Article: Fuel formed over millions of years from dead plants and animals
The main fossil fuels (from top to bottom): natural gas, oil, and coal
A fossil fuel The term has been considered a misnomer because it does not actually originate from fossils, but from organic matter. is a hydrocarbon-containing material such as coal, oil, and natural gas, formed naturally in the Earth's crust from the remains of dead plants and animals that is extracted and burned as a fuel. Fossil fuels may be burned to provide heat for use directly (such as for cooking or heating), to power engines (such as internal combustion engines in motor vehicles), or to generate electricity. Some fossil fuels are refined into derivatives such as kerosene, gasoline and propane before burning. The origin of fossil fuels is the anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms, containing organic molecules created by photosynthesis. The conversion from these materials to high-carbon fossil fuels typically requires a geological process of millions of years.
In 2022, over 80% of primary energy consumption in the world and over 60% of its electricity was from fossil fuels. The large-scale burning of fossil fuels causes serious environmental damage. Over 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity in 2022 was CO2 from burning them. Natural processes on Earth, mostly absorption by the ocean, can remove only a small part of this CO2. Therefore, there is a net increase of many billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year. Although methane leaks are significant, the burning of fossil fuels is the main source of greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming and ocean acidification. Additionally, most air pollution deaths are due to fossil fuel particulates and noxious gases. It is estimated that this costs over 3% of the global gross domestic product and that fossil fuel phase-out will save millions of lives each year.
Recognition of the climate crisis, pollution and other negative impacts caused by fossil fuels has led to a widespread policy transition and activist movement focused on ending their use in favor of sustainable energy. Because the fossil-fuel industry is so heavily integrated in the global economy and heavily subsidized, this transition is expected to have significant economic impacts. Many stakeholders argue that this change needs to be a just transition and create policy that addresses the societal burdens created by the stranded assets of the fossil fuel industry.
International policy, in the form of United Nations sustainable development goals for affordable and clean energy and climate action, as well as the Paris Climate Agreement, is designed to facilitate this transition at a global level. In 2021, the International Energy Agency concluded that no new fossil fuel extraction projects could be opened if the global economy and society wants to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and meet international goals for climate change mitigation.
Origin
The theory that fossil fuels formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants by exposure to heat and pressure in Earth's crust over millions of years was first introduced by Andreas Libavius "in his 1597 Alchemia [Alchymia]" and later by Mikhail Lomonosov "as early as 1757 and certainly by 1763". The first use of the term "fossil fuel" occurs in the work of the German chemist Caspar Neumann, in English translation in 1759. The Oxford English Dictionary notes that in the phrase "fossil fuel" the adjective "fossil" means "[o]btained by digging; found buried in the earth", which dates to at least 1652, before the English noun "fossil" came to refer primarily to long-dead organisms in the early 18th century.
Aquatic phytoplankton and zooplankton that died and sedimented in large quantities under anoxic conditions millions of years ago began forming petroleum and natural gas as a result of anaerobic decomposition. Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, became buried under further heavy layers of inorganic sediment. The resulting high temperature and pressure caused the organic matter to chemically alter, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in oil shales, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis. Despite these heat-driven transformations, the energy released in combustion is still photosynthetic in origin.
Terrestrial plants tended to form coal and methane. Many of the coal fields date to the Carboniferous period of Earth's history. Terrestrial plants also form type III kerogen, a source of natural gas. Although fossil fuels are continually formed by natural processes, they are classified as non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form and known viable reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are generated.
Importance
Fossil fuels have been important to human development because they can be readily burned in the open atmosphere to produce heat. The use of peat as a domestic fuel predates recorded history. Coal was burned in some early furnaces for the smelting of metal ore, while semi-solid hydrocarbons from oil seeps were also burned in ancient times, they were mostly used for waterproofing and embalming.
Commercial exploitation of petroleum began in the 19th century.
Natural gas, once flared-off as an unneeded byproduct of petroleum production, is now considered a very valuable resource. Natural gas deposits are also the main source of helium.
Heavy crude oil, which is much more viscous than conventional crude oil, and oil sands, where bitumen is found mixed with sand and clay, began to become more important as sources of fossil fuel in the early 2000s. Oil shale and similar materials are sedimentary rocks containing kerogen, a complex mixture of high-molecular weight organic compounds, which yield synthetic crude oil when heated (pyrolyzed). With additional processing, they can be employed instead of other established fossil fuels. During the 2010s and 2020s there was disinvestment from exploitation of such resources due to their high carbon cost relative to more easily-processed reserves.
