, even solar. Much of the hope for these is dependent on future developments to improve them (some of which will occur, no doubt). They remain just that, hopes, despite the creation of new industries, many of which are publicly funded / subsidized. While the science and technology behind diversifying our energy sources is awesome, let's not be blind to the money racket that is very much a part of this process.
Wonderful presentation! thank you Nate for bringing this to the world. If anyone is interested in this subject, I recommend watching a youtube lecture on Jevon's Paradox by Tim Garrett. I hope you touch on that subject in the next part to the Just Stop Oil Series.
I sold solar for a time and a quarter of my presentations resulted in a sale. A large majority the sales were to people who learned about the weakness as per the presentation and then wanted to reduce the energy they used from a centralized source. Liberals who wanted all or nothing wouldn't buy because of the cost. My best sales point was a system only as a backup while at the same time its use reduced the billing. The backup as a building heat source is intermittent, but as a domestic water system the heat is stored in the heat exchange tank. For electric a system large enough to power the fridge in summer and furnace fan in winter with enough production to store in batteries that would at least last the night on a cloudy day's winter production. Overtime we could reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, one segment of energy of a building, one at a time, and world trade, flying on jets, and all that, then adjust this oil dilemma as discussed along the way. Most of my presentation and probably the ideas discussed by this RUclips creator was/is way over the head of those who were/are chanting political slogans though! Hahaha! I've been in the battle and know this intimately. Anyway, there is not the desire to really do something, there are not businesses enough with trained crews so this is all utopian dreamtime. The dilemma will go until it can't and then most will suffer horribly is my view. Jokes on them.
Yet we still need to stop oil, or we're looking at the possibility of an unlivable planet for us vertebrates. And it's tempting to give up hope, but in all seriousness, think of the kids. If the problem is vertical, we need to reduce vertically in all aspects of life in "developed" economies. This doesn't contradict a need to "just stop oil" if we want our future generations to have a shot at living. So yeah, Just Stop Oil.
At last a fairly clear concise and thoughtful perspective on the matter. Unfortunately it will take another two thousand years for humanity to grasp and integrate this level of thinking.
Nate what you are not factoring into your analysis is that gasoline and diesel fuel are the most profitable aspects of the ff industry. Most of the other applications for waste products of the ff industry only make ecominic since because of the transportation sector and the power generation sector. As the demand for those two sectors reduce demand we will see less of the lowe profit plastics. We have seen the plastics boom in this century because it is a waste industry from the fracking boom that was needed to fuel the profitable energy and transportation sector. You are making non profitable waste management into a driver for the ff industry when you worry about the uses of ff in other sectors.
I was just thinking I saw this first hand during covid when my chicken feed was bagged in pepper bags again not plastic. Less driving and less demand for gasoline during covid ment less waste plastic so paper was used.
Serious, thoughtful environmentalists do look at the big picture. Thank you for this information on the distillation process. We don't have to eliminate oil, but we do have to eliminate emission or CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. If we institute a simple, predictable, and escalating price on dumping heat-trapping gasses, I think that will drive up the effective cost of burning most of those oil fractions that you cited -- propane, gasoline, diesel, and heavy fuel oil (and natural gas, too). It will tilt the economics of energy towards electricity from solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal sources. And from that electricity we'll also get SEF, hydrogen, and ammonia to use as fuels for aviation, shipping, and possibly long-haul trucking. With that "cost of carbon" priced in, DECISIONS at every level will be steered away from emitting carbon. The power of the free market -- entrepreneurs and inventors -- will flood the space to an even greater extent than they have already. Because everyone follows the money. We need to raise the price of dumping carbon until it matches the cost of removing it (Direct Air Capture, which is currently horrendously expensive). Sure, this will upset a lot of the world's powerful entrenched interests. But publish an escalating price schedule now, so that everyone can plan. Start small, but make sure everyone knows where the costs are heading. And of course, it has to be done worldwide. If necessary, we can use border-adjustment fees (tariffs) to bring the laggards around.
If we were to “just stop oil”, we would reduce the aerosol masking effect which would drive up global temperatures even higher. On top of that, many societal processes would break down of course, among which the food supply and all the modern IT systems on which we rely for our banking, for filing our taxes and to keep in touch with family members and friends, so you know, we’d literally turn our planet into a living hell.
I don't think anyone believes we can "just stop oil". They mean "reduce it drastically", save it for those important processes, for the health system, essential works... hopefully while we learn to do more with less and find other energy sources.
Even as a kid I thought about how it was weird that we didn’t have a plan for what to do after we need to/have to stop driving cars. In 4th grade I learned about climate change and became strongly against automobiles and I figured by the time I was an adult we would’ve realized how awful they are and stopped using them. We really have no endgame for this industrial activity thing and even 9 year old me understood that we can only burn fuel once and eventually it must come to an end. How did centuries of the most educated people in history produce so little in ways of what to do when this fuel bonanza comes to it’s logical end? I reckon tho we should be ending the mass production of cars and focusing on making lighter weight gasoline powered farm equipment
Just listened to Chapter 3 of Jem Bendell’s new book called Breaking Together. He quoted « the work of energy economist Nate Hagens » at 00:11:20 in the SoundCloud free audio recording of his book, released to the public for free on July 10, 2023. At 00:17:45 he cites Jevon’s Paradox.
Interesting, but this video only scratches the surface of the alkane industry. There's so much more to know. The take away is, as Hagen said, we're nowhere near being finished with oil.
Personal transportation by way of the automobile, no matter what “clean energy source,” literally runs on top of tires and asphalt which require the use of oil. There are many more implications of the vertical refinement of oil, of course, like, for example, the need for diesel for trucks and trains that transport all of our goods. I ask myself, “how is it that Nate Hagens can put this together (great graphics by the way) and communicate it but the main media outlets go with the fluff stories. Where are their “Edward Murrow” journalists?!
@@timcoombe Just Stop Oil want to end all use of all fossil fuels by 2030 - see juststopoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/JSO_research_public_v1_27022022.pdf. That is a lot more than just stopping new oil and gas fields.
I believe you can take the light molecules and build bigger ones with them at a cost. You could also make tractor trailers or airplanes that ran on gasoline-ora mix. Or we could mine and refine heavier grades of crude that don’t produce gasoline or lighter fluid or propane.
Not really important but the sound leads video by approx. 6 frames (systematically, from start to finish). This said, keep up the good work! Any chance to see french versions of your GreatSimplification videos? French subtitles would be a good start (I did translate "The Oil Machine" documentary, so maybe I can help).
You are right as statistics show the net growth of energy neutralizes any renewable energy growth so does little to reduce fossil fuels... Please look at the US fossil fuel production growth of the last 2 decades....
I agree with about 95%of what Nate says however from a European perspective we use a lot of diesel in cars as well as trucks so EVs reduce the diesel consumption too.... But it's still a complicated situation as Nate suggests.
Personally, i think we should stop oil and take the GDP hit whatever it is. The problem is, GDP is the wrong measuring stick to measure the success of society. instead let's measure success by the number of hours of labor required to have access to land and basic shelter / water needs
Been listening to TGS for about a year now I think, things like this and the info from Simon Michaux on material scarcity for example was, and is, mind-blowing but at least someone looks at the actual facts!
Thanks Nate. How did humans live before the discovery and use of oil? Do you think that might be a starting point? And GDP, do you think humans may be able to get past the notion of GDP and ever increasing volume and growth in society? What about changing our attitudes towards the planet from one of exchange and price to attitudes of use and real-value? And this movememt Just stop oil, have you considered interviewing Roger Hallam as a guest? I believe he is one of the founders the movement. Keep up the good work.
I recall thinking to myself in middle school in the 1970's that we would have to give up oil for energy to preserve the limited quantities for plastic and other chemicals
Terrifying. But-all that stuff made of oil wasn't embedded in our culture when I was a child!! we still wore cotton and linen clothes then, plastic toys were just being invented-most of my toys were of wood wool or metal... That stuff From the bottom of the barrel wasn't deeply in our culture, Food packaging was made of paper and wax, why can't we go back to 50 years ago life?
The other applications for oil grew as the industry tried to find a way to dispose of their waste products. As the raw materials for crude oil shifted so did the waste industries. Fracking makes waste that is good for single usage plastic which is why that had boomed in the last few decades with the fracking boom. As demand for the profitable transportation and energy sector fuels drop the waste will drop and those sectors will naturally down size. During covid my grain supplier for chicken feed used paper bags now they use plastic again. The difference is during covid there was less transportation fuel used and thus less waste plastic to make chicken feed bags.
How was the food and materials mined and shipped 50 years ago? How did we have steel? How was food planted, harvested, and shipped? Trucks and trains run on fossil fuels. How did you heat your home? How did the factories run? Go back 50 years and it was still all fossil fuel based.
really cannot wait for you to help us see what we actually could do Thanks so much for pulling us closer to the reality, Nate I really appreciate you and your work and the discussions you make us aware of
By this reasoning, we can't stop using the amount of oil we use now, until we reduce our use of EVERY product we get from oil. There's no point reducing our use of any of them until we reduce them all. But to some extent we can change the way we refine it, to change the proportions of the different fractions. I don't know the limits to that, and probably you don't either. Our refinery experts have learned the kinds of adjustments that have been useful in the past, and when the requirements change to something new we don't know how well they'll manage.
