(Seoul = Yonhap News) Senior Reporter Seungwoo Lee = In the late 1970s, when the world was reeling from the 'second oil shock', various media outlets preached the 'oil depletion theory'. I also remember seeing a newspaper public service announcement about the need to save energy in preparation for oil depletion. I remember being taught in school that oil would run out in 30 years and humanity would face a major crisis, so we should prepare in advance. During art class, we drew posters with this theme, and during Korean language class, we created slogans. Even when I was young, I felt afraid that the world would soon fall apart.
The theory of oil depletion was born with the 'Herbert curve' published by petroleum geologist King Herbert in the 1950s containing downward forecasts of oil production. Basically, crisis theory is more powerful and works better than objective prudence theory. The theory of oil depletion grew in influence after two oil shocks. Afterwards, the European think tank 'Club of Rome' published a report titled 'Limits to Growth' in 1972, which claimed that oil would be depleted in 30 to 40 years, solidifying the status of oil depletion theory as orthodoxy.
The theory of oil depletion coincided with end-of-century sentiments and caused mankind to tremble with fear, but in reality, oil did not run out when the new millennium arrived. We who live today know very well how absurd that theory was. Total oil reserves are unknown, and recoverable reserves (estimated reserves that can be mined) are increasing along with technological developments such as the shale revolution. Nowadays, academic orthodoxy is closer to the concept that the human era may end before we run out of oil. The recoverable reserves of fossil fuels that will be used by humanity for hundreds of years have been confirmed, and the prevailing view is that the demand for oil will decrease due to the energy revolution, including the development of alternative materials and increased efficiency.
There are quite a few similar things happening in the field of climate prediction. Al Gore, who served as Vice President of the United States, shared the Nobel Peace Prize the following year for his contribution to bringing the climate change crisis to the public's attention through the 2006 documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'. In his acceptance speech, he shocked people by citing extreme research and saying that summer sea ice in the Arctic will disappear within seven years. With this, the climate crisis theory gained further momentum. However, the Arctic ice did not disappear in 2014, and rather the sea ice area increased over the past seven years. Later, Al Gore was criticized for provoking the public with unverified claims. He has amassed a great deal of wealth by currently running an ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)-related investment finance company and a climate change environmental organization.
The theory of oil depletion and the short-term disappearance of Arctic sea ice had a great impact on the lives of people around the world, but were eventually revealed to be false. In the aftermath, many things have changed, including the global economic and industrial structure, but no one is responsible for it. There are quite a few things like this in human history. Medieval European scientists Copernicus and Galileo, who were so far ahead of their time, were treated as crazy for proclaiming the heliocentric theory. The book was banned, and Galileo was actually oppressed, including being put before the Inquisition. If we look at it now, it is a ridiculous skit.
Why did such an unreasonable thing happen? It is human nature for people with two eyes to become abnormal when they go to a village of people with one eye. Scientifically, this phenomenon is explained by terms such as โgroup thinkโ and โconformity effectโ. This means that humans are inherently irrational beings. Human genes also have a โnegativity biasโ property that instinctively pays more attention to negative and dangerous things rather than positive things. Therefore, the public is more easily attracted to โcrisis theoriesโ and โghost storiesโ based on fear marketing.
I am not saying this to deny the mainstream theory of climate change crisis. Climate change theory also gained its current status based on scientific evidence. It is true that the global temperature has been increasing since industrialization, and the Arctic ice area has been decreasing slightly on average. However, no matter how powerful something is, doubt is the main driving force behind the development of science. Without that attitude, humanity would still be stuck in the theory of geocentrism and oil depletion.
The problem is that the climate crisis theory shows dangerous signs of going beyond the basic scientific principle that 'there are no absolute orthodoxies, only powerful hypotheses' and trying to dogmatize them as if they were absolute powers. Scientifically, climate change is caused by a combination of numerous unknown factors, and it is beginning to be pointed out that the climate crisis theory rejects new theories within its absolute sanctuary. At the very least, dogmatism and politics should not be involved in science. Whatever the topic, no matter which side is right, a healthy discussion must take place in an open space and on equal conditions. If scientific theories are revered like the Bible and hypotheses are accepted as doctrines, humanity may regress to the medieval cathedral that judged Galileo.
