PDF Summary:How the World Really Works, by Vaclav Smil

What do the food on your plate, the electricity that powers your home, and the plastic in everything from your clothes to your car have in common? They all require large amounts of fossil fuel.

In How the World Really Works, scientist Vaclav Smil argues that our current way of life relies so heavily on fossil fuels that the only way to reduce our dependence on them and slow down climate change is to do so gradually and at great expense. But we can’t engage in any intelligent discussion about how to solve the problem of climate change unless everyone has a shared understanding of how the world works.

In this guide, we’ll explore Smil’s ideas about the functioning of four critical aspects of our world: energy, food production, manufacturing, and the environment. Throughout the guide, we’ll compare Smil’s analyses to those of other experts and examine current research and potential solutions to the issue of climate change.

(continued)...

Just as countries need to increase support for clean energy, experts say governments also need to decrease support for fossil fuels. Many governments still subsidize fossil fuels: Globally, fossil fuel subsidies increased 11% between 2016 and 2017. In 2018, total worldwide investment in clean energy was less than investment in fossil fuel subsidies. And from 2021 to 2022, fossil fuel subsidies doubled amidst the global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

How Does Food Production Work?

Smil says that modern methods of food production have improved the quality of life for millions of people, but at the cost of burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. In this section, we’ll examine the history of food production, as well as the role fossil fuels play in fertilizers, fishing, and activities incidental to food production.

The History of Food Production

Smil explains that prior to the industrial age, food production was inefficient and unreliable, so everyone but the wealthiest elites had to worry about getting enough to eat. Since the 1800s, food production has been driven primarily by fossil fuels and electricity. Fossil fuels are used to power agricultural machinery, fertilize and irrigate crops, heat greenhouses, and transport harvests. As a result of these processes, crop yields have increased exponentially, and even though the world’s population has exploded in recent decades, the share of the population who is undernourished has decreased by 50%.

(Shortform note: The amount of fossil fuels required to produce food—and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions caused by food production—varies depending on the type of food. Beef production is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in 25% of all emissions from food production. This is followed by cow milk, pork, and chicken. Among plant foods, rice farming results in the highest emissions (due to methane-producing bacteria in flooded rice paddies), followed by wheat, sugarcane, and maize.)

The Role of Fossil Fuels in Fertilizers and Other Agrochemicals

Smil points out that the amount of fossil fuels required to produce agrochemicals is far greater than the amount required to make and power farm machinery. Agrochemicals include fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizers. Of these, the chemical needed in the greatest quantities is nitrogen, which is essential to plant growth. In the past, farmers supplied crops with nitrogen by applying human wastes directly to the crops or by rotating crops that naturally produce nitrogen (such as beans and peas) with crops that don’t. Now, nitrogen is produced using fossil fuel: It takes 1.5 liters of diesel fuel to make one kilogram of nitrogenous fertilizer.

(Shortform note: In addition to requiring fossil fuel for their production, nitrogen fertilizers also emit nitrous oxide, or “laughing gas,” a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Over the past 40 years, emissions of nitrous oxide have increased by more than 30%. One study found that these emissions can be reduced by increasing the efficiency of nitrogen use, such as by implementing technology that enables more precise application of fertilizers.)

The Role of Fossil Fuels in Fishing

Fishing uses more energy than any other form of food provision. Smil points out that aquaculture (fish farms) can make a dent in overfishing, but it doesn’t solve the fossil fuels problem, as the most popular fish species are carnivores that need to be fed large quantities of other, wild-caught fish.

(Shortform note: Fishing relies on fossil fuels primarily to power the engines and pull the nets of massive vessels called supertrawlers, which drag huge, weighted nets across the sea floor to catch fish. This fishing technique contributes to carbon emissions not only by burning fuel but also by destroying seabed sediments and marine plants such as seagrass that are extremely effective at storing carbon. In fact, a 2021 study found that bottom trawling alone releases as much carbon dioxide as the entire aviation industry.)

The Role of Fossil Fuels in Activities Incidental to Food Production

While field farming, fishing, and aquaculture account for only about 4% of annual global energy use, total food-related energy use is close to 20%. Smil explains that this includes everything from food processing to packaging and transportation. This number has increased in recent years due to factors such as growing reliance on prepared foods and food imports.