Yes. That's the birds eye message - that focusing on ONE thing (Gasoline reduction) won't really change much unless whole system/products change. Thats the spirit of the argument - the details are messier - we can change 5-6% of gasoline fraction and move it to diesel w current refineries (which means 6% of 40%=~2.5% of each barrel. There are many other possible chemical switches that can happen over time and with $$$$. As I stated, if we did get rid of ALL demand for gasoline that might reduce demand for oil by 15% or so in long term. At end of day, thats not going to happen - this analysis is just (hopefully) making more people aware of constraints and interconnections. I don't have the answers.. (and I disagree 'there is no point...' lots of small directional changes can create some emergent response - ultimately we'll have to use less of just about everything so starting now - at individual - and societal level - is a step on the path)
@@thegreatsimplification Yes agreed, if we focus on just one thing then everything else will sneak up behind us. It sounded like you were saying that we can't get by with just things that make electricity, because so many of our energy needs are for things that electricity can never supply. Here's a reasonably big energy use that CAN be supplied by electricity. that's worth something. And if gasoline turns into largely a waste product, we can sell it cheap on the international market until we figure out how to convert it into asphalt or something else useful. If electric vehicles were only for buses and trains and such, the public wouldn't pay so much attention. It's the idea that you could buy one yourself, but the early models are priced just for rich people. So talking about how you got one, or you're thinking about getting one is a way to tell people you're rich. What about asphalt? It recycles very well. It's mildly carcinogenic. We've covered 1% of the surface of the USA with it. There is no substitute for asphalt for roofing, every alternative is either not as good or more expensive. There is no substitute on roads. Every alternative is either not as good or more expensive. We use the asphalt part to bind other stuff together. Sand or whatever. People have tried all kinds of things for the contaminants. Anything that's cheap. Sand. Crushed glass. crushed seashells. Chopped chicken feathers. Chicken feathers? Yes. Anything that's fairly small particles that won't rot much when covered with asphalt. At some point we will need to find an alternative. for asphalt. Or do without.
My local XR group just sits on Zoom meetings & talks about, "social justice," ad nauseum. Almost all of these groups have been co-opted by that ideology. I recall interviewing to join DGR and getting asked how I feel about women. I responded, "I made eye contact with one once." Then they inquired about trans issues, and I nopped out as I singularly joined for environmental activism & awareness.
@@leonsappl the hearts in the right place with a lot of XR folk - but as you have pointed out the majority don't understand the predicament we are in. I did however get the leader of my local group to read up on and understand Overshoot, small wins i guess.
@@MyMomSaysImKeen that is strange that they go so off topic, lots of people just angry with the state of society these days and so somehow it gets packaged up into one big rant
@@MyMomSaysImKeen These groups are clearly a substitute for religion. They have the earmarks of any fundamentalist religious movement, which is why they require ideological purity from all members. These people are not interested in problem solving or inquiry, their greatest desire is to impose their will on society and crush all of those who dissent.
i hear ya. took my son on an XR demo (legal one) but same issue... i realised walking in the middle of the demo that although we were there because we really believe in the urgency of the situation, if i were to really lay out the range of views and analysis i subscribe to, most of my fellow demo-ers would be massively alienated... probably ask us to leave :-0 so my question for you @Nate is - if we are largely persuaded by the diagnosis, where's the material to tell us what can be *done* about it?
Interesting question. However, we could just consume less of it couldn't we? Of course that in turn means recession, depression and collapse. Then again, we are already in the recession phase in some overdeveloped countries. Depression is in our near future. Then collapse. Once collapse hits we will have "just stopped oil," since the supply chains will have stopped. The smart people are already adapting their lifestyles to use less of the stuff and are preparing for even more stringent stressful situations.
i think one of the most destructive mindset is "replacement", people want to keep things as they are and replace things with another similar thing, or energy. if oil is a problem, stop that, no ifs, buts or cant's.
Awesome video and awesome channel. Thank you so much. I'm NOT an expert but it appears that the naptha fraction is used for plastics. Some 8% to 10% of the crude oil is used for plastics. I have tried to make the same point you are making with little success. IF we used oil for plastics and did NOT burn any of it in vehicles, then we would have to find another way to dispose of what would essentially be a waste product. Our cars and trucks are essential waste disposal units for the plastics industry. Well, that might be a bit of an oversimplification but ...
I understand what you're doing here and its a good idea but I also think you're taking 'Just stop Oil' a bit too literally. They understand whats happening with our climate and what fossil fuels mean to our economy. But they also understand the media and its role in our economy and politics, they are doing what it takes to highjack the media to pay attention to whats going on and have been very sucessful. They may be annoying for some people but they cannot be ignored and are putting themselves at risk (long jail terms, assaults have all ready happened) because they understand that we are sleepwalking into disaster. Its better this then the violence that will inevitably replace peaceful groups like Just Stop Oil or XR if we dont act. Look past the slogans, theres a lot more going on with groups like these then people like to admit. Its about raising awareness, getting in people and governments faces to do something, keeping climate and biodiversity issues at the forefront of the media where they have never been. Too easy too write off whats happening here because of a 3 word slogan. I personally believe a day will come soon when we'll look back fondly at these groups and wonder why we didnt listen.
The Chinese have a very interesting approach to renewables which is more energy, more energy, more energy - gotta get more energy from somewhere , might as well include renewables. The Chinese are quite open and honest about this. It's a pity that other countries are a little less transparent and more inclined towards greenwashing the naked truth. For example, cloud computing and AI will need muchas energy from somewhere.I guess the Chinese don't need to worry about democracy. Mind you, after the flooding of the Forbidden City in Beijing, the Chinese might be having second thoughts about coal.
Another great podcast Nate, but I think you have done Just Stop Oil a disservice. Their agenda isn't to stop using oil per se, it is to stop governments licensing new oil fields, invest more in renewables, insulate homes and, ultimately, adopt a de-growth strategy. Now, I appreciate your apprehensions regarding the de-growth movement and the role of renewables with respect to our broader energy needs, and to some extent I share your misgivings, but I think you'll find that JSO are somewhat less naive about the complexities surrounding our reliance on fossil fuels than you assume. Wikipedia: "Just Stop Oil opposes the United Kingdom granting new fossil fuel licensing and production agreements;[1] on its website it calls for the government of the United Kingdom to stop all future consents and licensing agreements related to the development, exploration, and production of fossil fuels in the country.[7] The group demands investment in renewable energy, and that buildings have better thermal insulation to avoid waste of energy.[8]"
"renewable energy" is and can only be made with mined materials like copper, cobalt, lithium, manganese, etc. How to you get them without fossil fuels? The only machines that can get them are diesel powered mining equipment and trucks and processing. We need more copper for this transition than has ever been mined. We need massive amounts of oil to do it.
The increased demand for road fuels in current 3rd world countries will be so massive that it will easily offset EVs replacing gasoline cars in the developed world. So we definitely need EVs if we don't want to compete with billions of Indians and Africans for fuel. Although we may win with our wealth, but it could result in a skewed mobility and transportation system in those regions. It's a strategic question, not an environmental one - the US could get away without EVs, but the EU can't - it first needs to liberate itself from Russian natural gas dependency this decade and then oil imports in the next.
Somewhere around 30 Calories of Petroleum is used to grow about 1 Calorie of Food in Modern Agriculture. Solar Panels and Windmills can't produce things like Anhydrous Ammonia or mine Potash used in Modern Agriculture.
@@thegreatsimplification I suppose it's how you perform your Calculations in terms of how far you drill down into things like Tractor Tires, Steel and such. Let's agree to "A lot" of Petroleum Calories is needed to produce 1 Calorie of Food in Modern Agriculture. As Petroleum Resources become more expensive it will drive Priority Values particularly around Food. I grow much of my own Food using Tools with a considerable amount of embedded Petroleum Resources. Even a #2 Steel Shovel has a load of embedded Petroleum Resource inputs which I shall not calculate. Keep up the good work.
The elephant in the room is diesel since the Shale Oil (tight Oil) is useless. Global Oil production peaked in 2018, about half of the global oil production comes from very large oil fields that are near or in terminal decline. We managed to delay peak oil production by about 20 to 25 years because of horizontal drilling & water injection, which allowed old oil fields to continue high production levels well after the fields began to decline. Likely by the early 2030s global Oil production will begin to collapse. Once the cost of diesel gets into $12/gal to $15/gal its all over as people simply won't be able to afford food & other basic needs. On top of that World Debt to GDP is about 300% (370% in the US). When energy gets too expensive there will be no way to service that debt.
Sandals are made and shipped by fossil fuels. Also the food you eat to power your walk. Farmed, refined, and shipped by fossil fuels (diesel). Your (and my) life is all fossil fuels.
