Combatting carbon emissions is a noble effort that should be embraced by all. However, assumptions, projections, technological advances and political announcements are often, to one degree or another, misleading. The transition to lower carbon emissions will prove to be both painful and disruptive, and almost certainly incomplete.

Fossil fuels have taken the blame for growing environmental damage, as well they should; but both users and producers are responsible. Politicians passing resolutions calling for “100% renewable energy” should give us pause. Currently, that term applies almost entirely to electricity generation, not the total displacement of fossil fuels it implies. Non-fossil fueled electricity may well be achievable in Hawaii (Kauai is almost there). Elsewhere, not so much.

The details of crude oil

All crude oils are different. Like all minerals, they come with analyses of what’s in them naturally. They are not black masses from which we can extract what we want in any proportion, and ignore the rest. Crude oil has all our fuel products in it, as well as the molecules for millions of materials that make modern life possible. Refineries have minimal abilities to rearrange these things.

If demand is reduced for fossil-fueled electricity production but not other uses, the products formerly used in electricity (mainly diesel) will still come out in some form. If electric vehicles become our primary means of transport, the displaced transportation fuels will become “by-products,” but still be with us. It’s no small amount. The U.S. alone consumes half a BILLION gallons of gasoline and diesel per day, which will have to go somewhere.

Advanced refining processes might reduce this somewhat, but it still would become a physical problem the likes of which the U.S. (and the world) has never known. Sending it to be burned elsewhere will not help.

Electric airliners?

A significant constraint to displacing all fossil fuels is air travel. U.S. jet fuel production is about 2 billion gallons per day, and it’s the only fuel for commercial and military aircraft known to man. So far, no one has seriously suggested that aircraft could be powered by any other energy source. With refining processes yet to be developed, crude oil might yield 20 percent jet fuel, instead of 10 percent. In that optimistic scenario, we would “only” have 80 percent of the barrel of crude oil left to dispose of, just to keep aircraft in the air. And jet fuel costs would become astronomical.

Unintended consequences

Economic disruption is the other side of an unbalanced retreat from fossil fuels. With the rush to electrify all road vehicles, the market for ground transportation fuels would ultimately disappear. No demand equals no income for refiners, which would put them out of business quickly. “Good!”, some may say. But if we want to have airplanes and ships transporting people, food and goods — as well as an active military, paved roads, propane, petrochemicals, paint, plastics and millions of other petroleum-derived products — we will still need refineries. The prices of these other products will have to make up for the loss of ground transport fuel income or refineries will disappear and we won’t have them.

Careful what we wish for

A perfect transition to a non-crude oil world would replace the entire barrel of oil completely, and all at once. But that simply cannot be done without consequences, which would be unthinkably disruptive to our lives. Whatever partial transition we make toward a non-fossil world will take many, many decades, with unknowable and unintended results.

We should certainly not give up. But we need to proceed with eyes wide open and start talking about the physical and economic consequences we will produce, as well as improving fossil fuel use and environmental efficiencies.

Brian Barbata was in the petroleum business in Hawaii for 35 years, and is a founding board member of the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative.