FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCT DEPENDENCY

      Fossil fuels and the attitude toward them could be used as a way to distinguish conservatives from non-conservatives. This post has three sections. 
A. DISADVANTAGES OF FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTS
B. BENEFITS VERSUS DISADVANTAGES
C. CONSUMER DEPENDENCY.

      Fossil fuels refer to petroleum, coal, and natural gas. If you already understand the devastating cost of fossil fuel products in regard to public health and environmental quality you can skip Section A which lists and documents some of the disadvantages of fossil fuel products. Section B considers the possibility that the disadvantages of fossil fuels outweigh the benefits. Section C discusses the dependency of American consumers on fossil fuel products.

A.   DISADVANTAGES OF FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTS

      Fossil fuel products are things made from fossil fuels. These include different grades and types of oils, gasoline, coke (made from coal), petroleum coke (from tar sands), natural gas liquids (NGLs), petrochemicals (petroleum distillates), and different types of plastics. Fossil fuel products also refer to those chemicals emitted from the extraction, processing, and burning of petroleum, coal, and natural gas and those chemicals released during the production, use, and disposal of those things made from fossil fuels. These include a variety of health-threatening chemicals like heavy metals (mercury, nickel, cadmium, arsenic), benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), silica, radon, particulate matter [e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)], carbon monoxide, hydrofluoric acid (HF), dioxins, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), oil vapors, bisphenol-A (BPA), phthalates. styrene, toluene, and 1,3-butadiene.

       Fossil fuels and fossil fuel products are used in transportation, energy production, industry, physical medicine, horticulture, cleaning, and in fabrication of consumer goods.

Other than emissions of the toxic chemicals listed above, what are some specific examples of how fossil fuels negatively affect environmental quality and public health?

GENERALLY

1. Some consumer goods containing fossil fuel products become household hazardous waste. Examples of these goods classified as hazardous include paint products; household cleaners; arts and crafts-related solvents and thinners; automotive products; household cleaners; pesticides and fertilizers. These are considered hazardous to our health and to the environment and should not be put in the regular trash (http://www.wm.com/enterprise/municipalities/residential-solutions/household-hazardous-waste.jsp).

 2. Researchers of a European not-for-profit organization, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), "found that the use of fossil fuels resulted in health-related costs of more (than) $2.76 trillion across the globe..." (https://www.triplepundit.com/2017/08/hidden-health-cost-fossil-fuel-subsidies-report/).

COAL

1. Coal beds, refuse banks and underground mines which would not exist except for coal mining have caught fire and burned for years at a time. The combustion of coal releases many of the chemicals listed above (https://www.ripleys.com/weird-news/centralia-mine-fire/).

 2. Old coal mines can fill with water which results in the formation of ferrous iron, sulfuric acid, and iron hydroxide. These chemicals lower the pH of streams they enter and tend to threaten some plant and animal life forms. “Drainage from thousands of abandoned coal mines has contaminated more than 3,000 miles of streams and associated ground waters in Pennsylvania and is the most extensive water-pollution problem affecting the four major river basins in Pennsylvania” (https://pa.water.usgs.gov/projects/energy/amd/).

3. Wet coal ash slurry ponds can break and/or contaminate ground water supplies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/many-coal-sludge-impoundments-have-weak-walls-federal-study-says/2013/04/24/76c5be2a-acf9-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e43f9a005fb5).

4. When some old coal mine shafts have experienced subsidence it has resulted in very serious property damage (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/29/29greenwire-reports-of-property-damage-mount-as-longwall-m-76581.html).

5. Black Lung disease, once on the decline in coal miners, increased in incidence beginning in the late 1990s (https://www.npr.org/2018/05/22/613254363/scientific-studies-confirm-a-spike-in-black-lung-disease).

OIL AND NATURAL GAS

1. Almost all contemporary commercial pesticides are hydrocarbons derived from petroleum.  DDT is one of these. Tripod.com’s “DDT—Effects on the Environment” states that “You will die if you have a concentration above two hundred thirty-six mg of DDT per kg of body weight. Concentration of 6–10 mg/kg leads to symptoms like headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors” (accessed January 21, 2016, http://www.xhawkbio2.tripod.com/ddt/id4.html). Several dozen pesticides, including DDT, have been banned by the EPA, or their use restricted. “Ironically, these pesticides are still being exported to assist developing countries…” (http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Pesticide.html).

2. Oil and gas drilling can be dangerous. “Citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CDC reported 1,189 oil and gas workers were killed in the 11 years ended 2013, a period of intense drilling in the country” (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oklahoma-drilling-patterson-uti/driller-at-center-of-oklahoma-well-blast-has-history-of-deadly-accidents-idUSKBN1FF2KN).