(Shortform note: Studies show exactly what percentage of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by each food production-related activity. Of the approximately 26% of global emissions caused by food production, livestock and fisheries account for 31% of emissions, crop production accounts for 27%, land use (destruction of forests, grasslands, and other carbon sinks to create cropland or pasture) accounts for 24%, and supply chain accounts for 18%, of which transport is the highest contributor, at 6%.)

How to Reduce Our Dependence on Fossil Fuels in Food Production

Smil argues that it would be almost impossible to return to pre-industrial methods of food production without most people leaving the cities and spending a good portion of their time growing their own food and tending their own animals in the country. However, he says that it’s possible to reduce our modern dependence on fossil fuels in food production. He suggests three methods for doing so: Cutting down on food waste, eating less meat, and using electricity to power agricultural machinery.

Cut Down on Food Waste

One way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in food production is to waste less food. Smil says we produce much more food than we need; as a result, we waste a third of our total food supply. When it comes to household waste, most of it is food that was served but not eaten or food that went bad. Smil argues that we should price food differently to prevent food waste.

(Shortform note: Smil notes that reducing food waste throughout the food production process is a complex problem that has yet to be solved. However, he doesn’t mention the efforts that have been made to solve this problem. For example, many states have passed laws to reduce food waste. Five states have passed laws banning entities from sending their food waste to landfills. All 50 states have laws that protect businesses that donate leftover food from liability relating to the condition of the food. And in 2022, California passed a law requiring the collection and recycling of food waste from all businesses and residents. The collected waste is processed to become compost, clean electricity, or biofuel.)

Eat Less Meat

Another way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in food production is to eat less meat. While Smil doesn’t think it’s realistic for most people to become vegetarian or vegan, he does believe that we can eat significantly less meat and still get the proper amount of protein in our diets. In particular, he thinks we should reduce our consumption of beef, as cattle have a particularly damaging effect on the environment.

(Shortform note: Meat contributes to climate change in two main ways: through cows’ emission of the greenhouse gas methane, and through the destruction of carbon-capturing forests to create grazing land and cropland for cattle. For example, the Amazon rainforest has long absorbed huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere—by some estimates, 1.5 billion tons a year, or 4% of all emissions from fossil fuels. However, due to deforestation and burning to accommodate cattle ranching, the Brazilian portion of the Amazon now emits 3.6 billion more tons of carbon than it sequesters. According to the UN, meat production is responsible for generating about 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.)

Use Electricity to Power Agricultural Machinery

Another method of reducing fossil fuel use in food production is to power agricultural machinery with electricity. Smil says this is not currently feasible because it depends on inexpensive methods of generating and storing large amounts of electricity, which don’t exist yet.

(Shortform note: According to industry watchers, farms are in fact increasingly turning to electric equipment due to electricity’s greater efficiency, environmental concerns resulting in regulatory pressures, and labor shortages. Equipment that can be powered by electricity includes irrigation pumping systems, water heaters, and tractors. Some say that the biggest obstacle to converting to electric equipment isn’t the technology, but the cost. They argue that with incentives to increase technology development and offset costs to farmers will come more sophisticated technology.)

How Does Our Material World Work?

Smil explains that four materials—concrete, steel, plastics, and ammonia—are used more than any others in modern society. Producing these on a mass scale requires huge amounts of fossil fuels to heat their raw materials at high temperatures. Smil claims that aside from experimental methods, there is currently no way to manufacture these materials without the use of fossil fuels.

Concrete and Steel

Concrete is made by heating limestone, clay, and shale in large kilns, then grinding the result into a cement powder. Concrete can withstand great pressure but not great tension. The discovery of how to reinforce concrete using steel bars solved that problem and led to reinforced concrete being used in every large building and transportation infrastructure worldwide. Reinforced concrete is used in skyscrapers, tunnels, sidewalks, runways, freeways, and dams, among other things.

Smil explains that one problem with concrete is that environmental factors such as moisture, freezing, and vibration can cause it to deteriorate. Its typical lifespan is between 20 and 100 years, depending on maintenance. Because much of the concrete in the world was installed in the second half of the twentieth century, it already needs to be replaced or destroyed—a project that will continue for decades to come.

(Shortform note: While Smil contends that there is no way to manufacture zero carbon concrete, he doesn’t discuss the many manufacturers who are already making low carbon concrete. These forms of concrete significantly reduce carbon emissions—some by up to two-thirds—by replacing some of the limestone used in the manufacturing process with clay or fly ash, or by capturing the carbon emissions from the manufacturing process and injecting them back into the concrete to strengthen it.)

Steel is used in bridges, foundations, ships, tools, machinery, pipelines, and weapons. It’s made using iron ore, which Smil points out is plentiful in the earth’s crust and not in danger of running out for generations. The ore is smelted in blast furnaces, then treated in oxygen furnaces. Producing steel is a very energy-intensive process.

Steel can be recycled by melting it in a massive furnace, but this is also energy-intensive: It requires the same amount of electricity per day as a city of 150,000 people. Still, wealthy countries do recycle most of their steel.

Steel and cement together are responsible for about 16% of carbon emissions.

(Shortform note: As with concrete, there are methods of manufacturing steel that result in fewer carbon emissions. These include using carbon capture technologies, improving the recyclability of steel, and heating iron ore with natural gas and hydrogen. Currently, seven out of 10 of the world’s biggest steel-producing countries have begun at least one such “green steel” project. Although it will be some time before green steel is adopted globally, experts say that governments can speed this transition by implementing policies that create markets for green steel, as well as by investing in the development and deployment of existing technologies.)

Plastics

Most plastics are made by heating petroleum, a refined fossil fuel, at very high temperatures. Smil says that because of their low weight and high strength, plastics are ubiquitous in modern life. They’re used in cars, planes, building materials, electronics, healthcare products, clothing, and much more.

(Shortform note: Concern over the environmental impact of plastic often focuses on plastic waste; Smil highlights the fact that fossil fuel extraction and plastic manufacturing actually produce the vast majority of plastic-related carbon emissions. Studies demonstrate that 91% of emissions from plastic come from the early stages of its life cycle, whereas only 9% are due to plastic disposal. However, plastic can be made from plant-based materials such as sugarcane and produced using renewable energy. Unlike the demand for concrete and steel, which is fueled by ever-increasing development, the demand for plastics can be reduced. For example, consumers could demand reusable glass and plant-based packaging for food and home goods.)

Ammonia

Smil says that ammonia is the most important material we use. While ammonia is used in explosives, dyes, fibers, and cleansers, 80% of it is used in agriculture. Smil explains that ammonia is the world’s primary source of nitrogen fertilizer and without it, nearly half of the world’s population would go unfed.

Ammonia is an inorganic compound composed of nitrogen and hydrogen. It can be found naturally in animal waste (manure) or it can be synthesized. The rapidly growing population in the early 20th century demanded a solution to the challenge of synthesizing ammonia to produce enough food for everyone. The problem, Smil explains, is that the synthesis of ammonia from its elements requires a huge amount of energy, and thus, use of fossil fuels.

Today, wealthy countries use the vast majority of ammonia fertilizers and most of these are synthetic. In China, for example, 60% of the nitrogen used in agriculture comes from synthetic ammonia. Because of our life-or-death reliance on this material, Smil says, it’s one of the most difficult areas in which to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

(Shortform note: Although this doesn’t address the use of fossil fuels in synthesizing ammonia (and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions), many cost-effective, low-tech methods for reducing ammonia emissions do exist. For example, simply covering manure during storage or layering soil on top of it immediately after application on crops can significantly reduce emissions. In addition, there are many technologies that reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand is one example of a country that has significantly reduced agricultural emissions by supporting innovation and technology transfer. From 1990 to 2015, New Zealand reduced its agricultural emissions by 34%, despite the fact that agriculture makes up a significant portion of its economy.)

Cutting Down on Carbon Emissions in Manufacturing

Smil says it’s unlikely that the ammonia, plastics, concrete, and steel industries will stop relying on fossil fuels anytime soon. And developing countries will need to increase their production of these materials many times over to catch up with wealthier countries. What’s more, “green” electricity, such as that generated by wind turbines and electric car batteries, relies on all of these materials and many others as well.

Nonetheless, Smil says there may be some steps we can take to cut down on the use of these materials. For example, we could use less ammonia by relying on some of the same methods as with food production: increasing food prices or eating less meat. Alternatively, we could get wealthy countries to produce less food.

(Shortform note: While Smil contends that the only way to reduce carbon emissions from these materials is to use fewer of them, many manufacturers are already implementing methods to cut down on emissions without reducing their use of these materials, as discussed in the commentary above. One such method is to create new manufacturing processes that reduce raw materials or decrease machine use. For example, one steel manufacturer removed rollers and streamlined its production process, allowing it to use smaller facilities and consume less energy and heat. This resulted in an 80-90% reduction in carbon emissions. And many building projects reduce emissions by using recycled, reclaimed, or carbon-storing materials, such as wood or hemp.)