@@dasbof I make them from old discarded tires like they do in Africa...we got millions billions of them just lying around and will last for a long long time
We don’t need to stop oil. We just need to stop burning it. In the 1800’s when they had no use for gasoline they just poured it out. I’m sure that we can develop some other use for gasoline and diesel that don’t involve making the atmosphere warmer. Even though there is an urgent need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, gas and diesel vehicles are going to be around for decades just because they couldn’t possibly build enough EV’s for everyone to buy one, and everyone doesn’t have the money to anyway. There is a potential issue of the underground fuel tanks at gas stations needing to be replaced, during the 2030’s that may determine whether the individual stations will stay open. And that’s just like the issue of abandoned oil wells that taxpayers have spend money to cap, where the oil industry doesn’t pay the full costs and taxpayers subsidize them. The important thing is that the longer we are increasing co2 and methane, the worse the future will be for people
So the question is what to do with all the gasoline left over if passenger cars switch to electric. The answer is to switch diesel engines to gasoline engines in trucks, locomotives and heavy equipment.
@@dbadagna lol if you only knew how much energy is used to "refine and transport" Canadian tar sand oil you would know that ff isn't and energy source anymore either it is a poor battery for storing other forms of energy comming out of Canada. Alberta is building nuclear power plants to power the tar sands industry.
You’re confused. If we completely eliminate the use of gasoline, we’ll start using that gasoline to replace other things that are producing CO2. We have smart people who will figure it out. The net result is less gasoline = less oil. The only reason we haven’t built more refineries is because we don’t need to. If we need to, we obviously would. The price of everything that relies on oil would increase.
The state of Georgia spent $35 billion dollars building their nuclear power plant it cost a million dollars a megawatt to build wind power You could build 35,000 megawatts of wind power for the same price of that nuclear plant which only produces 2,000 megawatt
I think the video could benefit from some “why” explanations. I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but to a green washed person they’d be like “why not?” -Why are scaling EVs not going to change the amount of oil in the world? -Why aren’t solar panels and renewables a 1:1? -Why are EVs not helpful in the overall decoupling from oil?
And food of course. The Green Revolution which enabled and (mostly) sustains the present human population is predicated on oil (nitrogen fertilizers produced by the Haber-Bosch process which uses vast amounts of energy). What to do?
EVs are not green, take the process of making Batteries, mining those Elements ( most of which are rare Earth commodities) not only making them, but also recycling of them. You still need Oil based lubricants, Antifreeze, etc. Wrecked EVs are another item. What to do with them? We don't have an Electrical grid that can handle what it would take to charge them. They are expensive. Who can afford them?. Their Batteries need replaced at a certain point. Now what? Until you can answer these & other questions, they do not change "carbon footprint" at all. CO2 is not all bad. The Earth is 15% greener than in 1980. You cannot make a difference by changing 1 thing. You need a comprehensive plan that is not there. You can't put the cart before the Horse.
Great video. The oil production in the world will very likely start to permantely decline in the 2030s. Lets say decline rate of 2 procent per year. Starting 2030 that will be about 60 procent by 2050 of todays oil production. And by 2100 there will be very little oil to support any typ of modern typ living. I live in a country with zero oil production today. By 2050 there will be very little if any oil exported from oil production countries. I cant see how many countries can even function by then. This is one of many things that will be a huge challenge in the future and i often think about. Electric cars also need asphalt and tires so shifting to ev is not a solution in the long run.
Just Stop Oil- they know it’s not going to completely end all of a sudden, they also know progressive reform will not work and there is no time left for that anyway. Have Roger Hallam on your show, it would be quite enlightening to hear what a social scientist has to say to this subject.
Click the links below to watch the rest of the videos in the Just Stop Oil!? Series:
Part 2: ruclips.net/video/-585aVUNz68/видео.html
Part 3: ruclips.net/video/EhOhfRrvYI0/видео.html
Part 4: ruclips.net/video/_C8rR5OR74Y/видео.html
Art Berman completely rocked my world when he originally presented this information on your podcast. It's so vital that people understand this, and I don't think many people do. Thanks for putting this information together so succinctly
Many of us understand it. We also understand that burning this stuff is going to snuff out our civilization.
When that happens no one will have any use for oil at all!
There will be no companies, no profits, no countries, only desperate survival for those humans that continue on.
So pick your poison.
How much is civilization worth to you?
You are right. Every time i discuss with somebody want to stop oil, he can't say anything after this fact.
Dear Nate, 100% agree with you on all this and the GS core thesis.
One clarification - in this pod you said something like “if we get rid of the gasoline portion of the barrel, we will still need just as much oil for other stuff”. Which is true, but financially speaking, this changes the profit and therefore supply/demand equation. The return earned by the “gas” part of the barrel in a way subsidizes the remaining components. If the gas part was eliminated, and the extraction cost is the same, the price of all the other components would need to go up in order to provide equivalent ROI on extraction. The cost going up would result in decreased demand for these items. Not saying you are wrong, but the financial and market implications of say, waving a magic wand to eliminate gas has second order effects that are significant.
The obvious answer is things currently using propane or diesel or kerosene would partially switch to use that gasoline. The total oil consumed with be reduced.
The environmental movement are absolutely aware what a barrel of oil is used for and are campaigning to move aware from our reliance on oil.
Dear M. Hagens, I am french. a huge fan. I am watching all your interviews with immense interest. I have learnt a lot - especially when it comes to oil as per this video. I spend 5-6 hours a day watching interviews on climate change and this "transition" (i am insomniac). I have seen interviews with Spanish guests. I would like to suggest a few French ones. I will not recommend one more than another as they are all absolutely amazing:
- Jean Marc Jancovici : Engineer. in charge by the French gvt of providing solutions + entrepreneur. Extremelly famous and followed in France. In short his vision is that oil resources will be depleted soon. go and try do a transition without oil keeping low solar / sun prices.. pro nuclear for just the time to degrow the economy. extremelly clever and to the point.
- Jean Batiste Fressoz: Historian. one of my favorite. He basically demonstrates throughout history that there was never any transition. that even today the consumption of wood is by far larger than it was before (at the beginning of coal just for the constructions of mine, or railways or the first oil derreck). He is so interesting and knowledgable.
- Arthur Keller : system engineer. He mentions your work and interviews. and explain very simply that with coal or oil you can build the tools produce electricity. they are primary sources. But that with sun or even atoms you cant do anything with it and that therefore the transition is not possible.
- Aurore Stephant: she is a bit like M. Michaux. A mining specialist. she is amazing at describing the mining world, the waste, the pollution and the amount of minerals needed to build batteries and its non sense. she is also rather cute.
- Aurelien Barrau: Astrophycist, philosoph, poet, probably the most poetic and captivating speaker of all time (in french... dont know how it will be in English but in french its like listening to Cyrano de Bergerac). his vision is simple: even if we find a ne source of energy 100% clean, we cannot go on this way destroying the natural environment and replacing forests by parking lots.
voila just trying to help. Et vive la France.
merci beaucoup Phil - I just this week interviewed Jean Marc! What a great guy/spokesperson - so strange that we have never heard of eachother and our stories are so aligned. Will look into the rest. Amities, Nate
@@thegreatsimplification amazing. cant wait to see it. you ll see all the others are as good. M. Fressoz for the history side of transitions (that never happened) is just fascinating.... have a great week end
@@thegreatsimplification dont hesitate to ask JMJ about the people i reommended by the way. he knows all of them and could advise you much better than me. take care
Do you turn the screen brightness down at night? I also use an app to shift the colours to the red end of the spectrum and reduce blues/whites. I like to wind down watching things at night, and these measures help me.
@@FrogmortonHotchkiss LOL .... I guess we have the same problem. I removed the screen brightness totally and fall asleep listening to Nate or other speakers. I cannot sleep without it. As soon as it stops I start another one. I do have my favorite voices though....
Thank you so much for trying to explain the BIG picture to everyone Nate. Most people see a tiny part and get all worked up about that. Who was it said 'For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong'.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong." 😂
A quick search finds this attributed to journalist/essayist H L Mencken. Absolute ripper.
Other pearls of his include:
"It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place" and
"Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered, there is only error to be exposed." (thanks law-guy)
Gold. Thanks for the first quote.
Great thoughts and questions, Nate. In the beginning portion you mentioned polymer precursors and then looked around your office, noticing things made of plastic. Each of us should do that. It's not just the cars we drive that are addicted to oil. It's also the homes we live in, the clothes we wear, the packaging that preserves our food, the bottles our pills come in, and so forth. When we imagine the world that will exist after the carbon blip we often fixate on how limited transport will be, how international shipping might change or die, and so forth. Next time you're at the grocery store take a look at the food in your basket. In addition to its growth and cultivation being essentially powered by oil, the bulk food was packaged in one time use temporary wrappings after harvest, and then sent to preprocessing facilities, after which it was packaged in more plastic as an ingredient and sold to food manufacturers, or portioned individually and wrapped in commercial plastic packaging for our use. And then after we preserve it in plastic tupperware and put that in our fridge, which is also made with plastic and rubber. What will replace all that in the future? How will we preserve food and medicine without polymers? Will hemp and wool make a triumphant return? If so where and how will they be farmed in a global scale?
Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!🤔
I stopped driving as much as I can, so maybe I'm *naive*, but it's true, I still have to eat. There are ways to reduce the other things though. I don't think young people are all blind to what's necessary to stop oil though. For example, we need to stop plastics as well. We need to stop producing and selling unnecessary stuff in general. I think stuff like that is rolled into a need to Just Stop Oil. It's not just transportation, and it'd be bad to strawman environmentalists in this manner. We don't need credibility sapped away in this moment, considering what's at stake.
the waste from oil refining was dumped on us in the form of plastic packaging, cloth, etc But we can do without...Plants make wax, polymer fibers for our clothes. The pharmaceutical industry will still need petrochemical inputs, until we realize that it's a "sicken humans" industry for profit, Not a miracle godsend
You reminded me, I really need to start reading Smil's book on "how the world works".
Tupperware (etc.) is not even made from Oil. It is a Polyethylene. Which is made from Ethylene. (C2H4) which is made from Methane/Natural Gas (CH4). Your entire paragraph and premise is a make-believe problem. Not that things could not be better with re-use containers -- but Tupperware is already that, as well.
The human world evolved into where we are today with no plan and no systems approach to the right or wrong processes. Now we seem to want to replace what we have following the same pattern with minimal systems approach to what is a huge necessary challenge to determine what we do, what is possible and what is not. Just can't help but see loads of problems ahead and it will be largely left up to the individual and local communities to figure out a path forward with a lot less. keep up the great work Nate
This is the best channel on RUclips
Thank you Nate. Other people have made your points including Art Berman but as usual you have the ability to really cone in and speak in clear terms and hammer a point home better than anyone If you don't stop oil you don't stop emissions of carbon. The key is to reduce oil but by doing so we will be reducing all the other products derived from oil. Their price will rise which may reduce their consumption but not necessarily unless the price really rises a lot. The notion that we can use solar panels and windmills as a replacement for oil energy is nonsense. Most americans except some in very dense urban areas want little to do with Evs and they are piling up on dealer lots and their used prices are dropping like a stone. With all the increase in atmospheric turbulence and supercells from the gulf to Ontario our solar farms are at risk. Here in Wyoming and western Nebraska we just had a nasty hailstorm which annihilated a huge solar panel farm. The pictures of the destruction were amazing. Gone. Nada. Pearl Harbor. Our local online news aggregator Cowboy State daily had some great pics.
Although not directly fungible, and you mentioned cracking, it is probably possible to convert the shorter chain components into longer chains by reverse cracking to much reduce the total number of barrels required to support the other uses if gasoline is not needed. Nonetheless, your underlying argument is essentially correct, because those conversion products will generally also turn into CO2 in the end. But the number of barrels will go down, but just not by 40%.
Hi Nate, what's needed is an interview with an expert on alternatives for oil "derivates" in the broadest sense.
All these products today made from oil and gas, from fleece to medicin, plastics to fertilizer, what are possible and realistic replacements.
Realistic meaning that the total production process could be done without oil or gas/ coal, ie the required components and energy needed do not stem from oil, gas and secondary products.
There must've been qualified research in this field, environmental scientists and engineers will have realized after the Club of Rome report that industrial stuff needed be replaced and done their work.
Might be, as the French commenters implied, you'd have to find the most knowledgeable in other language fields, but they _must_ be there.
Those replacements ought be major part of making the Simplification a bending process, less a totally disruptive break and crash
We need more of this frank conversation about oil. Thanks, Nate.
We need less fearmongering about a non-problem. No one is proposing the instantaneous end of all gasoline. The reduction in our use of gasoline will play out over decades, which is plenty of time to add whatever alkylation and cracking processes we need to meet future hydrocarbon demand.
This is not assured
I'm studying product design, so we do lots of prototyping with plastics. Everything we do puts more carbon into the atmosphere, and what's really shocking is that I can't think of anything I can make or build that would actually decrease the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Besides planting trees.
Everything I'm studying right now just feels like the wrong thing at the wrong time in light of the place we find ourselves in the long arm of history. We don't need more *stuff* in the world. Or if we do, then it has to be carbon negative, and that just doesn't seem possible. It really pains me.
I build fine furniture and I have the same feelings. Every time I power my tools or apply a finish material. Every action I take puts pollution into the world.
You’re in a cult that tells you that you are a polluter (sinner) for the act of breathing out CO2.
You need to leave the cult. CO2 is not a pollutant. You are not a sinner for existing. Live your life without guilt
Great summing-up of what Art Berman said.
Thank you for uploading and sharing.
Just doing my own thought experiment. Gasoline demand will slowly drop due to EVs. How much could plastics just be reduced in some cases? Lots of plastic stuff that isn't essential, would companies raise prices and sell less but maintain profits? Would someone be incentivized to improve sorting of plastics and make recycling more viable? Would plastic derived from other materials become more viable? Especially if some are currently viewed as waste products. If gasoline is cheap, would some current diesel burners just switch? Would some utilities use it as an emergency backup source of electricity? If there is less use of gasoline, that leads to less use of plastic and diesel, will there be less oil shipped? I've read shipment of fossil fuels is 1/3 of shipping. Basically, it seems like just targeting gasoline could have knock on effects that lead to reductions in other oil products.
As I already stated here... Before the chemical/pharma industry grew out of it's child shoes, a lot was done with cannabis/hemp for centuries, even millennia. It is this industry (plus the banks) that saw to it cannabis was made illegal, because it was a too big concurrent they could not beat.
Most of all the refined products of crude oil we can replace, if we really set our minds to it.
Fertilizers might be a difficult one, but maybe it is possible to upscale the production of 'terra preta'. And if we stop flushing 'the goods' down the toilet, there are some possibilities there too. The only one that could be a real problem is asphalt/tar. Like energy, we need a lot of it and so far we have no real replacement. There are 'rumours' of making concrete sequestering carbon out of the air, but that's still in it's development stage. Like fusion, it could stay a dream for decades.
The world functioned before plastic, i see no reason why we can't go back to natural materials or move to modern alternatives made from corn or rice. Sure, it is a giant task for the economy and every manufacturing company in particular, but when there isn't a feasable alternative the leviathan has to change it's course.
There are a lot of things we "might" do. But there are even more that we won't do merely because of blind greed.
@@UnfollowYourDreams How do you propose we get corn and rice without fossil fuels? They require field preparation, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, processing, and shipping all by diesel fuel. How else do you plan to do this?
@@dasbof well, since the goal is to get rid of oil, lets use electricity to power farm and logistics vehicles.
Sure, if only they would have let you smoke your weed then everything would have been fine and dandy. That’s the real cause of our demise. Smoke another one…
I have never thought about oil in that way before, but very well explained. Its a big problem, which I have not heard about before.
The point is valid, but I see two problems with the overall argument. First, the immediate problem (short term, not long term) isn’t DRILLING oil, it’s BURNING oil - the fact that most of that barrel of oil winds up not in products, but rather in the atmosphere as CO2. Drilling for oil isn’t affecting the climate so much as burning it is. Second, markets aren’t constant. We use things like asphalt not because they are necessary, but rather because they’re readily available. Concrete can substitute for asphalt (although it has its own carbon problems). Diesel/gasoline can substitute for bunker fuel in hard-to-electrify shipping. Plastics can be synthesized from gasoline too. Destroy the market for gasoline, stop burning off most of the barrel of oil, and what’s left is a lot more fungible and a lot less harmful.
I wish more people from the green movement would realise the truths Nate speaks on oil. Great clip
It misses the fact that the energy and transportation sector are the profit sectors for df the other applications are mostly just waste streams for byproducts not able to support the industry on their own.
Think you’ll find there are many in the “green movement” who know exactly what will happen in a world without Oil, but who’s brave enough to put their heads above the parapet in a public space like MSM and tell us our lifestyles have to go back to at least 1920’s, though Nate’s (Hagens) is to some extent pointing us in that direction, but with less rather than no Oil in “The Great Simplification”🤔
@@barrycarter8276Going back to the lifestyle of the 1920s won’t have any effect. It’s already way too late for that. We need to reverse decades of pollution as well as reverse the effects that’s had on the planet as well as find the sustainable solutions we should have figured out and implemented many decades ago. It’s like being millions in debt cause you spent wastefully for decades and now trying to solve the problem by going to Burger King instead of to restaurants every single week. It’s a start, sure, but it won’t make a dent.
The coming climate chaos will prove worse than a world without oil, so we'd better stop it as much as we can asap.
