By PAUL FUHS

In a polarized world, some proponents of fossil fuels would say renewable energy poses a threat to oil and gas. On the other side, there are those who claim the oil industry is intentionally blocking the development of renewable fuels. 

Neither one is true. It is so important that we are clear about these issues, and that we get it right, in consideration for both of our quality of life and for concerns about climate change. 

This was a key question at the climate change conference, COP29, which I recently attended in Baku, Azerbaijan.

It takes a rational view of human energy production and consumption, with some real historical perspective, to understand this answer that renewable energy is not a threat to oil and gas. We can best see this conclusion through the human need for our ultimate personal source of energy — food.

Energy has been the central focus of human development, ever since we learned to control fire about 1.5 million years ago, providing a wider range of foods, heat and shelter from predators. However, we were still limited to what we could hunt or gather. At that time, people spent almost their entire daily lives seeking food. These societies were small and primarily nomadic. When local natural resources were depleted, they moved.

Then about 12,000 years ago we crossed the neolothic threshhold into agriculture, which allowed for more and stabilized food production, and we stayed in one place, becoming “civilized.”  It doesn’t mean we were more caring of people outside of our tribes, and warfare was an almost constant state, civilized just means you stay in one place. Domesticating animals gave us a little more energy leverage such as plow animals. But any of us who has grown a garden, realize how hard it would be to grow all the food we need for an entire year.

How then did we get to the point that without industrial energy, opulent temples and pyramids were built, and certain people lived in incredible luxury? The answer is slavery. In the great empire of Rome, one out of every three people were slaves.  Then feudalism took hold in Europe, another form of slavery, where up to 75% of the people were indentured to their lords.

Then modern forms of energy were discovered and increasingly applied to a metal based industry.  First coal, then oil and gas. The days of slavery were doomed.  

This was only 200-250 years ago, at a time when human life expectancy was about 40 years. In addition to enhanced food production, the benefits of fossil energy based industry allowed the development of highly effective medical interventions. In the U.S. we now live to 77 and in the United Kingdom it is 82.

Yet in the rest of the world there are still about two billion people without any access to modern energy forms. Many of them heat their food with dried cow dung as briquets, a highly unhealthy practice. The Massai in Africa now average 55 years longevity, but Massai women live only until about 45. The Kalahari in Australia average 40 years but 20% of their children die before 12 months, and 50% die before age 15.  It’s going to take a lot of energy to provide these people with a higher quality of life.

So, what is the conclusion? Without modern, mainly fossil fuel energy, half of us at our age would already be dead and wouldn’t even be here. Of those left, 1/3 to 3/4 would be in slavery.  

We take so much for granted.

And what of today? Rather than most of us spending our whole day gathering and processing food in the United States, our entire food production is produced by only 2% of our population. Yet food production is highly energy intensive, consuming 20% of total energy use, primarily fossil fuel. It takes from 7-10 calories of energy to produce one calorie of food. Just think of the fruit and vegetable sections of our local stores and think about what to took to produce those and get them here.

In the meantime, this ready availability of food has led to a world population level of 8 billion people, expected by 2050 to be 11 billion, while world obesity is reaching crisis levels. It’s going to take a lot of energy to feed them all, not to mention all their other associated energy uses.  

In addition, using artificial intelligence it is expected to increase server farm energy use by 160%.

It is clear now that total world energy use is set for some serious increases.   The US Energy Information Adminsitration projects that by 2040, world energy consumption will increase by 28%.  

In fact, the only time we saw a temporary reduction in energy use was during the covid epidemic where we were forced to stay home, close schools and restaurants, halt kid’s sports programs and were generally fearful of each other.  I don’t think anyone wants to go back to that.

What then, does this graph mean for renewable and fossil fuel use? The EIA projects that due to highly aggressive renewable energy programs, renewable energy will rise from 7% to 24%.  The remainder of consumption growth will continue to be covered by traditional fossil fuels going up at the same rate as renewables, except for coal which will level out.

The world will still need fossil fuels for many years to come, and it can reliably come from Alaska. The most unfair and false promotion is that all Arctic oil should stay in the ground, which is the official position of the European Union and many nongovernmental organizations.  

If they are successful, it would just be produced somewhere else such as the Alberta tar sands, the dirtiest oil in the world, which supplies the U.S. with 4 million barrels per day, eight times Alaska’s production. And they say they are ready to supply even more if there are reductions elsewhere; they have a verified 149 years of supply.

Of course, we should all support as much renewable energy as possible. We are going to need all of it and then some.  Norway is a great example, where they have 98% renewable energy and also export 2 million barrels of oil a day, with the proceeds going into their permanent fund which has reached $2 trillion.  

In Alaska we have reached 30% renewable energy. Even arch conservative Sarah Palin had set the goal at 50%. Yet, the country overall, sits at a shameful 9%. And in Washington D.C., the brain trust for energy policy, which relentlessly tries to cripple Alaskan oil production, they use coal for 18% of their energy, natural gas for 40%, nuclear for 36%, and a pathetic 7% renewable.

For those most concerned about climate change, I wish I had better news, but this is reality. The only possible major change could be a massive increase in nuclear energy or climate geoengineering. If you want to do something about it, both of these should be explored.

Paul Fuhs is Former mayor of Unalaska, former Alaska commissioner of Commerce and former chairman of the Board of the Alaska Energy Authority.  He currently serves as Arctic Goodwill Ambassador of the Northern Forum, a coalition of Arctic states and regions.