How Does the Environment Work?

Smil argues that for humans to survive, we need to make sure our actions don’t make Earth uninhabitable. In this section, we examine our effect on the environment by looking first at the history of climate change. Then, we look at how climate change affects our oxygen, water, and food supplies. Finally, we explore Smil’s contention that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make climate predictions or meet current climate goals.

The History of Climate Change

Although the media and the world’s governments began to focus their attention on global warming in the late 1980s, Smil contends that we’ve known about the greenhouse effect and the dire consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions for at least 100 years. Around the turn of the 19th century, scientists calculated that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels would result in significant warming—by one calculation, 4 degrees C, or 7.2 degrees F (which turned out to be fairly accurate). By 1958, scientists began measuring background concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and they showed constant and predictable increases over time.

Public Opinion on Climate Change

While scientists have warned of global warming for some time, one reason the general public did not share that concern is because for decades people saw it as more theoretical than real. This disinterest began to change as global temperatures increased. The summer of 1988 was the hottest on record at the time, and drought and wildfires were widespread in the US. The media and the public began to pay more attention to climate change scientists. In 1989, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established under the UN to provide a scientific perspective on climate change and its economic and political impacts.

Another reason the public’s opinion on climate change doesn’t always reflect that of the scientific community is that, especially in the US, global warming has become politicized. The issue began as a bipartisan one—for example, Republican George Bush campaigned as an environmentalist and helped launch the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But as it developed steam, fossil fuel interests took note and began to spend money on campaigns to oppose climate change action and portray it as a liberal position. Studies show that as of 2020, 78% of Democrats and 21% of Republicans say that climate change should be a top priority.

How Climate Change Affects Oxygen, Water, and Food

There are many aspects of a healthy environment, but Smil focuses on three that are necessary for human life: oxygen, water, and food. Smil believes that we are in no danger of not having enough oxygen, water, or food as a result of climate change—if we eat less beef, manage water more efficiently, reduce food waste, and change our approach to growing crops. He outlines how climate change will affect each of these three substances.

(Shortform note: Smil focuses on how climate change will affect these three substances that humanity needs for its basic survival, but he doesn’t address the other ways in which global warming will impact the environment and public health. These effects include rising sea levels due to melting glaciers and ice caps, resulting in coastal flooding; worsened air and water quality resulting in the spread of disease; disruption of habitats that could drive many plant and animal species to extinction; and an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods.)

Oxygen

Smil notes that we lose a tiny amount of oxygen every year (0.002%) due to burning fossil fuels, but it’s not enough to make a difference. There is no danger of us running out of oxygen, which makes up about 21% of the atmosphere by volume. He says the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere isn’t affected by the number of plants on the planet.

(Shortform note: While the number of plants on the planet doesn’t affect the amount of oxygen we breathe, it does affect the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. During photosynthesis, plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Forests in particular are a very effective “carbon sink”: They store more carbon than they release. America’s forests alone sequester over 800 million tons of carbon a year, or approximately 12% of US annual emissions. Accordingly, banning clear-cutting of old-growth forests is one very effective method of curbing atmospheric carbon.)

Water

Smil says that we waste huge amounts of water, and people in many places don’t have enough water to drink. Climate change will cause some water scarcity, but he believes the bigger issue is the increasing demand for water as a result of a growing population. The solution is to reduce water usage, which the US has done successfully.

Desalination plants (which turn saltwater into fresh) can provide drinking water, but they’re expensive and can’t produce enough water to meet the volume needed by agriculture.

Global warming increases evaporation, which results in more rain overall—but not in the same places used to getting rain, and not predictably.

(While Smil acknowledges that climate change will create some water scarcity, his focus is on water demand. However, some experts note that demand itself can be adversely impacted by climate change: As temperatures rise and evaporation rates increase, people in many parts of the world may need more water. In addition, climate change results in disappearing glaciers, early snow melt, and severe droughts, which can cause more severe water shortages.)

Food

Producing food uses fossil fuels and also creates additional greenhouse gas emissions as a result of methane emissions from cattle and cutting down forests to raise cattle or grow crops.

Smil explains that we need phosphorus from fertilizers to grow food, but phosphorus runoff, soil erosion, and phosphorus in animal and human waste can contaminate fresh and ocean water, causing large algae growths. Nitrogen runoff also causes these growths. When the algae in ocean water decomposes, it consumes oxygen, resulting in oxygen-depleted zones where sea life can’t survive.

