Precision is fundamental to science. This is particularly the case regarding accurate terminology.
Unfortunately, within the discourse on future energy pathways, there is a widely used term that falls far short of the threshold of precise scientific terminology, namely ‘fossil fuel’ and its applicability as a description of crude oil.
Three factors demonstrate its imprecision.
The first relates to the word ‘fuel.’
Crude oil in and of itself is rarely used directly as a fuel. Rather it is refined into thousands of different products, some of which are fuels, many of which are not. Such oil-derived products are used in almost every economic sector and every stage of daily life.
That is not to downplay oil’s importance as a fuel. However, to define it only as a fuel mischaracterizes how we use it. According to OPEC’s World Oil Outlook 2025, the petrochemical industry will be the single largest contributor to global incremental oil demand growth in the period 2024-2050.
The second factor relates to the origin of the term ‘fossil fuel.’
The word ‘fossil’ comes from the Latin, fossilis, meaning obtained by digging. The first recorded use of the term ‘fossil fuel’ was defined in this regard. It came in a 1759 English translation of ‘The Chemical Works of Caspar Neumann’ and was used to distinguish material used for fuels that were dug from beneath the ground from those that came from above the ground like wood and charcoal.
This definition referred to extraction methodology rather than chemical composition. Science has evolved a lot since 1759. Is it appropriate that an outdated eighteenth-century term is used to describe modern energy sources and commodities?
The third factor that shows the term’s imprecision is the important differences between the geological formation of fossils and oil.
Fossilization involves organic matter, buried in sediment, being preserved over geological time, becoming a stony substance.
Oil comes from ancient organic matter, primarily plankton and decaying marine organisms, being buried under layers of sand, silt and rock. Over millions of years, intense heat and pressure from these burial layers cook the matter, transforming it into hydrocarbons, including crude oil.
There is a key difference: fossilization involves organic matter being set in stone and preserved. The formation of oil involves organic matter being cooked and transformed into liquid.
There are those that may argue, even if the term is deficient, as it is popularly used to describe coal, oil and gas, it should just be accepted.
The counterargument to this is on issues regarding climate change, we are constantly told to listen to science. Are generic terms compatible with the rigour of scientific precision? Should they be used, despite their vagueness or ambiguity, in a scientific context or discussions on the world’s energy future?
The reality is that rather than being a term of scientific precision, too often, ‘fossil fuel’ is bandied as a slur, a derogatory way of dismissing energy sources. It feeds into a narrative that some energies are morally superior to others, distorting what should be discussions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions into a misguided debate about replacing energy sources.
The imprecision of the term ‘fossil fuel’ has also given rise to many myths about oil, one of the most common being that oil comes from dinosaur bones. This is clearly not the case.
All this underscores the fact that there are too many misnomers or terms lacking scientific precision in the energy industry. Rather than present reality, they distort and provoke. For discussions on future energy pathways, it is imperative that we understand what oil is, how it forms and how we use it in daily life. Otherwise, we risk jeopardizing the present in the name of saving the future.
Based on this, is it not time that the world rethinks the appropriateness of the term ‘fossil fuels’?