Remove the crude oil, and you do not merely dim the lights. You dismantle society!
By Ronald Stein P.E. Yoshihiro Muronaka
Can a zero-emissions world survive without crude oil?
That is the wrong question.
The zero-emissions debate asks when we can stop burning crude oil. The harder question — one that remains largely unasked — is what do we propose to make things from once we do.
Electricity generated by wind and solar cannot be poured into a mold to produce a medical device, spread on a field as fertilizer, or refined into the lubricant that keeps the wind turbine itself from seizing.
More than 6,000 products and transportation fuels that underpin modern civilization are derived from crude oil as raw materials. Remove the crude oil, and you do not merely dim the lights. You dismantle the material foundation of industrial society.
Wind turbines and solar panels generate electricity — but electricity alone cannot sustain modern civilization. Energy leaders rarely acknowledge what crude oil uniquely provides. Consider what it alone supplies:
- Jet fuel for military and commercial aviation — approximately 100,000 flights daily worldwide.
- Diesel for trucks, trains, ships, and construction equipment.
- Gasoline for approximately 6 billion vehicles on this planet.
- Bunker fuel for the roughly 100,000 merchant vessels that carry 90 percent of world trade.
- Feedstocks for fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and synthetic fibers.
- Lubricants and hydraulic fluids for every category of machinery — including wind turbines and solar panel manufacturing equipment.
Planes, ships, trucks, and factories run on products manufactured from crude oil by multi-billion-dollar refineries. These are not legacy inconveniences to be engineered away. They are the material foundation of modern life, and no amount of electricity from wind or solar can substitute for them.
Every Nation Runs on a Different Clock
Discussions of crude oil dependency are often built around American conditions, but the reality differs sharply by country. What a sudden supply disruption would mean depends on each nation’s combination of four distinct capabilities: domestic reserves, extraction capacity, refining infrastructure, and petrochemical manufacturing. No two countries share the same profile.
The United States holds domestic production and refining capacity, yet even there, the ongoing closure of California refineries illustrates how quickly regional infrastructure gaps translate into transportation fuel shortages. A state with abundant sunshine and aggressive renewable targets still depends entirely on petroleum-derived products for the functioning of its economy and the materials of daily life.
Today, with Hormuz transit severely disrupted by the Iran conflict, Japan is reportedly drawing down those reserves while simultaneously securing alternative supplies for crude oil from producers outside the Middle East. No renewable electricity target can substitute for this scramble to secure the physical availability of crude oil and its derivatives.
Meanwhile, roughly 60 percent of the world’s population — about five billion people — lives on less than ten dollars a day. These are not yet heavy consumers of petroleum products, but they aspire, as all people do, to reliable food, clean water, modern medicine, and durable shelter. At an industrial scale, every one of those aspirations depends on petrochemical inputs. The developing world has not fully joined the petroleum economy, and the answer to that fact cannot be to deny them the materials that already-industrialized nations used freely in building their own prosperity.
Each country runs on a different clock. Some would feel a supply shock within days; others have buffers measured in months. But all clocks, without crude oil, eventually stop at the same place.
The Horizon That Keeps Moving
For half a century, the world has been told that oil will run out in roughly forty years. That warning was issued during the 1970s oil shocks. It was repeated throughout the 1990s and 2000s. It is still being issued today, and the number has barely moved.
The world currently holds approximately 1.77 trillion barrels of proved reserves, a reserves-to-production ratio of about 47 years at current consumption levels. Yet this ratio has remained near 40 to 50 years for decades, even as the world consumed tens of billions of barrels annually. Proved reserves are not a fixed inventory. They are a running calculation: as technology advances and economics shift, resources once considered unextractable migrate into the proved category. Shale oil, deepwater fields, and enhanced recovery techniques have each added decades to the count. The horizon keeps moving because human ingenuity keeps moving it.
This does not mean oil is infinite. It means that treating the reserves-to-production ratio as a countdown timer misreads how resource development works. The evidence points to a simpler conclusion: the world has consistently found ways to extend access to this resource — and there is no sign this process has ended.
The Refinery: Civilization’s Conversion Point
One element is consistently overlooked in the rush to count barrels: crude oil in its raw form is useless. No one fuels an aircraft with unprocessed crude. The black liquid from oil fields only becomes the fuels and feedstocks civilization depends on after passing through a petroleum refinery — one of the most capital-intensive and technically sophisticated facilities ever built, representing investments of several billion dollars and years of permitting and construction.
This is why the question of crude oil cannot be reduced to a question of emissions. The refinery is not merely a source of carbon dioxide. It is the conversion point between a raw natural resource and the material requirements of modern life. Policies that accelerate refinery closures — without any credible alternative for producing the same spectrum of products — are not cleaning the air. They are removing a linchpin.
Learning to Live with It Wisely
None of this is an argument for recklessness. Efficiency, cleaner processes, and reduced waste are goals entirely consistent with acknowledging crude oil’s irreplaceable role as a raw material. What the evidence does not support is the proposition that oil can be eliminated from the human economy through mandates and deadlines without catastrophic disruption to the material foundations of civilization.
This 4-billion-year-old planet has provided humanity with an extraordinary endowment of resources. The appropriate response is not to declare that endowment a crisis and race to abandon it, but to use it responsibly, innovate continuously toward cleaner processes, and extend its benefits to the billions who have not yet had full access to them. The future will not be secured by banning carbon. It will be secured by learning to live with it wisely.
We are a group of about 200 ordinary citizens who mostly live near Atlantic City, New Jersey. We volunteer our time and money to maintain this website. We do our best to post accurate information. However, we admit we make mistakes from time to time. If you see any mistakes or inaccurate, misleading, outdated, or incomplete information in this or any of our posts, please let us know. We will do our best to correct the problem as soon as possible. Thanks.
Seth Grossman, Executive Director
LibertyAndProsperity.com
In my opinion, the author doesn’t make clear why we’d stop making products from crude oil even if we stopped burning it as fuel. That market would still exist.
If the argument is that burning oil is necessary to produce the byproducts, the net result is still a drastic reduction in overall combustion—and with new refineries being electrified, even less oil will be needed.
The author may have something else in mind, but it wasn’t clear to me.
Reply to Jeffrey from Fred Willis:
As to Question #1: In my opinion, the author doesn’t make clear why we’d stop making products from crude oil even if we stopped burning it as fuel. That market would still exist.
The number of main line large environmental organizations, NGO’s and small groups opposed to oil use is unknown. However, they are in the dozens and possibly hundreds. The commonality of the groups is all oil usage will stop. The differences are in the time frame. A few demand shut down tomorrow but most favor an undefined time slowdown then a complete shutdown. Whether the time frame is tomorrow or twenty years merely affects delay, not effect. In all cases, western society would return to an 1850 standard of living.
As to Question #2: The issue is not burning oil, it is refining oil. The 6000 products are based on oil derivatives. Without oil, even wind turbines and solar panels are impossible to build because some of their components are oil based. The renewable energy advocates never identify this aspect. People and perhaps the advocates just assume all of the 6000 products will remain cheap and plentiful.
There have been a few blogs on alternative raw materials for the 6000 products. The Robert Bradley Master Resource website discussed this several years ago. The blogs showed there were a few alternative raw materials available for some products and they were quite expensive.
The Stop Oil advocates should provide cost projections and demonstrate manufacturing capacity of the 6000 replacement products.
There are no fully electric refineries operating in the world. Ther are pilot projects performing some parts of oil refining. Until a full electric refinery is built and operated economically and reliably operated for a significant length of time, they are not a viable replacement.