Despite these issues, Smil contends that we’re in no danger of running out of food as a result of climate change.

(Shortform note: One threat to the global food supply that Smil doesn’t take into account is the increase in natural disasters due to climate change. Extreme weather events such as floods and droughts can wipe out crops and make growing food much less efficient. As Smil notes elsewhere in the book, insurance company records show that natural disasters have been increasing at a rapid rate in the last several decades: They doubled in frequency between 1980 and 2005, and rose 60% between 2005 and 2019. He explains that climate change is partially responsible for this increase because, for example, a warmer atmosphere holds more water, and prolonged droughts lead to larger, more intense fires.)

The Difficulty of Making Climate Predictions or Meeting Specific Warming Caps

Even for those with extensive experience and knowledge on the topic, Smil claims that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make accurate predictions about global warming or meet current IPCC limits on warming.

The Challenge of Making Global Warming Predictions

Smil argues that it’s very difficult to make predictions about global warming because they rely on many layered assumptions (for example, technical, social, and economic assumptions), and world events are unpredictable. For example, Smil notes that 40 years ago no one could have predicted that the largest driver of climate change in the ensuing years would be the economic rise of China.

Those who predict environmental catastrophe and those who forecast instant, technological solutions are both likely to be wrong, warns Smil, in part because complex predictions are often wrong.

(Shortform note: Smil’s contention that complex predictions such as those concerning global warming are often wrong stands in contrast to his earlier point that global warming predictions made decades ago have proven to be remarkably accurate. In fact, studies show that most climate predictions released between 1970 and 2001 correctly predicted recent global surface temperatures. While there were a handful of models that didn’t accurately predict warming, this was only because they didn’t take into account people’s efforts to counteract global warming, such as regulations in the Montreal Protocol that resulted in a dramatic drop in planet-warming refrigerants.)

The Challenge of Meeting Global Warming Caps

Because of our heavy reliance on fossil fuels, Smil claims that it’s impossible to meet the IPCC goal of no more than 1.5°C of warming by 2030 and net zero carbon emissions by 2050. He points out that by 2020, warming had already increased two-thirds of that amount. The IPCC estimates would require us to cut global energy demand by half between 2030 and 2050, but in the last 30 years, global energy demand has risen by 20%.

Smil notes that the IPCC goals rely on factors such as less demand for consumer goods, but not only are we consuming more and more goods with every passing year, but the IPCC target also assumes that low-income countries won’t want to increase their share of material goods. Moreover, he says that while carbon capture technology is an alternative to reducing emissions, this would require building a new transmission infrastructure to transport and store carbon, as well as dismantling the existing oil and gas infrastructure.

Smil points out that other than cutting down on the carbon involved in electricity generation, the world has been slow to end its reliance on fossil fuels. Even in a country like Germany that has worked to transition to renewable energy, fossil fuels still make up 78% of the primary energy supply; in Japan, that number is 90%. And even if the developed world significantly reduces its energy consumption, less developed countries actually need more energy to survive.

Smil concludes that there currently is no feasible way to end our dependence on fossil fuels quickly—it will have to be a gradual and expensive process.

Progress Toward Climate Goals

While many experts agree that there is no “magic wand” to end our dependence on fossil fuels overnight, some also note that our progress toward that goal is getting exponentially faster.

Critics of Smil’s claims argue that he ignores the substantial progress that has already been made toward sustainability and reduced emissions—not to mention the increasing rate of that progress. They point out that in 2021, 38% of global electricity came from clean sources. Solar and wind power met 10% of the world’s electricity needs, but they accounted for 30% of the growth in demand for clean energy. And from 2021 to 2022, solar and wind power generation grew by 23% and 14%, respectively.

Smil’s critics also contend that some of the statistics he relies on are misleading. For example, while it’s accurate that fossil fuels make up 78% of Germany’s primary energy supply, most primary energy generated by fossil fuels is wasted via heat dissipation; as a result, a more accurate measurement is final, useful energy. In 2022, renewable energy produced 46% of German power consumption.

In addition, some experts note that investments in clean energy have skyrocketed in recent years. For example, from 2013 to 2019, US venture capital and corporate investment in climate technology grew at a rate five times faster than overall venture capital investment. Total US investment in renewable energy has grown rapidly from $32 billion in 2004 to $495 billion in 2022.