Prior to the latter half of the 18th century, windmills and watermills provided the energy needed for work such as milling flour, sawing wood or pumping water, while burning wood or peat provided domestic heat. The wide-scale use of fossil fuels, coal at first and petroleum later, in steam engines enabled the Industrial Revolution. At the same time, gas lights using natural gas or coal gas were coming into wide use. The invention of the internal combustion engine and its use in automobiles and trucks greatly increased the demand for gasoline and diesel oil, both made from fossil fuels. Other forms of transportation, railways and aircraft, also require fossil fuels. The other major use for fossil fuels is in generating electricity and as feedstock for the petrochemical industry. Tar, a leftover of petroleum extraction, is used in the construction of roads.
The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon-fueled irrigation. The development of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer has significantly supported global population growth; it has been estimated that almost half of the Earth's population are currently fed as a result of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use. According to head of a fertilizers commodity price agency, "50% of the world's food relies on fertilisers."
Environmental effects
Health and environmental impact of the coal industry Extinction risk from climate change
The burning of fossil fuels has a number of negative externalitiesharmful environmental impacts where the effects extend beyond the people using the fuel. These effects vary between different fuels. All fossil fuels release when they burn, thus accelerating climate change. Burning coal, and to a lesser extent oil and its derivatives, contributes to atmospheric particulate matter, smog and acid rain.
Climate change is largely driven by the release of greenhouse gases like , and the burning of fossil fuels is the main source of these emissions. In most parts of the world climate change is negatively impacting ecosystems. This includes contributing to the extinction of species and reducing people's ability to produce food, thus adding to the problem of world hunger. Continued rises in global temperatures will lead to further adverse effects on both ecosystems and people; the World Health Organization has said that climate change is the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century.
Combustion of fossil fuels generates sulfuric and nitric acids, which fall to Earth as acid rain, impacting both natural areas and the built environment. Monuments and sculptures made from marble and limestone are particularly vulnerable, as the acids dissolve calcium carbonate.
Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.
Burning coal also generates large amounts of bottom ash and fly ash. These materials are used in a wide variety of applications (see Fly ash reuse), utilizing, for example, about 40% of the United States production.
In addition to the effects that result from burning, the harvesting, processing, and distribution of fossil fuels also have environmental effects. Coal mining methods, particularly mountaintop removal and strip mining, have negative environmental impacts, and offshore oil drilling poses a hazard to aquatic organisms. Fossil fuel wells can contribute to methane release via fugitive gas emissions. Oil refineries also have negative environmental impacts, including air and water pollution. Coal is sometimes transported by diesel-powered locomotives, while crude oil is typically transported by tanker ships, requiring the combustion of additional fossil fuels.
A variety of mitigating efforts have arisen to counter the negative effects of fossil fuels. This includes a movement to use alternative energy sources, such as renewable energy. Environmental regulation uses a variety of approaches to limit these emissions; for example, rules against releasing waste products like fly ash into the atmosphere.
In December 2020, the United Nations released a report saying that despite the need to reduce greenhouse emissions, various governments are "doubling down" on fossil fuels, in some cases diverting over 50% of their COVID-19 recovery stimulus funding to fossil fuel production rather than to alternative energy. The UN secretary general António Guterres declared that "Humanity is waging war on nature. This is suicidal. Nature always strikes backand it is already doing so with growing force and fury." He also claimed there is still cause for hope, anticipating the US plan to join other large emitters like China and the EU in adopting targets to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Illness and deaths
Environmental pollution from fossil fuels impacts humans because particulates and other air pollution from fossil fuel combustion cause illness and death when inhaled. These health effects include premature death, acute respiratory illness, aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis and decreased lung function. The poor, undernourished, very young and very old, and people with preexisting respiratory disease and other ill health are more at risk. Global air pollution deaths due to fossil fuels have been estimated at over 8 million people (2018, nearly 1 in 5 deaths worldwide) at 10.2 million (2019), and 5.13 million excess deaths from ambient air pollution from fossil fuel use (2023).
While all energy sources inherently have adverse effects, the data show that fossil fuels cause the highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions and are the most dangerous for human health. In contrast, modern renewable energy sources appear to be safer for human health and cleaner. The death rates from accidents and air pollution in the EU are as follows per terawatt-hour (TWh):
Energy source Nos. of deathsper TWh Greenhouse gasemissions(thousand tonnes/TWh)Coal24.6820Oil18.4720Natural gas2.8490Biomass4.678–230Hydropower0.0234Nuclear energy0.073Wind0.044Solar0.025
As the data shows, coal, oil, natural gas, and biomass cause higher death rates and higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than hydropower, nuclear energy, wind, and solar power. Scientists propose that 1.8 million lives have been saved by replacing fossil fuel sources with nuclear power.
Phase-out Just transition Divestment Industrial sector
In 2019, Saudi Aramco was listed and it reached a US$2 trillion valuation on its second day of trading, after the world's largest initial public offering.