@@barrycarter8276 We don't have to go back to the 1920's. All we have to do is stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We can still have plastics. No one is proposing that we stop all use of oil. They want to stop BURNING oil as a source of energy. We can do that. The gasoline fraction in crude is currently artificially expanded by cracking heavier fractions and alkylating lighter fractions. We can switch that around to whatever mix we need. We have plenty of time, as the transition will take decades. Everyone in the industry knows it's coming. It's not going to take us by surprise.
Thank you! This simply is not out there for whatever reasons and has to be in the discussion. There are so many ironically embarrassing scenarios playing out to do with this, that it seems transitions take longer than what we collectively would like, but Nature says it best; the two transition seasons in the year are as lengthy as summer and winter. 👍
Hi Nate, thank you for a thought provoking video - the refining process as you describe it isn't something that I've considered before (rather naively!) Regarding Just Stop Oil, I think the spirit of their campaign is to stop BURNING oil. That is surely the key point that we must strive for.
That's a fallacy too. Why are these people against Nuclear power. If China builds Coal powered plants( which is happening ) doesn't that just negate any other measures. Oil is the most efficient fuel there is. Wind & Solar is not going to make a difference no matter what, they take up much more space, Turbines have been shown to be unreliable. Their life span is small.
I'm so glad you pointed out such an obvious truth: if we want to stop increasing and then reduce GHG concentrations in the atmosphere we absolutely need to stop burning oil. But what is Nate saying? Wait and think? We cannot stop burning oil?
Considering its finite nature, it is important to ask: what next? At some point we will need an alternative for all of the applications of oil we want to continue. It seems sensible to question our abuse of oil and move the dial on what is possible.
I was of the understanding that much of what we can do with hydrocarbons, we can also do with carbohydrates. Plants can be used to produce many plastics and building materials.
The idea that we must continue separation of oil seems flawed on the basis that we can replace many of the materials by other means. Much work is happening in the chemistry and materials fields to make this possible.
@@noizydan Yes but what is there to use for the products that you make with plastic for instance. But what's happening is that we don't have the current technology(right now) to replace them. It is flawed that we can separate Oil from other things, But the ideas pushed don't match our current tech. We are not abusing oil. This is disinformation. We have found many better ways to extract it from the ground( not saying that it's perfect) but it is not going to "run out any time soon" including Natural GAS. You can't make people use EVs when you don't have Elec grid in place, you can't punish people for keeping their ICE cars when there is no alternative that people can afford. This whole thing is based on more money for Elites, charging others TAX to give them more money. It's a FLAWED NARRITIVE.
@@noizydan I totaly agree with you. One caveat, though, is that we can't afford to turn over too much productive land to producing non-food materials, otherwise we will quickly run into the same issues that biofuels face. Climate change will likely decrease yields overall and human population is still growing. I wonder whether a process like precision fermentaion could come to our aid, both in terms of food production and new carbohydrate materials?
Excellent resource, very informative and good for students. Thanks very much Nate, looking forward to the next instalments on this important topic.
I'm hoping you'll do parts 2, 3, 4... etc. :-) this one is SO useful. Thank you.
You are completely right! We need to develop what you could call a ‘multi transition’, where we move all products away to sustainable alternatives: for gasoline, diesel/yet fuel, plastics, etc etc.
Thank you for this information- people need to hear
If just stop oil got their wish, the general public would quickly realize that humanity is in overshoot. Cheap oil is what allowed us to reach a population of 8 billion. As we start heading into the down slope of the carbon pulse, we will quickly realize that 8 billion is not a sustainable population size.
An excellent Art Berman explanation of refining.
The systems question is an interesting one, but mostly for the entrepreneur, the economist or the petrochemical engineer among others. As a consumer - I don't care. I'm making an economic decision based on my circumstances. And if those circumstances are similar for many consumers, as seems to be the case with respect to EVs, then as the effect grows you will see a disproportionate impact on the demand for gasoline relative to other hydrocarbons. If this has no impact on production of gasoline because of the vertical nature of hydrocarbon production then the price must necessarily go down. If the response is that oil companies slow extraction of crude oil to prop up the price then this in some measure will affect the pricing of all hydrocarbons which makes alternatives look relatively more favourable.
Ultimately, if the underlying trends prove the be persistent then the economics supporting petrochemicals breaks down.
Just to clarify, “Just Stop Oil” is only demanding the cessation of new fossil fuel drilling licenses in the UK & not completely eradicating oil from our daily lives. Their background & demands should be listed on their website. 🙏🌍🌱
Important indeed.
Us stopping to waste a bunch of oil for microliters of dopamine would most likely be worth it.
Nice presentation. All agreed, and how do we stop our atmosphere from heating further? It was 124 in Palm Springs - there is no limit for heat. CO2 pollution becomes toxic at 8 or 900 ppm. We are at 423 ppm now. [this is self-resolving - but not in a good way]
The only way I’m afraid is to unleash a virus that kills the majority of people on this planet. If the people who survive manage to use the renewable sources of energy to suck the CO2 out of the air and to really focus all of the collective human intelligence on finding ways to slow down or even reverse the what we call irreversible feedback loops as well as working out mitigation strategies such as self sustaining ecosystems below the surface of the earth then maybe we have a chance. Otherwise we will likely destroy this planet to a degree where there will be no atmosphere left and the planet will turn into something resembling Mars.
As for what you say about CO2 being toxic: isn’t it already? It’s going to kill billions of humans. Isn’t being responsible for someone’s death the very essence of the word toxic?
Without oil (gas), my family and I would die. Without gas, I would have to walk everywhere. Two miles one way to get anything. No Lyft or Uber around here. Couldn't take my ill husband to the doctor. Couldn't take the dogs to the vet. Nothing. Cannot move either. Everything is too expensive. Would be screwed. I respect the Planet and consume wisely. And electricity ain't the total answer.
Sadly, "Life as we know it" has become utterly dependent on fossil fuels. To abruptly stop or severely diminish its use would result in unimaginable catastrophe. That sad conundrum has no viable solution. Certainly not on a planet with 8 billion people who have become smugly dependent on our petroleum-based infrastructure. I am utterly sympathetic with the angst of the XR movement but I also understand the naive impracticality of their demands. Confusion ensues...
We are trapped and the clock is ticking.
No one from xr or stop oil wants an immediate stop to oil, what they want is a serious timescale for transfer from the high dependency of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Oil will still be needed in some sectors, for example as lubricants. What they want to stop now is the massive subsidies to oil companies and the money be redirected into research and development of alternative sources, a sadly neglected pursuit.
Good luck, have a great one😊.
"smugly dependent" 👌
Not to mention global dimming, which almost no one in the climate movement seems to even be aware of.
Without understanding that, they actually hurt progress by reducing emissions
@briancampbell8449 even that is counter productive because they aren't acknowledging the effects of aerosols.
They also fail to support obvious solutions we can do now, such as veganism.
Eventually you have to ask how they can be so ignorant
if my understanding is correct JSO (just stop oil) are calling for no new oil licences to be issued in the UK. this in turn prompts the conversation around finding ways, moving forwards, to wean ourselves off everything oil ...
Hi Nate, Great tutorial for those unfamiliar with chemical engineering and refinery processes. My conclusion is simple; humanity will burn every kg and liter of natural gas, oil and coal because Western Industrial Civilization cannot survive without fossil fuels. This true simply because the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks that run the economic, political and social systems will ensure their profits, perks and privileges till the bitter end. We will not see significant change until fossil fuel reserves diminish to the point that the present political economies are no longer viable. One suspects that will be within the next 100 hundred years or so.
We should try to inhibit such an outcome. Learning how things really work is the way to build strength in our arguments to promote sane ideas for a world that may have a chance to survive.
That will be too late. Climate chaos will hit us hard much earlier. We need to stop burning fuel, as much as possible, as soon as possible.
@@David-l4p7d Humanity will survive. The only question is how will the decline of Western Industrial Civilization unfold. For those that expect Western Industrial Civilization to continue without end, they will be sorely disappointed as fossil fuel depletion slowly unwinds the systems, services and products that are taken for granted today. For those clinging to the idea that solar panels and windmills will enable the continuation of Western Industrial Civilization, Simon Michaux has put an end to that dream with his analysis on the limits to raw resources other than fossil fuels. Humanities reality is pretty simple. We are in for a very bumpy ride as the fossil fuels deplete and Western Industrial Civilization slowly collapses.
No one (who has thought about if for more than 5 minutes) has ever said "Stop Oil".
There are many great products from oil some quite positive for the environment and efficiency improving other industries.
We just need to stop a couple aspects of oil:
- stop burning it
- stop disposable use of it for simple convenience.
And start more effort into recycling the products of oil, or dispose of it more carefully.
The extraction and processing of oil has similar (though larger) problems of environmental damage and human consequences as most other industries. The larger problems only really come when burning or disposing the stuff.
But the stop burning it thing is a real problem for gasoline, diesel and bunker fuel volumes...any of the fuels really but those three in particular.
We need to find more efficient ways to burn the fuel (start gasoline power plants to charge our electric cars or something like that) instead of the current inefficient ways we burn it. Or we do need to actually start reducing plastics and petrochemical demand as well to match the falling demand for fuels.