3. The US has at least 2.6 million miles of energy pipelines. It is claimed that pipelines are a better method of transporting crude oil and gasoline than trains or trucks.  According to an Inside Energy article, from 2010 – 2016 there were 4,269 pipeline incidents resulting in 100 deaths and 474 injuries (http://insideenergy.org/2016/11/18/protesters-say-pipelines-are-dangerous-are-they/). A USA Today story about the 11/16/17 TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline spill in South Dakota reports that the twenty biggest pipeline spills since 7/25/2010 spilled a total of  1,705,305 gallons of gasoline and 5,732,506 gallons of crude oil. Total cleanup costs for 19 of the spills (excluding TransCanada) added up to $1,177,188,048 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/11/17/top-20-onshore-oil-and-gas-spills/876390001/).

4. A study conducted in Pennsylvania concluded that children who are born to mothers living within two miles of a deep fracking well are more likely to have a low birth weight and be less healthy than children born farther away. “…low birth weight can lead to poorer health throughout a person’s life” (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/data-from-11-million-infants-suggests-fracking-harms-human-health/548315/).

5. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Plastics are produced from natural gas, feedstocks derived from natural gas processing, and feedstocks derived from crude oil refining” (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=34&t=6). “An estimated 17 million barrels of oil is required each year to produce water bottles” (https://gizmodo.com/the-staggering-amount-of-plastic-we-ve-produced-and-wha-1797055823). Between the beginning of mass production of plastics in the 1950s and July of 2017 humans produced 8.3 billion tons of the material. 30% of that is still in use, 9% (US rate) has been recycled. 12% incinerated. The other 49% takes up landfill space and exists as litter in water and on land (https://psmag.com/environment/almost-all-of-the-plastic-produced-since-1950-is-still-in-landfills). Scientists have estimated that there are 7.5 million plastic straws lying around America’s shorelines (https://phys.org/news/2018-04-science-amount-straws-plastic-pollution.html).

6. Burning polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic releases carcinogenic dioxins into the air. Deflated plastic balloons have been consumed by wild animals which results in suffering and death. Sea mammals are dying from plastic waste blocking their intestinal tracts (https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/plastic-pollution-killed-sperm-whale-dead-spain-beach-bags-blue-planet-a8293446.html). Albatrosses have been observed feeding pieces of plastic litter to their hatchlings. All species of sea turtles consume plastic debris (https://psmag.com/environment/save-the-sea-turtles).

7. Perhaps as problematic as plastic litter is microplastics.  “Microplastics come from a variety of sources, including from larger plastic debris that degrades into smaller and smaller pieces. In addition, microbeads, a type of microplastic, are very tiny pieces of manufactured polyethylene plastic that are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products, such as some cleansers and toothpastes. These tiny particles easily pass through water filtration systems and end up in the ocean and Great Lakes, posing a potential threat to aquatic life.” (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html). More clothes are being made with plastic fibers (63%). “When you wash these clothes millions of plastic fibres end up in the wastewater when your clothing sheds them. Most of this wastewater plus the fibers ultimately ends up in the oceans” (https://www.noble-house.tk/en/save-the-sea-with-amanprana/microplastics-clothing-sustainable-tips). Some seafood consumed by humans contain microplastics (https://www.ecowatch.com/microplastics-seafood-health-risks-2567356961.html).

8.  Food for thought: The current thinking seems to be that plastics will last for 400-500 years if not burned. So it would seem that before the 7 billion tons of plastics in existence today turn into dust in 500 years or less, they will eventually degrade into microplastics.

 B.  BENEFITS VERSUS DISADVANTAGES

      Given the disadvantages of fossil fuels (not even considering their possible/probable contribution to global warming) why is the US so dependent on them? There is a slow shift in different parts of the country toward less dependence on fossil fuel products. The less conservative areas like New York state seem to have a different approach than conservative states like Pennsylvania. 

      I say that because of the Pennsylvania governor’s decision to give the Beaver County cracker plant $1.65 billion dollars in subsidies. $1.65 billion dollars for a fossil fuel manufacturer that will eventually employ 600 workers.  New York State, on the other hand, plans to invest $5.3 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency throughout the state. They expect to create 17,000 – 27,000 new jobs by 2030.  

      Movements like Al Gore’s Climate Reality training and the Story of Stuff movement are helping to change the dynamic in this country toward greater independence from fossil fuels. 