Economic effects
Air pollution from fossil fuels in 2018 has been estimated to cost US$2.9 trillion, or 3.3% of the global gross domestic product (GDP).
Subsidies Fossil-fuel-subsidies-per-capita.svg Lobbying activities See also
Abiogenic petroleum origin – a proposal that petroleum is not a fossil fuel
Bioremediation Carbon bubble Eco-economic decoupling
Environmental impact of the energy industry
Fossil Fools Day Fossil Fuel Beta Hydraulic fracturing Liquefied petroleum gas Low-carbon power Peak coal Peak gas
Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles
Shale gas Notes References Further reading
Barrett, Ross; Worden, Daniel (eds.), Oil Culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2014.
Bob Johnson, Carbon Nation: Fossil Fuels in the Making of American Culture. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2014.
External links
Global Fossil Infrastructure Tracker https://web.archive.org/web/20191210235316/https://globalenergymonitor.org/oil-and-gas/global-fossil-infrastructure-tracker/
Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air |
Source: Skip to main content
Menu Analysis Events Trellis Network Webcasts Search Climate Tech Circularity ESG/Finance Sustainability Strategy Startups More+ Linkedin Instagram Twitter Facebook Youtube This site (RSS)
GreenBiz on Social Media
Why just transition is the opposite of net zero
Just transition is anything but vague. Complex, yes. Controversial, maybe. But certainly not vague.
By Pam Tau Lee & David W. Campbell & Jose T. Bravo February 7, 2022 Shutterstock
As we enter another pandemic year feeling cautiously hopeful and looking to tackle a multitude of intertwined global crises — poverty, pollution, pandemic — our
Just Transition Alliance
team wanted to share some reflections on navigating 2022.
Fortunately for us, this
GreenBiz piece by Joel Makower
provided a framework for such reflections.
Makower invites reader’s feedback on two questions:
What does "just transition" mean?
Who should define "just transition"?
Contrary to Makower’s comment that "for the uninitiated, it’s a compelling, albeit vague term," just transition is anything but vague. Complex, yes. Controversial, maybe. But certainly not vague.
Let’s start with its etymology — the history and use of the term in the environmental justice (EJ) movement, where 500 years of resistance to colonial extractivism has shaped our
understanding of just transition
over the past five decades.
History defines the complexity
While some — correctly — attribute the coining of "just transition" to Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union (OCAWU) leader Tony Mazzochi, this is only part of a larger story. Like other dominant-culture narratives, the OCAWU story has emerged in a highly sanitized form, completely editing out the roles of Black, brown and Indigenous communities.
By definition, 'just transition' and 'net-zero' are contradictory terms. When used together they form an oxymoron.
Throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s, just transition evolved through dialogue between communities of color and labor organizers on the frontlines of extractive industries threatening community and worker health, our ecological life-support systems and
Indigenous land defense
. Where Black, brown, Indigenous, migrant and poor white communities were fighting polluting energy, petrochemical and waste corporations, industrial workers and their unions were often pitted against our communities by corporations using the false binary debate of jobs versus environment.
This is where OCAWU, the Communication Energy and Paperworkers Union and many other radical — mostly local — unions stepped in to work with our communities to fight various polluting industries. Guided by common cause, these collaborations served to build relational trust between labor and environmental justice movements through the 1990s.
The formation of the
Just Transition Alliance
took place when we realized that collaborating on place-based strategies to end such harm and create local alternatives was the most effective way forward. We knew we had to work past our differences and align our efforts for the long haul — because change is inevitable and justice is not.
Thus, the concept and term of "
just transition" was born
at the intersection of worker rights, occupational health and safety, environmental, economic and racial justice, with a universal vision of systemic change. For today’s climate justice movement, it represents a
body of principles, processes and practices
that help us shift away from polluting, extractive industrial complexes and towards place-based economies that serve the needs of communities, workers and the environment. It is also a critical path for navigating all the storms, floods, fires, droughts, pollution, pandemic, police, prisons and other forms of structural violence headed our way.
Strategies defined by those first and most affected
This brings us to Makower’s second question. Who should or gets to define just transition is easily answered by a core environmental justice value: "Nothing about us, without us." All decisions, designs, policies and investments that determine change for any industrial sector need to be led by those workers and communities historically most impacted by the sector. Hence, any government, academic institution or nongovernmental organization committed to just transition should seek the leadership of those whose lived experience provides the best guidance and those whose lives, labor and livelihoods are most harmed.
In his article, Makower correctly notes, "[Just transition] will soon become table stakes inside companies that "over time … will become widely used, overused and possibly abused, applied indiscriminately to companies, products, services, government programs." However, we refute the claim that "just transition is the new net zero."