Either way production, refining, demand and burning of fuels needs to reduce drastically because there consequences to the global citiens are just too high.
If we can find ways to do this without reducing other petroleum products then that is OK I guess.
But as this channel is a proponent of the great simplification, reducing demand for everything in our economy, reducing the burning of fuels is just going to be part of that however it happens.
And for the GDP/economic consequences discussion; I am of the opinion that those who obtructed change and reducing fuel demand slowly through decades of warning, shal face the consequences when it happens to them suddenly out of their control.
just stop oil and extinction rebellion are not naive, their intention is to expose truth and promote debate and yes, alarm too, and it's working.
They create hatred without presenting any solution. They are actively harming progress on public awareness of deeper issues.
What we can do is set moratorium/manage more closely the extraction/supply of oil. It's taking a stand to physically limit oil use. We can then manage oil extraction as system dynamics adjust. Ofc much more to this but happy to talk
Truth and logic is no longer the driving force of humanity. Greed is. And as we all know, "greed is blind".
I think "just stop oil" would be quite happy if we can achieve that. Rationing indeed seems a necessary step.
9:06 minutes clip. Infinite education. Thanks. I mean, really thanks!
" About 45 percent of a typical barrel of crude oil is refined into gasoline. An additional 29 percent is refined to diesel fuel" (University of Wisconsin- facts "Facts About Oil") So that's 74% we shall not need. The thing about carbon molecules is that they are so adaptable. Cracking is not just a one way process. There is also the reverse process Gas to Liquid ("GTL") and a series of well established processes of turning lighter fractions into heavier fractions. Of course there will be an energy cost but with a surplus from renewables where there are times of the day when renewable energy has a negative value, that should not be a problem. The problems are a) vested interests in business as usual b) lack of imagination among political and industrial leaders c) a joined up process of smooth and planned adaptation instead of the chaos of disruption that we are likely to experience. So yes. You can "Just Stop Oil" . However, the campaign strategy and tactics of the UK pressure group is extremely controversial and, in my view, far too confrontational. Misguided efforts can be counterproductive.
Other important factors derived from hydrocarbons: energy density & storage/transport. We are nowhere close with any alternatives. Not to mention the repeated failures of renewables to beat existing infrastructure on a life-cycle basis, EVs, wind turbines, even solar. Much of the hope for these is dependent on future developments to improve them (some of which will occur, no doubt). They remain just that, hopes, despite the creation of new industries, many of which are publicly funded / subsidized. While the science and technology behind diversifying our energy sources is awesome, let's not be blind to the money racket that is very much a part of this process.
Thanks for spreading this "inconvenient truth." Why can't we all do as the Amish do?
Because , in reality , civilization would collapse before we could make the transition at the scale needed.
Wonderful presentation! thank you Nate for bringing this to the world. If anyone is interested in this subject, I recommend watching a youtube lecture on Jevon's Paradox by Tim Garrett. I hope you touch on that subject in the next part to the Just Stop Oil Series.
I sold solar for a time and a quarter of my presentations resulted in a sale. A large majority the sales were to people who learned about the weakness as per the presentation and then wanted to reduce the energy they used from a centralized source. Liberals who wanted all or nothing wouldn't buy because of the cost. My best sales point was a system only as a backup while at the same time its use reduced the billing. The backup as a building heat source is intermittent, but as a domestic water system the heat is stored in the heat exchange tank. For electric a system large enough to power the fridge in summer and furnace fan in winter with enough production to store in batteries that would at least last the night on a cloudy day's winter production.
Overtime we could reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, one segment of energy of a building, one at a time, and world trade, flying on jets, and all that, then adjust this oil dilemma as discussed along the way. Most of my presentation and probably the ideas discussed by this RUclips creator was/is way over the head of those who were/are chanting political slogans though! Hahaha! I've been in the battle and know this intimately.
Anyway, there is not the desire to really do something, there are not businesses enough with trained crews so this is all utopian dreamtime. The dilemma will go until it can't and then most will suffer horribly is my view.
Jokes on them.
Yet we still need to stop oil, or we're looking at the possibility of an unlivable planet for us vertebrates. And it's tempting to give up hope, but in all seriousness, think of the kids.
If the problem is vertical, we need to reduce vertically in all aspects of life in "developed" economies. This doesn't contradict a need to "just stop oil" if we want our future generations to have a shot at living. So yeah, Just Stop Oil.
@@alanlu8625 I've considered a rare worse case scenario. No one knows for sure what will happen.
At last a fairly clear concise and thoughtful perspective on the matter. Unfortunately it will take another two thousand years for humanity to grasp and integrate this level of thinking.
Nate what you are not factoring into your analysis is that gasoline and diesel fuel are the most profitable aspects of the ff industry. Most of the other applications for waste products of the ff industry only make ecominic since because of the transportation sector and the power generation sector. As the demand for those two sectors reduce demand we will see less of the lowe profit plastics. We have seen the plastics boom in this century because it is a waste industry from the fracking boom that was needed to fuel the profitable energy and transportation sector. You are making non profitable waste management into a driver for the ff industry when you worry about the uses of ff in other sectors.
I was just thinking I saw this first hand during covid when my chicken feed was bagged in pepper bags again not plastic. Less driving and less demand for gasoline during covid ment less waste plastic so paper was used.
Serious, thoughtful environmentalists do look at the big picture. Thank you for this information on the distillation process. We don't have to eliminate oil, but we do have to eliminate emission or CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. If we institute a simple, predictable, and escalating price on dumping heat-trapping gasses, I think that will drive up the effective cost of burning most of those oil fractions that you cited -- propane, gasoline, diesel, and heavy fuel oil (and natural gas, too). It will tilt the economics of energy towards electricity from solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal sources. And from that electricity we'll also get SEF, hydrogen, and ammonia to use as fuels for aviation, shipping, and possibly long-haul trucking. With that "cost of carbon" priced in, DECISIONS at every level will be steered away from emitting carbon. The power of the free market -- entrepreneurs and inventors -- will flood the space to an even greater extent than they have already. Because everyone follows the money. We need to raise the price of dumping carbon until it matches the cost of removing it (Direct Air Capture, which is currently horrendously expensive).
Sure, this will upset a lot of the world's powerful entrenched interests. But publish an escalating price schedule now, so that everyone can plan. Start small, but make sure everyone knows where the costs are heading. And of course, it has to be done worldwide. If necessary, we can use border-adjustment fees (tariffs) to bring the laggards around.
If we were to “just stop oil”, we would reduce the aerosol masking effect which would drive up global temperatures even higher. On top of that, many societal processes would break down of course, among which the food supply and all the modern IT systems on which we rely for our banking, for filing our taxes and to keep in touch with family members and friends, so you know, we’d literally turn our planet into a living hell.
I don't think anyone believes we can "just stop oil". They mean "reduce it drastically", save it for those important processes, for the health system, essential works... hopefully while we learn to do more with less and find other energy sources.
Even as a kid I thought about how it was weird that we didn’t have a plan for what to do after we need to/have to stop driving cars. In 4th grade I learned about climate change and became strongly against automobiles and I figured by the time I was an adult we would’ve realized how awful they are and stopped using them. We really have no endgame for this industrial activity thing and even 9 year old me understood that we can only burn fuel once and eventually it must come to an end. How did centuries of the most educated people in history produce so little in ways of what to do when this fuel bonanza comes to it’s logical end?
I reckon tho we should be ending the mass production of cars and focusing on making lighter weight gasoline powered farm equipment
We need to build walkable cities.
When’s part 2? Eager to understand.
Just listened to Chapter 3 of Jem Bendell’s new book called Breaking Together. He quoted « the work of energy economist Nate Hagens » at 00:11:20 in the SoundCloud free audio recording of his book, released to the public for free on July 10, 2023. At 00:17:45 he cites Jevon’s Paradox.
I picked up a printed copy. Jem's most important work to date.
Frankly, YES.
I'm always amazed when looking at a refinery...it's truly one of the best accomplishments by man.
It’s like a rat figuring out how to set wood on fire which in turn burns down the house he lives in. A truly great accomplishment indeed.
Interesting, but this video only scratches the surface of the alkane industry. There's so much more to know. The take away is, as Hagen said, we're nowhere near being finished with oil.
Personal transportation by way of the automobile, no matter what “clean energy source,” literally runs on top of tires and asphalt which require the use of oil. There are many more implications of the vertical refinement of oil, of course, like, for example, the need for diesel for trucks and trains that transport all of our goods. I ask myself, “how is it that Nate Hagens can put this together (great graphics by the way) and communicate it but the main media outlets go with the fluff stories. Where are their “Edward Murrow” journalists?!
Thank❤🌹🙏 you, Nate👍. Just Stop Oil I think just demand not to invest in new drilling projects, am I right?
yes that will be in Part 2
Yes, Just Stop Oil’s demands are not to invest in new oil and gas fields. But that’s not such a snappy name for a banner.
