 |
| -Image by Copilot |
For this post I am using Australia as an example. While the challenges described here are shared by fuel-dependent nations everywhere, Australia represents a particularly acute case — one of the most geographically isolated countries on earth, almost entirely dependent on shipping and aviation for both imports and exports. Tasmania sharpens that picture even more. An island’s island - dependent on ferries, flights and a supply chain that stretches even further. It is a preview of what vulnerability really looks like.
How We Got Here
After World War II, many countries were determined never again to be vulnerable — not just with respect to fuel, but also food and the basic materials needed to produce manufactured goods. This usually led to government subsidies to farmers and the stockpiling of large quantities of commodities such as Germany's "butter mountains," and France's "wine lakes." Australia had guaranteed prices for wool - the government continued to buy it even though synthetic substitutes had begun to enter the market, and the US had surpluses of corn, soy and other grains.
In the austerity that followed the 1973 Oil Shock and the galloping inflation triggered by the tripling of oil prices in 1979, many governments decided they could no longer afford to put by for rainy days — especially when goods could be produced more cheaply elsewhere, or produced using cheaper overseas labour. This was the beginning of globalisation — the gutting of manufacturing -particularly in footwear, clothing, and much of the car industry. "TINA — There Is No Alternative," said the economic rationalists who came to power in many Western countries as unemployment began to bite.
Economies of scale — enabled by larger populations, advances in computing, and fast air travel — made "just-in-time" ordering possible, eliminating the need to carry large inventories. Australia, forgetting it was an island nation, closed all but two of its eight oil refineries, because importing refined fuel from Singapore was far cheaper than making it at home. The loss of those refineries is especially sobering given Australia's vast distances and deep dependence on motorised transport. Public transport suffered the same fate because it was not profitable enough and cars were more flexible than trains or buses.
A Rude Awakening
After eight decades of relative peace, almost all notions of self-sufficiency had been abandoned. Every economy except perhaps North Korea's was tightly enmeshed with others. Just how tightly became apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the most visible signs — felt in nearly every Australian household — was the toilet paper shortage. But there were more insidious consequences too — fierce competition for personal protective equipment such as masks, oxygen cyclinders and vaccines. Fish and produce that normally flew daily to Japan rotted in cool stores or in the fields. Now, with most countries still paying down large pandemic-era debts, ambitious structural changes are both costly and slow to implement, but should be undertaken anyway.
Immediate Measures
Strategic Fuel Reserves
Once oil begins to flow again, Australia should steadily rebuild its reserves. The International Energy Agency (IEA) requires member countries to hold the equivalent of 90 days of net oil imports in strategic reserve — a standard Australia has long struggled to meet. If building reserves all at once is too expensive, a portion of local production could be set aside for emergencies. Many countries model good practice here — the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve holds roughly 700 million barrels in underground salt caverns, the world's largest emergency supply; the European Union mandates member states maintain 90-day minimum stocks managed through national agencies. Japan holds emergency reserves through both government and private-sector obligations under the Petroleum Stockpiling Act, and South Korea maintains reserves equivalent to about 100 days of consumption through the Korea National Oil Corporation.
Australia's own Fuel Security Package, announced in 2021, set targets to hold 28 days of onshore stocks — a step in the right direction but still well short of IEA requirements.
Biodiesel and Alternative Fuels
Australia should establish a biodiesel facility to ensure that farms can continue to operate and freight trucks don't grind to a halt. Farm waste could power small on-farm biodiesel units. Military applications deserve consideration too. Countries leading the way include the United States, where biodiesel production exceeds 2 billion gallons annually supported by the Renewable Fuel Standard. Germany has been using Rapeseed Methyl Ester in trucking and agriculture for decades. Brazil is a global leader in sugarcane ethanol which fuels much of its road transport fleet. Indonesia and Malaysia are major producers of palm oil-based biodiesel, though sustainability concerns apply.
My one concern with biofuels made from oil, reused oils and animal fats, is that extensive use of materials such as wood waste — as with palm oil — may have negative effects on our remaining native forests or require valuable agricultural land to be diverted for it. I wonder what happened to this process announced in 2021, which converts plastic back into oil. If you can't see it, click here
Electrification of Transport
Electrification is proceeding at pace, but the uptake
of electric vehicles and the electrification of existing vehicles, especially
trucks, could be greatly accelerated through targeted subsidies, similar to
those which led to the rapid uptake of home batteries. The charging infrastructure must also be available.
Countries worth watching include Norway, where over 90% of
new car sales are electric supported by purchase tax exemptions, free tolls and
reduced parking fees; China, now the world's largest EV market has major state
subsidies for both vehicles and charging infrastructure. The Netherlands has a dense national charging network and strong EV fleet uptake in public
services. The UK has committed to ending sales of new petrol and
diesel cars by 2035 and is actively subsidising fleet electrification.