Real solutions, not net-zero nonsense
By definition, "just transition" and "net zero" are contradictory terms. When used together they form an oxymoron.
As we recently explained to Beltway allies who introduced the
Green New Deal resolution to U.S. Congress
, coupling just transition with "net-zero emissions targets" is like saying we should blindly allow polluting corporations to decide what decarbonization pathways suit their fancy. Our movements would never agree to have foxes guarding the henhouse.
"Net zero" means that polluting corporations, governments and markets can erase their total sum of greenhouse gas emissions on a spreadsheet without actually reducing their pollution loads. It does this via mechanisms such as: investing in renewable energy programs that subsidize toxic technologies such as nuclear power, waste and biomass incineration; buying forest conservation offsets that lead to the displacement of Indigenous people and proliferate harmful biofuels (palm oil) and monoculture plantations; subsidizing fossil-fuel extraction through unproven, dangerous technofixes such as carbon capture and storage.
To Makower’s credit, he
provides fair coverage of net zero in a previous piece
, pointing to the
range of opposition
that has emerged in recent years, mainly due to
critique by Indigenous communities and grassroots EJ movements
around the world.
In the lead-up to COP26, more than 700 groups from around the world demanded that governments support
Real Solutions, Not Net Zero
. Despite such popular demand, the United Nations continued advancing a
neoliberal mandate at the 26th "Conference of Profiteers
." We witnessed spurious negotiations to advance carbon markets and the emergence of a new greenwashing threat —
Nature-Based Solutions .
Net zero promotes fossil-fuel subsidies
Net-zero emissions goals are by no means a new threat. This carbon market flexibility concept was built on the foundations of many neoliberal, profiteering schemes — carbon neutrality, cap and trade, cap and dividend and forest carbon offsets, to name a few. Environmental justice communities have always been wary of such financial schemes that seek to turn profit from harm.
We have always asserted that effective climate justice strategies need to be developed by the leadership of frontline communities and workers, not by hired guns who serve transnational corporations. This is why we
opposed
the Waxman Markey cap-and-trade bill in 2010. Over the last decade, witnessing the failure of pollution trading regimes such as
California’s AB32
, our opposition has grown.
However, we continue to face
billions of public dollars being handed to dirty energy
by federal initiatives such as the
Build Back Better Act
. To effectively move money away from such fossil-fuel subsidies and towards real solutions, we need larger, more privileged civil society groups (national green groups, international unions, climate philanthropy) and community businesses to join us in opposing these schemes.
Resisting climate money laundering
To help our allies understand such market-based schemes, risky technofixes and hollow promises, we recently published "
Hoodwinked in the Hothouse
," a guidebook for understanding how disaster capitalists seek to fleece public coffers at various levels of governance and public spending — from city councils and tribal nations to the budgets of nation states and global mechanisms being developed at the UNFCCC.
Co-authored by dozens of veteran climate justice organizers and policy advocates, "Hoodwinked" is an inoculation against the global greenwash pandemic. Where thousands of private consultants, researchers and academics are being recruited to protect the status quo of dirty energy, we need to avoid being duped as many have in the past — such as when the
oil and gas industry hired medical-health experts formerly employed by the tobacco
cartel to claim their products and services were safe.
As always, the best way to ensure the integrity of just transition is to turn to the real experts — frontline communities and workers — to define its terms and conditions.
Show comments for this story.
View the discussion thread.
More on this topic
Social Justice Net Zero Just Transition Activism Share this article Twitter Facebook Linkedin Pam Tau Lee
Co-founder and board member
Just Transition Alliance @pamtlee David W. Campbell Secretary-Treasurer
United Steelworkers Local 675
Jose T. Bravo Executive Director Just Transition Alliance @EJPajaro
More by This Author
See all by Pam Tau Lee
Get articles like this delivered to your inbox
Subscribe Circularity 24
Join the community of 2,000+ visionaries and practitioners advancing the circular economy at
Circularity 24
(May 22-24, Chicago, IL).
Learn More About Us Media Kit Editorial Team GreenBiz Team Contact Us Trellis Network Newsletters Market Advisors Videos Webcasts
White Papers and Research
Careers @ GreenBiz Editorial Guidelines Sustainability Jobs GreenBiz 350 Podcast Support Linkedin Instagram Twitter Facebook Youtube This site (RSS) Privacy Policy
© 2024 GreenBiz Group Inc. GREENBIZ® and GREENBIZ.COM® are registered trademarks of
GreenBiz Group Inc Climate Tech Circularity ESG/Finance Sustainability Strategy Startups UPCOMING EVENTS: Circularity 24 GreenFin 24 Bloom 24 VERGE 24 GreenBiz 25 |