Crudely Put: Oil Is Everywhere

By Peter A. Coclanis

A century ago, petroleum—what we call oil—was just an obscure commodity; today it is almost as vital to human existence as water,” James Buchan

For years now, climate change alarmists ranging from Greta (“Fridays for Future”) Thunberg to Bill (“Keep it in the Ground”) McKibben have railed against fossil fuels. When criticizing petroleum specifically, they have focused much of their attention on crude oil, particularly its ostensibly pernicious role in powering vehicles, heating and cooling buildings, and generating electricity. In their views, the world would be a much better place if we could just wean ourselves off oil and substitute alternative energy sources for the aforementioned functions.

Defenders of fossil fuels have long put paid to simplistic views about an ‘energy transition,” but much of the population even today is not totally aware of the profound role of oil in areas other than transportation, HVAC, and power production. I was recently reminded of oil’s pervasiveness while reading an article on the environmental costs of “fast fashion’—in a lefty publication, not surprisingly. In the piece, the authors pointed out in passing that  synthetics comprise nearly 70 percent of textile production in the world and  that nearly “342 million barrels of crude oil…go into the making of synthetic fabrics every year.” 

These facts got me digging a bit deeper into the role of crude oil in our lives. For one thing, while a lot of oil is going into the production of synthetics, such is the size and scale of the oil industry—over 32 billion barrels were produced in 2024—textile production accounts for only a little over 1 percent of crude oil output.

However small that percentage figure, synthetic textiles obviously make a real difference to lots of people worldwide, as do other products made from crude oil not going directly into the production of energy. Indeed, because around 18 percent is devoted to uses other than energy, there is a lot of crude available for other uses, and these uses include the production of a vast array of goods and products that, taken together, go a long way toward making the world modern. In 2024, for example, when world output of crude oil was about 32.3 billion barrels, this means that roughly 6  billion barrels went into non-energy uses.

What uses?  For starters, there are huge and hugely important product categories derived from crude oil such as plastics, petrochemicals, lubricants, synthetic rubber, fertilizers (urea, ammonia, UAN, etc.), pesticides, asphalt, waxes, pharmaceuticals, paints, and cosmetics. The resins derived from one such category alone—plastics– go into the making of a staggering array of goods and products ranging from packaging/storing materials to auto components (dashboards and bumpers, anyone?). Resins are indispensable to both  the construction industry—here, think roofing materials, insulation, and piping—and the furniture industry (particle board), and are essential to the electronics industry and in the production of various and sundry medical devices. Why?  Because in comparison to traditional materials, especially metals, they are lightweight, durable, water-resistant, easy to process and customize, and cheap.

In 2024, journalist-energy consultant Ron Stein pointed out that over 6000 products widely used today are based in full or in considerable part on crude oil and natural gas (another fossil fuel). The range of products he mentions merely for illustrative purposes—replicated below—is simply staggering:

“tooth brush, safety goggles, lipstick, airplane, contact lenses, smart phone, laptop computer, rubber gloves, crayons, helmet, washing machine, ski jacket, wind turbine, dentures, fitness tracker, yoga outfit, shampoo, headphones, garden hose, syringe, running shoes, carbon-fiber bicycle, toy blocks, electric piano, kayak, saran wrap, cotton towels, pills, chemical fertilizer and electric car.” 

When critics of fossil fuel wax on about transitioning from fossil fuels, they are deluding themselves in two major  ways. First, as the French historian of technology Jean-Baptiste Fressoz has recently pointed out, in history there has never been a true energy transition. As “new” energy sources become more prominent, that is to say, they add to rather than replace the energy sources they are intended to replace. Not for nothing is Fressoz’s 2024 book entitled More and More and More .

Secondly, critics of petroleum focus too closely—and crudely, as it were– on the complex mixture of hydrocarbon’s role in energy generation alone, in so doing paying insufficient attention to oil’s role as a key ingredient in and building block for modern life. Not for nothing do carbon critics such as Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill McKibben, and, recently, even  Saint Greta, take to the sky in flying machines powered by aviation fuel and constructed largely of carbon composites.

Peter A. Coclanis is Albert R. Newsome Distinguished Professor of History and Director of the Global Research Institute at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.3 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 7, 2026 2:13 am

A century ago, petroleum—what we call oil—was just an obscure commodity; today it is almost as vital to human existence as water,” James Buchan

_______________________________________________________________________________

So Carbon Dioxide

Nick Stokes
February 7, 2026 2:14 am

The range of products he mentions merely for illustrative purposes—replicated below—is simply staggering”

Yes. There is no reason why these uses should not continue. The issue is emitting CO2, ie burning. Use as feedstock does not turn the oil into CO2.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 7, 2026 2:25 am

Carbon dioxide is a real boogeyman for you isn’t it.

strativarius
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 7, 2026 2:43 am

The issue is emitting CO2

Do you exhale, Nick? I’m sure you do.