Green hydrogen production for aviation needs to be boosted
wherever possible, because flying over Australia's large distances is in
fact cheaper and less carbon intensive if planes are full, than driving
fossil fuel cars.
Public Transport and Trains
Even if freight and passenger trains must still run on diesel, rail carries far more freight per litre of fuel than trucks. The cost of public transport should not be measured solely by fare revenue, but by how much it saves in imported fuel — one of Australia's largest expenditures — and how much it reduces congestion. There is no need to widen or expand the road network where public transport is efficient, and preferably electric, as some already is. Hobart, Canberra and Melbourne already have electric buses, if not their whole fleet.
Some services also run on gas captured from local landfills, thereby solving two problems at once. In the USA, San Antonio, runs its fleet of 400 buses on methane captured from an existing landfill and upgraded it into vehicle fuel — an effective interim measure that makes use of emissions already being produced. It is not a purpose-built biogas system of the kind seen in Linköping (see next section), where organic waste is processed in digesters to produce a cleaner, more controlled fuel supply.
Making tickets free during the current fuel crisis in Hobart and Launceston has already boosted usage significantly in both cities. Countries pioneering free or heavily subsidised public transport include Luxembourg, the first country in the world to make all public transport permanently free from 2020, Tallinn in Estonia, which introduced free public transport for residents in 2013, dramatically increasing ridership and Kansas City in Missouri, which made its bus network fare-free in 2020; and Dunkirk in France, where free buses have doubled ridership since 2018.
Delivery Services and Local Fleets
Electric delivery vehicles — already deployed by Amazon and Australia Post among others — reduce the number of private cars clogging city streets and they are not only cleaner but much quieter.
Longer-Term Strategies
Diverting some of the LNG presently being shipped from Australia
Biogas
The Swedish City of Link̦ping has run buses on biogas made from household waste and sewerage Рseparated before entering landfill, since the 1990s. By 2015, all city and regional buses were running on biogas. The gas is created via anaerobic digestion -the same methane process as landfill gas, just with cleaner feedstock. Methane production does require additional processing plant, but the inputs are not only free, but usually cost money to dispose of.
A much smaller plant at Kalmar, in a rural region on Sweden's south east coast, could serve as model for rural and regional areas. It uses farm manures, household waste and organic matter such as abattoir waste to produce 3,000 litres of highly concentrated CNG ( Compressed Natural Gas) for local buses, transport and farm machinery.
Being local would make rural communities more independent of global supplies and costs associated with long distance shipping and trucking. [Side benefits include reduced emissions and preventing nutrient-rich run-off into waterways, especially where countries have taken the Methane Pledge or agreed to reducing Nitrogen levels]. This plant also extracts phosphorus and fertiliser which is sold or given to farmers in exchange for their contribution. Being easily transported and used in the same way as LNG means that it could also be used instead of diesel in remote communities too small to have their own plant.
In some cases, biogas is also used for district heating or in dual plants, which produce both electricity and heating. The Swedish government supports these initiatives as part of its plans for a circular economy and methane reduction, given that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas. If I have read this report correctly, atmospheric methane losses are just 0.1%, which is a significant climate benefit in itself.
Australian farmers and tradies who were encouraged to purchase large diesel and petrol utes through generous tax concessions — part of a broader pattern of policy decisions that set Australia's energy transition back by a decade — now find themselves locked into fossil fuel dependence for years at precisely the wrong moment. With diesel supplies and prices proving far less secure than the previous government assumed to the point where diesel theft is on the rise, conversion to CNG or biogas may be worth serious consideration, particularly in rural areas where LNG pumps usually already exist.
Recent fuel shortages and high prices have been cited by some large gas producers as justification for expanding domestic gas extraction, even as many farmers and regional communities have raised concerns about the impacts of new projects on land use, water and groundwater. In that context, locally produced biogas offers a way to improve energy security without adding pressure on agricultural land or relying on expanded fossil‑gas development.
Agriculture
Agriculture is surprisingly oil-dependent beyond fuel — most fertilisers are derived from natural gas, and pesticides and herbicides are largely petrochemical products. Nitrogen, Urea and Ammonia are important byproducts of oil production. A fuel crisis quietly becomes a food crisis through this back door.
Long before the petrochemical industry convinced farmers that chemistry was the modern answer, agriculture fed the world through methods we are only now rediscovering. Green manure crops — mustard, vetch, phacelia and clover — were grown simply to improve the soil. Nitrogen-fixing legumes like beans and lupins were rotated through fields as a matter of course. Seaweed fertilised coastal farms from Ireland to Australia. Biochar — charcoal made from agricultural waste — was locking carbon into Amazonian soils centuries before synthetic nitrogen existed. Composting returned organic matter to the land as a matter of necessity rather than virtue. More recent developments such as Precision Agriculture using sensors or computerised systems can also reduce demand for fertiliser. The use of recycled sewerage - sterilised and filtered, is another option, limited only by the cost of treatment, compression and transport, but possibly not as expensive as building ocean outfalls. For more on this topic see previous post on Adaptations and Agriculture which, although about emissions reduction, are equally applicable to problems of supply.