      Perhaps our continuing dependence on fossil fuel products exists because their benefits outweigh their disadvantages. Let’s first consider the fossil fuel executive's point of view. We will follow that with the view of costs and benefits to fossil fuel employees. Next, we will examine the view point of the consumer of fossil fuel products.

1.       The Executive's viewpoint

      Let's look at the cost(disadvantage)/benefit issue from a fossil fuel industry executive's point of view. “$257 billion is the profit made in 2014 by public companies involved in extracting, transporting, refining, distributing and trading in fossil fuels in the United States and Canada”. Since private companies in this country are not required to disclose their financial information, not all US fossil fuel industry revenue is included in that $257 billion profit (http://priceofoil.org/profits-oil-gas-coal-companies-operating-u-s-canada/). Those profits are supported by $20.5 billion in annual state and federal government subsidies (http://priceofoil.org/2017/10/03/report-trumps-energy-dominance-plans-rely-on-billions-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies/). That is why oil and natural gas industries can spend $34,573,180 per year (https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01) and the coal industry $5,661,500 per year lobbying Congress. (https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/induscode.php?id=e1210&year=2017).   Fossil fuel profits benefit Congress and those who invest in the industry.

      One may wonder how much corporate income tax the federal government collects from oil and natural gas companies. One can find claims on line that the taxes paid by the oil and gas industries exceed the amount of profits. However, according to a detailed report by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the effective federal tax rate of the 20 largest oil and natural gas companies in the US from 2009 to 2013 was 24 % ($32.1 billion) of a total $133.3 billion pre-tax income. They actually paid only $15.6 billion (11.7 % of the pre-tax income) during that period, deferring the rest (http://www.taxpayer.net/wp-content/uploads/ported/images/downloads/TCS_ETR_Report.pdf). 

       From a fossil fuel industry executive’s viewpoint, the benefits of producing fossil fuel products are great financial profits, government subsidies, deferred taxes. The profits supply millions of dollars with which to lobby Congress in order to insure continuing subsidies, deferred taxes, and other benefits such as exploiting public lands for more profits. Profits also enable a public relations campaign to debunk global warming which distracts the public from the other disadvantages of fossil fuel products. These are the benefits of producing fossil fuel products. What are the costs to the industry?  Liability insurance, perhaps. An occasional fine imposed by the government. From a fossil fuel executive's viewpoint the benefits of producing fossil fuel products are far greater than the costs.

2. Employee's Point of View

     Let's consider costs and benefits of fossil fuel products from the viewpoint of a non-salaried employee in the traditional energy industry.

        According to the U.S. Energy and Employment Report, 1.1 million people worked in traditional coal, oil, and gas industries in 2016. 480,000 were employed in the production of solar and wind generated electricity (https://www.energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report). As alternative sources of electricity become more common, many of the 1.1 million traditional industry people will probably lose their jobs. No one wants to lose their job. No one wants to have to be retrained. Unfortunately, that is becoming more common in this changing world. Why would it be impossible to retrain traditional energy sector workers to do jobs in the alternative energy sector?         Petroleum industry roustabouts average $43,660/year and non-supervisory petroleum operators average $65,340 (https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag211.htm. A coal miner’s average wage is $22.96/hour (https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Industry=Coal_Mining/Hourly_Rate). New alternative energy jobs may not pay as well as the traditional energy jobs since alternative energy may not be as profitable as energy from fossil fuels. 

     So from an employee viewpoint the benefits of the fossil fuel industry are things like job security and living wages.  The costs are possible but improbable injury, disease, death. I suspect that most employees think that the continuing existence of the fossil fuel industry outweighs the possible but improbable costs to them.

3. The Consumer's Point of View    

    Fossil fuel executives enjoy large salaries. Many of the 1.1 million fossil fuel industry workers earn decent wages. All Americans have benefited from the fossil fuel industry. We are all more comfortable and enjoy more conveniences than we otherwise might have. The country is probably more prosperous in general than it would be without fossil fuels. American citizens living in poverty are far more comfortable than they would be without fossil fuels thanks to electricity, etc.

    Do the benefits of fossil fuel products to the average American consumer outweigh the disadvantages of household product and pesticide poisonings; higher health costs; more pollution; more occupational injuries, diseases, and deaths; more animals dying from plastic litter consumption; more slurry pond collapses; petroleum spills; microplastics? I would guess the answer is "yes." I say that because the average consumer who experiences any of these disadvantages probably does not associate that/those problem/s with the fossil fuel industry nor do they realize there are alternative fossil fuel products without those disadvantages.

    The fabrication of alternative products and the construction of sources of energy like windmills, solar panels, geothermal systems, wave generation, and pumped hydroelectric energy storage requires fossil fuel generated energy. Fossil fuels are a necessary means to a greater end. Fossil fuels could be used primarily to create an alternative energy infrastructure before the supplies of coal, gas and petroleum are completely used up. Consumers could learn to rely on alternative sources of energy to heat their homes and run their cars. Would consumers resist such a change? In my opinion, as long as consumers could access the same amount of power from alternative sources with which to run their cars, cook their food, and heat their homes and water tanks, they would not object to the switch unless the alternative energy sources were more expensive. It would seem to me that the more alternative power that is produced, the lower the price of that power will become. Fossil fuels require drilling or mining, processing, transportation, transformation. Then there is the hidden costs of fossil fuels - clean-ups, health problems, property damage, etc. It is almost intuitive to conclude that alternatives to fossil fuel products are going to cost consumers/tax payers less than fossil fuel products. The impediment will be to get a sufficient number of consumers to make the switch while the price of alternative products like alternative electricity, glass, ceramics, wood, and metal are elevated because of a lack of demand.

    C. CONSUMER DEPENDENCY

     There is a need in this country for energy and for consumer products such as bags, containers, gasoline, oil, paints, solvents, thinners, cleaners, pest controls, fertilizers, etc. These things are indispensable for citizens of the United States. Becoming less dependent on fossil fuel products will not be easy. In fact, many of us, even those who are aware of the disadvantages, expense, and increased danger of continuing to use fossil fuel products, are nevertheless reluctant to explore the alternatives. This seems similar to the challenge of kicking a bad habit such as smoking or overeating. Or how about opioids?

      What if everyone in the country was addicted to pain killers? Would the solution be to confiscate and destroy all pain-killing substances? What if someone designed a safer, effective medication that satisfied the same need as the addictive pain killers but without the addictive effect? Would it not seem logical, reasonable, and desirable for everyone to switch to the alternative medication? But what if the non-addictive medicine were more expensive than the regular painkillers as new medications often are? Perhaps those who can afford it would purchase the non-addictive medication and that would begin to lower the price for everyone. On the other hand if those who could afford it, were profiting from the selling of the additive pain medication, they may not be motivated to help make the non-addictive medication affordable for all.

      Some critics may ask, aren’t we better off with electricity than without? I realize there are people living in third world countries that have never had electricity in their homes. But I think that many if not most individuals in this country would eventually weaken and die or commit suicide if deprived of electricity for an extended period of time. I don’t think the answer to the opioid crisis is to destroy all opioid drugs. I am not suggesting that we should all “go cold turkey” and stop using fossil fuel products henceforth.  Nor is the answer to fossil fuel dependence to stop using electricity, to stop using things now made with plastics, to stop cleaning our houses, nor to let our gardens be destroyed by pests. Nor do I think anyone should go into debt or further into debt from purchasing alternatives to fossil fuel products.

      But I am suggesting that if we care about public health and environmental quality, and about their effects on social justice, we will be motivated to do whatever we can to begin our recovery from fossil fuel dependence without further delay.

      Hopefully you agree that less dependence on fossil fuel products is a worthwhile goal. Still, you may be wondering, is it even possible? And if it is possible, do I care enough to make an effort to become less dependent on fossil fuels? Someone once said, "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” The disadvantages of fossil fuels as detailed in Section A indicates that we are creating a toxic world similar to that depicted in the movie Soylent Green; a world where the only large living mammals other than farm animals and humans are found in zoos; a world devoid of unspoiled landscapes; lacking old growth forests; with hardly any flying insects nor the birds that feed on them; with enough microplastics for every square mile of the earth's surface to contain over ten tons; an environment rich in health-threatening chemicals originating from fossil fuels; a world where only the elite get to consume fresh food; where the common people exist on synthetic nutritional wafers manufactured by government. If I could I would compel each American adult to write a letter to their descendants that will inhabit that world explaining what he/she did to kick their fossil fuel dependency or to explain what prevented him/her from trying.

    
    What if none of us cares enough to kick the fossil fuel habit? What if no one chose to risk their life in Allepo, Syria to care for the sick and wounded? What if no one cares enough to fight the wild fires in California, rationalizing that it is too late to prevent the damage already done by the fires, that it is too expensive because there are so many fires, and that perhaps an unseasonable rain storm will put out the fires without human assistance? If no one cares enough to act, an undesirable outcome for future humans is insured.

     If we do care, the next question is what can we consumers do and how can we support each other's efforts?