@@timcoombe hmm yes. "Just Stop New Oil" sounds a bit... meek...
@@timcoombe Just Stop Oil want to end all use of all fossil fuels by 2030 - see juststopoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/JSO_research_public_v1_27022022.pdf. That is a lot more than just stopping new oil and gas fields.
Humans are on a HydroCarbon Drip concerned about Fentanyl! Great work Nate! Thank you!
Pitching EVs as some kind of panacea, instead of just one small step forward, was always wrong. Massive cultural adjustments will be needed as well.
I enjoyed the video. Thank you.
I believe you can take the light molecules and build bigger ones with them at a cost. You could also make tractor trailers or airplanes that ran on gasoline-ora mix. Or we could mine and refine heavier grades of crude that don’t produce gasoline or lighter fluid or propane.
I've heard and understood you. Still: Just stop oil. We need to face up to dealing with the fallout
Not really important but the sound leads video by approx. 6 frames (systematically, from start to finish). This said, keep up the good work! Any chance to see french versions of your GreatSimplification videos? French subtitles would be a good start (I did translate "The Oil Machine" documentary, so maybe I can help).
You are right as statistics show the net growth of energy neutralizes any renewable energy growth so does little to reduce fossil fuels... Please look at the US fossil fuel production growth of the last 2 decades....
Thanks Nate, you taught me something new. This is mind boggling for all the "stop oil" advocates. A fundamental flaw indeed.
Carnival cruises has 62 vessels. Did you know that last year they generated 40% more CO2 than all the road vehicles in Europe combined?
False.
I agree with about 95%of what Nate says however from a European perspective we use a lot of diesel in cars as well as trucks so EVs reduce the diesel consumption too.... But it's still a complicated situation as Nate suggests.
Personally, i think we should stop oil and take the GDP hit whatever it is. The problem is, GDP is the wrong measuring stick to measure the success of society. instead let's measure success by the number of hours of labor required to have access to land and basic shelter / water needs
Exactly. Not stopping oil means extinction. Grow up humans.
Been listening to TGS for about a year now I think, things like this and the info from Simon Michaux on material scarcity for example was, and is, mind-blowing but at least someone looks at the actual facts!
Thanks Nate. How did humans live before the discovery and use of oil? Do you think that might be a starting point? And GDP, do you think humans may be able to get past the notion of GDP and ever increasing volume and growth in society? What about changing our attitudes towards the planet from one of exchange and price to attitudes of use and real-value? And this movememt Just stop oil, have you considered interviewing Roger Hallam as a guest? I believe he is one of the founders the movement. Keep up the good work.
I recall thinking to myself in middle school in the 1970's that we would have to give up oil for energy to preserve the limited quantities for plastic and other chemicals
Terrifying. But-all that stuff made of oil wasn't embedded in our culture when I was a child!! we still wore cotton and linen clothes then, plastic toys were just being invented-most of my toys were of wood wool or metal... That stuff From the bottom of the barrel wasn't deeply in our culture, Food packaging was made of paper and wax, why can't we go back to 50 years ago life?
Paraffin (used in the manufacture of waxed paper since the late 19th century) is made from petrochemicals.
The other applications for oil grew as the industry tried to find a way to dispose of their waste products. As the raw materials for crude oil shifted so did the waste industries. Fracking makes waste that is good for single usage plastic which is why that had boomed in the last few decades with the fracking boom. As demand for the profitable transportation and energy sector fuels drop the waste will drop and those sectors will naturally down size. During covid my grain supplier for chicken feed used paper bags now they use plastic again. The difference is during covid there was less transportation fuel used and thus less waste plastic to make chicken feed bags.
@@DanA-nl5uo Why will demand for fossil fuels drop?
How was the food and materials mined and shipped 50 years ago? How did we have steel? How was food planted, harvested, and shipped? Trucks and trains run on fossil fuels. How did you heat your home? How did the factories run? Go back 50 years and it was still all fossil fuel based.
What about net positive energy production biofuel from algae-sugarcane-ethanol?
I am feeling pretty hopeless of seneca curves (*dramatic downward direction) and proven convemtional affordable oil running out in 10 years
really cannot wait for you to help us see what we actually could do
Thanks so much for pulling us closer to the reality, Nate
I really appreciate you and your work and the discussions you make us aware of
By this reasoning, we can't stop using the amount of oil we use now, until we reduce our use of EVERY product we get from oil. There's no point reducing our use of any of them until we reduce them all.
But to some extent we can change the way we refine it, to change the proportions of the different fractions. I don't know the limits to that, and probably you don't either. Our refinery experts have learned the kinds of adjustments that have been useful in the past, and when the requirements change to something new we don't know how well they'll manage.
Yes. That's the birds eye message - that focusing on ONE thing (Gasoline reduction) won't really change much unless whole system/products change. Thats the spirit of the argument - the details are messier - we can change 5-6% of gasoline fraction and move it to diesel w current refineries (which means 6% of 40%=~2.5% of each barrel. There are many other possible chemical switches that can happen over time and with $$$$. As I stated, if we did get rid of ALL demand for gasoline that might reduce demand for oil by 15% or so in long term. At end of day, thats not going to happen - this analysis is just (hopefully) making more people aware of constraints and interconnections. I don't have the answers.. (and I disagree 'there is no point...' lots of small directional changes can create some emergent response - ultimately we'll have to use less of just about everything so starting now - at individual - and societal level - is a step on the path)
@@thegreatsimplification Yes agreed, if we focus on just one thing then everything else will sneak up behind us.
It sounded like you were saying that we can't get by with just things that make electricity, because so many of our energy needs are for things that electricity can never supply. Here's a reasonably big energy use that CAN be supplied by electricity. that's worth something. And if gasoline turns into largely a waste product, we can sell it cheap on the international market until we figure out how to convert it into asphalt or something else useful.
If electric vehicles were only for buses and trains and such, the public wouldn't pay so much attention. It's the idea that you could buy one yourself, but the early models are priced just for rich people. So talking about how you got one, or you're thinking about getting one is a way to tell people you're rich.
What about asphalt? It recycles very well. It's mildly carcinogenic. We've covered 1% of the surface of the USA with it. There is no substitute for asphalt for roofing, every alternative is either not as good or more expensive. There is no substitute on roads. Every alternative is either not as good or more expensive.
We use the asphalt part to bind other stuff together. Sand or whatever. People have tried all kinds of things for the contaminants. Anything that's cheap. Sand. Crushed glass. crushed seashells. Chopped chicken feathers. Chicken feathers? Yes. Anything that's fairly small particles that won't rot much when covered with asphalt. At some point we will need to find an alternative. for asphalt. Or do without.
Brilliant!
very interesting Nate. I joined XR last year as i wanted to feel like i was making a difference, soon realised how pointless it was.
My local XR group just sits on Zoom meetings & talks about, "social justice," ad nauseum.
Almost all of these groups have been co-opted by that ideology.
I recall interviewing to join DGR and getting asked how I feel about women. I responded, "I made eye contact with one once."
Then they inquired about trans issues, and I nopped out as I singularly joined for environmental activism & awareness.
@@leonsappl the hearts in the right place with a lot of XR folk - but as you have pointed out the majority don't understand the predicament we are in. I did however get the leader of my local group to read up on and understand Overshoot, small wins i guess.
@@MyMomSaysImKeen that is strange that they go so off topic, lots of people just angry with the state of society these days and so somehow it gets packaged up into one big rant
@@MyMomSaysImKeen These groups are clearly a substitute for religion. They have the earmarks of any fundamentalist religious movement, which is why they require ideological purity from all members. These people are not interested in problem solving or inquiry, their greatest desire is to impose their will on society and crush all of those who dissent.
i hear ya. took my son on an XR demo (legal one) but same issue... i realised walking in the middle of the demo that although we were there because we really believe in the urgency of the situation, if i were to really lay out the range of views and analysis i subscribe to, most of my fellow demo-ers would be massively alienated... probably ask us to leave :-0 so my question for you @Nate is - if we are largely persuaded by the diagnosis, where's the material to tell us what can be *done* about it?
Interesting question. However, we could just consume less of it couldn't we? Of course that in turn means recession, depression and collapse. Then again, we are already in the recession phase in some overdeveloped countries. Depression is in our near future. Then collapse. Once collapse hits we will have "just stopped oil," since the supply chains will have stopped. The smart people are already adapting their lifestyles to use less of the stuff and are preparing for even more stringent stressful situations.
i think one of the most destructive mindset is "replacement", people want to keep things as they are and replace things with another similar thing, or energy.
if oil is a problem, stop that, no ifs, buts or cant's.
Awesome video and awesome channel. Thank you so much. I'm NOT an expert but it appears that the naptha fraction is used for plastics. Some 8% to 10% of the crude oil is used for plastics. I have tried to make the same point you are making with little success. IF we used oil for plastics and did NOT burn any of it in vehicles, then we would have to find another way to dispose of what would essentially be a waste product. Our cars and trucks are essential waste disposal units for the plastics industry. Well, that might be a bit of an oversimplification but ...