While such biological methods would reduce dependence on overseas supplies and would most likely be cheaper than shipping fertiliser around the world, the truth is that, given that Australia is an exporter of agricultural produce, they are unlikely to fully replace them at the scale, consistency, and concentration required by modern agriculture. The most realistic pathway is a hybrid system in which natural nitrogen cycling supplies a baseline and industrial fertiliser fills the gap where high-yield, time-sensitive production is required. The present disruption comes just as farmers are getting ready for the planting season.
Plastics
The impact of oil shortages extends far beyond the bowser and fertiliser. Plumbers for example are already reporting difficulty securing supplies of PVC pipes, which are also made from petroleum. Plastics — used so heavily in packaging, containers and products from toothbrushes to medical supplies —are facing steep price rises.
Fortunately, alternatives to plastic have been in development for some time, and the transition away from this environmental scourge is necessary in any case. Germany has been progressively replacing asbestos and cast iron pipes in plumbing with stainless steel since the 1990s. Italy has been using it since 1995 because of its long life span -70+ years as well as its resistance to corrosion and even earthquakes. After 10 years of testing Karlkoga, in Sweden has replaced over 300 of its PVC and cast iron pipes with stainless steel. Yes, stainless steel pipes cost more initially —typically 5 to 10 times the price of PVC—but their unmatched durability, corrosion resistance, and low maintenance, make them a smart investment for long-lasting, trouble-free sewer systems, especially in demanding conditions. In addition, stainless steel pipes do not leach harmful substances like PFAS into water or the environment, making them a safer and more sustainable choice for plumbing and sewer systems.
Construction also relies on oil derivatives well beyond pipes and fittings — insulation foam, roofing membranes, sealants, adhesives, synthetic carpets and the solvents used in paints and coatings are all petrochemical products, though many of the latter can increasingly be replaced by plant-based or fermentation-derived alternatives such as citrus and pine resin solvents, with the exception of certain highly specialised industrial applications where petroleum chemistry remains difficult to substitute.
Other items such as plastic furniture represent a largely unnecessary use of virgin petrochemicals where natural alternatives already exist or recycled plastic can be used, which again would solve two problems at once. A meaningful surcharge on virgin plastic — as is being trialled in several European nations — would make recycling a far more attractive commercial proposition. Denmark for example has a plastic tax which makes virgin plastic more expensive than recycled alternatives.
Electronics present a harder problem — recycled plastics can address the casing, and some manufacturers are already using them, but internal components including circuit boards, insulation layers, cable coatings and adhesive films are almost entirely petrochemical in origin and currently have no viable biological substitute. Electronics are also extraordinarily difficult to recycle because so many different materials are bonded together — though Professor Veena Sahajwalla,at the University of Sydney, has developed an inexpensive process for doing exactly this, using small modular 'micro factories' which quickly strip mobile phones to their basic components - plastic, precious metals and so forth for reuse.
Japan's approach to whitegoods — mandating 98% reuse of components — suggests a different path entirely. Perhaps we need the same principle applied to phones and laptops, where the casing and architecture remain while only the essential internal components are replaced or upgraded.
Medical use is one of the few areas where the argument for virgin or specialist plastics holds — but even there the assumption deserves questioning. IV bags are currently made from PVC or polyolefins, but research into plant-based bioplastics for exactly this application is already underway, driven partly by concerns about plasticiser chemicals leaching into fluids. More fundamentally, most disposable plastic instruments and containers could be replaced by reusable stainless steel or glass items processed through autoclave steam or UV sterilisation — methods proven safe for over a century. Where plastics remain genuinely necessary, recycled or plant-based alternatives deserve serious consideration before defaulting to the usual suspects.
Synthetic Fibres and Clothing
The figures are striking. Synthetic fibres account for around 1.35% of global oil consumption and make up over two thirds of all materials used in textiles worldwide. That sounds modest until you consider that manufacturing synthetic fibres requires around 342 million barrels of oil every year and making clothing consumes more than 10% of the world's energy - most of it from fossil fuels and even more than flying or shipping. While environmental organisations such as Stand.Earth are calling for garment manufacturers to switch to renewables the problem of synthetic materials go much deeper than that, with even the petro - chemical industry becoming concerned about a possible backlash regarding plastic contamination found in humans, their food as well as the environment.