Reply to  strativarius
February 7, 2026 4:20 am

A human exhales ca. 1 kg of CO2 everyday. That is 8 billion kg of CO2 for all the humans.

cwright
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 7, 2026 3:45 am

Nick, as you well know CO2 is literally the gas of life. If there were no atmospheric CO2 all the trees and plants would quickly die and most of humanity would starve to death. Increased CO2 is literally greening the planet. There has been no increase in extreme weather. Compared to a hundred years ago far, far less people are killed by extreme weather. Farm productivity e.g. cereals has been steadily increasing, helped significantly by increased CO2. As we’ve seen, even the polar bears are flourishing. Extinctions peaked around 1900 and have been falling ever since. In the distant past CO2 was far higher than today – and yet life thrived, possibly more so than today.

I’m not aware of a single substantive threat posed by increased CO2. Net zero is the threat, not CO2 or global warming. So, why do you think emitting CO2 – which we all do every time we breathe out – is such a bad thing?

Rod Evans
Reply to  cwright
February 7, 2026 4:02 am

I look forward to Nick’s written answer and hopefully not a load of links to so called studies carried out by climate alarmist producers.
Come on Nick you know you can do it. Explain the CO2 danger to us.

strativarius
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 7, 2026 5:06 am

Maybe Nick needs reloading?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 7, 2026 4:02 am

The concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 427 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.84 g of CO2. Why is there so little CO2 in the air? Because most of it is absorbed by the oceans and by surface waters on land where it is fixed in the oceans mostly by plants ranging from alga to seaweeds and kelp.

I live in Canada and it is winter. Without fossil fuels we Canadians would freeze to death. Don’t worry about CO2. There is too little of it in the air to have any effect on air temperature, weather and climate. In winter CO2 hibernates.

2hotel9
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 7, 2026 4:05 am

Wow. You really are just this stupid. Does your mommy swab the spit out of your throat so you don’t choke on it?

Scissor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 7, 2026 4:21 am

Like coal is both a chemical starting material and energy source for manufacturing silicon, natural gas and petroleum are both the chemical starting materials and energy sources for production of the 6000+ products being mentioned. Sure one can substitute poor energy sources for good or tree leaves for toilet paper or pig intestines for condoms, but modern life requires much better.

Material and engineering balance is foundational.

Petroleum saved the whales by giving us kerosene and lubricants.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 7, 2026 4:52 am

If Net Zero was achieved, drastically knocking back the ff industries, you can be sure that the price for what small part of that industry stayed in business for all those non burning products would go way up since currently the scale of the industry is so large, it keeps the price for those other products low.

strativarius
February 7, 2026 2:23 am

There’s a few barrels in the new Sea Lion field off the Falklands. If only we had someone in power with a modicum of common sense.

Rod Evans
February 7, 2026 2:42 am

Those who constantly carp on about fossil fuels, need to try living for just one week without use of products made from oil gas or coal.
They would quickly realise it is not possible.
The world without fossil fuels was limited by natural growth and its consumption. That included timber which was under constant demand from the needs of humanity, housing and heating being prime consumers.
Industrial use of timber in the form of charcoal saw vast tracts of populated lands stripped of forests. That loss of woodlands only came to an end once coal took over the industrial needs along with heating demands.
There is a strange irony or dichotomy present in the habits of the so called Greens. They are happy to fell entire forests in Germany to accommodate wind turbines and access roads needed to support them. They destroy wildlife habitat without a second thought. The ongoing destruction of rare birds and flying creatures on the turbine blades is not a concern to them either?
Open lands are being carpeted with Solar Panels in the UK robbing wildlife of much needed habitat and robbing farmers of valuable farm land needed for growing food.
These eco zealots determined to stop the use of fossil fuels are simply hypocrites at best, anarchists at worst.
They know, or should know, a world without fossil fuel means a total population decrease of over seven billion people.
Maybe that is what they actually want? If it is, then we invite those so determined to lead the way to their personal ambition? We won’t be following you.

watersider
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 7, 2026 3:15 am

Maybe? There is no maybe about it – the cultists have stated it many times as far back as the soviet Club of Rome ‘thing called Maurice Strong.

Scissor
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 7, 2026 4:11 am

Sand is a poor substitute for Vaseline.

Bruce Cobb
February 7, 2026 2:45 am

For once, Nick is right: the issue for the Climate Liars is the 100% beneficial, planet-greening CO2.

2hotel9
February 7, 2026 4:08 am

Oil. Is there truly anything it can’t do? No, no there isn’t.

strativarius
Reply to  2hotel9
February 7, 2026 4:29 am

It can’t put a smile on a doomer’s face.