Greetings!
I had been wondering about this a lot just because of all the asphalt that I drive around on
I understand what you're doing here and its a good idea but I also think you're taking 'Just stop Oil' a bit too literally. They understand whats happening with our climate and what fossil fuels mean to our economy. But they also understand the media and its role in our economy and politics, they are doing what it takes to highjack the media to pay attention to whats going on and have been very sucessful. They may be annoying for some people but they cannot be ignored and are putting themselves at risk (long jail terms, assaults have all ready happened) because they understand that we are sleepwalking into disaster. Its better this then the violence that will inevitably replace peaceful groups like Just Stop Oil or XR if we dont act. Look past the slogans, theres a lot more going on with groups like these then people like to admit. Its about raising awareness, getting in people and governments faces to do something, keeping climate and biodiversity issues at the forefront of the media where they have never been. Too easy too write off whats happening here because of a 3 word slogan.
I personally believe a day will come soon when we'll look back fondly at these groups and wonder why we didnt listen.
The Chinese have a very interesting approach to renewables which is more energy, more energy, more energy - gotta get more energy from somewhere , might as well include renewables. The Chinese are quite open and honest about this. It's a pity that other countries are a little less transparent and more inclined towards greenwashing the naked truth. For example, cloud computing and AI will need muchas energy from somewhere.I guess the Chinese don't need to worry about democracy. Mind you, after the flooding of the Forbidden City in Beijing, the Chinese might be having second thoughts about coal.
Another great podcast Nate, but I think you have done Just Stop Oil a disservice. Their agenda isn't to stop using oil per se, it is to stop governments licensing new oil fields, invest more in renewables, insulate homes and, ultimately, adopt a de-growth strategy. Now, I appreciate your apprehensions regarding the de-growth movement and the role of renewables with respect to our broader energy needs, and to some extent I share your misgivings, but I think you'll find that JSO are somewhat less naive about the complexities surrounding our reliance on fossil fuels than you assume.
Wikipedia:
"Just Stop Oil opposes the United Kingdom granting new fossil fuel licensing and production agreements;[1] on its website it calls for the government of the United Kingdom to stop all future consents and licensing agreements related to the development, exploration, and production of fossil fuels in the country.[7] The group demands investment in renewable energy, and that buildings have better thermal insulation to avoid waste of energy.[8]"
"renewable energy" is and can only be made with mined materials like copper, cobalt, lithium, manganese, etc. How to you get them without fossil fuels? The only machines that can get them are diesel powered mining equipment and trucks and processing. We need more copper for this transition than has ever been mined. We need massive amounts of oil to do it.
@@dasbof Indeed.
The increased demand for road fuels in current 3rd world countries will be so massive that it will easily offset EVs replacing gasoline cars in the developed world. So we definitely need EVs if we don't want to compete with billions of Indians and Africans for fuel. Although we may win with our wealth, but it could result in a skewed mobility and transportation system in those regions.
It's a strategic question, not an environmental one - the US could get away without EVs, but the EU can't - it first needs to liberate itself from Russian natural gas dependency this decade and then oil imports in the next.
that's not an angle I had thought of - but it makes sense - thank you
Somewhere around 30 Calories of Petroleum is used to grow about 1 Calorie of Food in Modern Agriculture.
Solar Panels and Windmills can't produce things like Anhydrous Ammonia or mine Potash used in Modern Agriculture.
This not true. It’s about 2-3 cals fossil to GROW 1 food cal. And about 8-11 more to package transport store etc. still a lot. But not 30
@@thegreatsimplification I suppose it's how you perform your Calculations in terms of how far you drill down into things like Tractor Tires, Steel and such.
Let's agree to "A lot" of Petroleum Calories is needed to produce 1 Calorie of Food in Modern Agriculture.
As Petroleum Resources become more expensive it will drive Priority Values particularly around Food.
I grow much of my own Food using Tools with a considerable amount of embedded Petroleum Resources. Even a #2 Steel Shovel has a load of embedded Petroleum Resource inputs which I shall not calculate.
Keep up the good work.
The elephant in the room is diesel since the Shale Oil (tight Oil) is useless. Global Oil production peaked in 2018, about half of the global oil production comes from very large oil fields that are near or in terminal decline. We managed to delay peak oil production by about 20 to 25 years because of horizontal drilling & water injection, which allowed old oil fields to continue high production levels well after the fields began to decline.
Likely by the early 2030s global Oil production will begin to collapse. Once the cost of diesel gets into $12/gal to $15/gal its all over as people simply won't be able to afford food & other basic needs. On top of that World Debt to GDP is about 300% (370% in the US). When energy gets too expensive there will be no way to service that debt.
For people who say no more Oil!! My only question is, showed how to live without using any oil and its derivatives for a week!
In the beginning, they didn't know what to do with gasoline.
I'm already for it...I'm 65 and walk 9 miles a day..don't need gasoline...need sandals
Sandals are made and shipped by fossil fuels. Also the food you eat to power your walk. Farmed, refined, and shipped by fossil fuels (diesel). Your (and my) life is all fossil fuels.
@@dasbof I make them from old discarded tires like they do in Africa...we got millions billions of them just lying around and will last for a long long time
We don’t need to stop oil. We just need to stop burning it. In the 1800’s when they had no use for gasoline they just poured it out. I’m sure that we can develop some other use for gasoline and diesel that don’t involve making the atmosphere warmer.
Even though there is an urgent need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, gas and diesel vehicles are going to be around for decades just because they couldn’t possibly build enough EV’s for everyone to buy one, and everyone doesn’t have the money to anyway.
There is a potential issue of the underground fuel tanks at gas stations needing to be replaced, during the 2030’s that may determine whether the individual stations will stay open. And that’s just like the issue of abandoned oil wells that taxpayers have spend money to cap, where the oil industry doesn’t pay the full costs and taxpayers subsidize them.
The important thing is that the longer we are increasing co2 and methane, the worse the future will be for people
Worked oil refinery when oil goes through the cracker it's producing petrol . diesel what going to do with it
So the question is what to do with all the gasoline left over if passenger cars switch to electric. The answer is to switch diesel engines to gasoline engines in trucks, locomotives and heavy equipment.
But they will be electric too. Oil will be a problematic resource soon.
@@Apjooz Electricity isn't an energy source, and ships can't run on electricity.
@@dbadagna lol if you only knew how much energy is used to "refine and transport" Canadian tar sand oil you would know that ff isn't and energy source anymore either it is a poor battery for storing other forms of energy comming out of Canada. Alberta is building nuclear power plants to power the tar sands industry.
You’re confused. If we completely eliminate the use of gasoline, we’ll start using that gasoline to replace other things that are producing CO2. We have smart people who will figure it out. The net result is less gasoline = less oil.
The only reason we haven’t built more refineries is because we don’t need to. If we need to, we obviously would. The price of everything that relies on oil would increase.
The state of Georgia spent $35 billion dollars building their nuclear power plant it cost a million dollars a megawatt to build wind power You could build 35,000 megawatts of wind power for the same price of that nuclear plant which only produces 2,000 megawatt
I think the video could benefit from some “why” explanations. I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but to a green washed person they’d be like “why not?”
-Why are scaling EVs not going to change the amount of oil in the world?
-Why aren’t solar panels and renewables a 1:1?
-Why are EVs not helpful in the overall decoupling from oil?
Yes that’s required and I don’t have enough time. But you’re right- trying to get more resources/staff. But we’re doing what we can in meantime
And food of course. The Green Revolution which enabled and (mostly) sustains the present human population is predicated on oil (nitrogen fertilizers produced by the Haber-Bosch process which uses vast amounts of energy). What to do?
EVs are not green, take the process of making Batteries, mining those Elements ( most of which are rare Earth commodities) not only making them, but also recycling of them. You still need Oil based lubricants, Antifreeze, etc. Wrecked EVs are another item. What to do with them? We don't have an Electrical grid that can handle what it would take to charge them. They are expensive. Who can afford them?. Their Batteries need replaced at a certain point. Now what? Until you can answer these & other questions, they do not change "carbon footprint" at all. CO2 is not all bad. The Earth is 15% greener than in 1980. You cannot make a difference by changing 1 thing. You need a comprehensive plan that is not there. You can't put the cart before the Horse.
Great video. The oil production in the world will very likely start to permantely decline in the 2030s. Lets say decline rate of 2 procent per year. Starting 2030 that will be about 60 procent by 2050 of todays oil production. And by 2100 there will be very little oil to support any typ of modern typ living. I live in a country with zero oil production today. By 2050 there will be very little if any oil exported from oil production countries. I cant see how many countries can even function by then. This is one of many things that will be a huge challenge in the future and i often think about. Electric cars also need asphalt and tires so shifting to ev is not a solution in the long run.
Just Stop Oil- they know it’s not going to completely end all of a sudden, they also know progressive reform will not work and there is no time left for that anyway. Have Roger Hallam on your show, it would be quite enlightening to hear what a social scientist has to say to this subject.