The fast fashion angle makes it considerably worse — the average consumer now buys 60% more clothing than fifteen years ago, yet wears each item half as long. It is not just the oil content of the fabric but the sheer volume being produced and discarded. Between 200,000 and 500,000 tonnes of microplastics from synthetic textiles enter the marine environment every year, and 85% of synthetic clothing ends up in landfill, unable to decay or decompose. Recycling polyester through take -back schemes, is unfortunately not the answer since these shed even more fibres and microplastics than those made of virgin material. Additionally many returned garments remain untraceable or are simple sent to landfill. The European Union is looking closely at regulating such schemes and having clothing included in its Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme which would involve manufacturers paying fees for collection, sorting and appropriate end-of -life disposal.
Clothing is entirely discretionary in a way that heating or food is not — which makes it a particularly pointed example. The return to natural fibres like wool, cotton and linen is one of the more straightforward personal choices people can actually make along with buying less and buying better quality and longer lasting garments. For other suggestions click here
Changing Our Habits
It didn't take long for most Tasmanians to start bringing their own bags to the shops, especially once major supermarkets began charging for them and shifted to bags made from recycled plastic. Healthfood stores practically expect customers to bring their own containers and glass bottles. I am proud to say that at least Hobart's major milk supplier recycles at its polyethylene bottles. Another small dairy uses old fashioned glass bottles, though the initial purchase is a bit expensive. One local business already offers orange juice and milk dispensed directly into your own container. Expect more of this.
All those shampoo, conditioner, and cleaning product bottles — made from oil — could very easily be refilled, something already common in parts of Europe and Asia. At the very least, recycled plastic should be standard for these. It also seems wasteful to throw out an entire pump or spray mechanism when only the contents have been used and only the bottle itself can be recycled — and why do we pay almost as much for the rare refill product as for the original bottle with all its packaging?
Our major supermarket chains are currently offering reward credits for items like knives, glassware and cookware — most of which I already have. Perhaps those credits should go towards practical, durable, standardised containers for as many goods as possible which are still being packed in plastic.
 |
| Milk and Orange Juice dispensers at a local shop, Hobart, Tasmania |
Festivals and large takeaway venues in Tasmania are already required to use cardboard containers and wooden utensils. This needs to be extended — with real incentives — to smaller operators. The alternatives are well-established. The question is, what is holding this back? And don't get me started on retaining and establishing more local shops. I am tired of repeating that Korean high rise apartments often have little shops underneath thereby negating the need for a car most of the time, or at least not two cars.
Germany's Pfand system — a deposit on glass and plastic bottles — has been operating for decades, achieving return rates above 98% for some containers. In South Korea, volume-based waste fees have dramatically reduced landfill waste, with refillable packaging widespread in supermarkets. In Japan, elaborate waste-sorting culture and refill stations for everything from soy sauce to laundry detergent are the norm in many supermarkets. Many supermarkets across Europe and parts of Asia now operate bulk-buy dispensers for dry goods, shampoos and cleaning products, reducing packaging dramatically.
Changing the Political Climate
What really needs to happen, of course, is a change in the political culture. In the Westminster system, the role of the Opposition too often seems to be simply to oppose — rather than to think long-term and place national interest ahead of electoral tactics. Australia would be far further ahead in terms of electrification had the Carbon Price Mechanism introduced by the Gillard Labor government in 2012 not been overturned two years later, dismissed as just another tax that would make everything more expensive. There has been regular objection to encouraging greater EV uptake and sticking with Net Zero, as well as to the introduction of emission standards (2019) which would have reduced fuel consumption and shielded households more from price hikes.
The contrast with other countries is instructive. The United States Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 committed nearly US$370 billion to clean energy and climate action — arguably the largest climate investment in history. The European Green Deal sets a target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the EU by 2050, with binding national targets. The UK's Climate Change Act — passed with all-party support in 2008 — established legally binding carbon budgets, showing that cross-party consensus on long-term challenges is achievable. New Zealand's Zero Carbon Act of 2019 similarly received cross-party support, creating independent climate targets and a statutory Climate Change Commission to hold governments accountable regardless of who is in power.
Speaking of national security, my concerns regarding the present rush to nuclear go beyond the familiar risks of accident and waste disposal. A centralised nuclear facility in a war zone becomes a target in itself, — as Ukraine has repeatedly shown and as Iran now demonstrates in a different but equally troubling way.
For Australia the case seems clear. The same vast, sparsely populated landscape that makes nuclear infrastructure so costly and impractical is the very thing that gives it extraordinary solar and wind potential — space and sunshine, that densely populated countries can only envy. We have a genuine alternative. The rush to nuclear may be necessary for some countries, but it need not be ours. Though the present crisis once again redirects attention from the ongoing but slower moving one that is Climate Change, the good news is that many of the measures outlined above will also work towards mitigation as well. We don't need Small Modular Reactors. We need Small Modular Biogas Generators which would put fuel where its needed and reduce the need to truck it over long distances and long transmission lines.
Comments