By Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim
Over dependent on fossil fuels has been cited as the core issue of climate change. We are rightly weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. But in our haste to decarbonize energy, we’re dangerously ignoring a harder problem: the end of fossil-based petrochemicals. These aren’t just gasoline. They are the molecular backbone of modern life—from medical IV bags and car dashboards to synthetic fabrics, tires, solvents, and insulation. The question isn’t if we move away, but what replaces carbon atoms now sourced from crude oil and natural gas—and whether we’ll have enough. Will nature provide?
The optimistic view says bio-based chemicals will fill the gap. Companies are already turning corn into bioplastics (PLA), agricultural waste into surfactants, and wood residues into platform chemicals like succinic acid. But let’s do the math. Global petrochemical consumption is roughly 400 million metric tons per year of primary chemicals (ethylene, propylene, BTX). To replace even 50% with biomass would require diverting massive agricultural land and water from food. Current second-generation bio-refineries—using non-food biomass like switchgrass or forest residue—are technically promising but economically uncompetitive without heavy subsidies. Scaling them to fossil-scale capacity would require a global logistics network for biomass that barely exists today.
Moreover, biomass has lower carbon efficiency. It takes roughly 6–10 kg of dry biomass to produce 1 kg of a simple chemical like bio-ethylene, whereas oil yields far more per unit volume. So “enough” is highly unlikely by 2040—not without breakthroughs we don’t yet see. The shortage scenario is inevitable, culminating in the silent collapse of modern supply chains. Suppose we face a shortage. The effects won’t be a sudden blackout. They will be creeping, insidious cost inflation and reallocation.
First, massive users—automotive, construction, packaging, electronics—will bid up prices for the remaining fossil-based feedstocks. This will push cheaper bio-alternatives into use, but only for high-value, low-volume applications. Lower-margin products—like plastic pipes for water systems, commodity packaging for food, and polyester fibers for affordable clothing—will get hit hardest.
Second, substitution will be imperfect. A shortage of propylene oxide affects polyurethane foams (mattresses, car seats, insulation). A shortage of butadiene kills synthetic rubber—no tires. There is no fully bio-based tire yet at scale. So mobility costs rise. Supply chains stretch thinner, with chemical distributors rationing allocations like wartime.
Third, downstream products will face redesign paralysis. Thousands of products—adhesives, coatings, lubricants, dyes, pharmaceuticals—are tuned to specific molecular properties of fossil-derived intermediates. A chemical shortage won’t just make things expensive; it will force reformulation, which takes years of regulatory approval and performance testing.
The hidden risk is not scarcity, but inequality of access. Developing nations that cannot afford premium bio-chemicals will turn back to coal-to-chemicals or cheap imported fossil feedstocks. So the “global green transition” could fragment into a two-tier world: rich countries with bio-and-recycled chemical loops, and poorer countries burning residual fossil carbon for industrial survival. That won’t solve climate or justice.
Possible solutions talk about the art of the possible. We need to stop romanticizing 100% bio-based. It won’t happen. Instead: Fall back on chemical recycling as a third pillar – Advanced depolymerization (pyrolysis, solvolysis) turns plastic waste into virgin-quality monomers. It’s energy-intensive but less land-dependent than bio. Scale it aggressively with mandates on recycled content not just for plastics, but for chemical feedstocks. Adopt the mass balance approach – Allow chemical plants to gradually replace fossil naphtha with bio-naphtha or recycled pyrolysis oil, tracked via mass balance certification. This uses existing cracker infrastructure and ramps up feedstocks without building new facilities.
The possibility of directly converting CO₂-to-chemicals – Electrocatalysis and fermentation using captured CO₂, from cement or ai,r is nascent but promising. If renewable electricity becomes cheap, producing simple C1-C2 chemicals (methanol, ethanol, acetic acid) from CO₂ could supplement both bio and fossil sources.
Demand-side reduction is the hard truth: we must use fewer chemicals. Design for repairability, eliminate single-use non-medical plastics, shift back to natural fibers and wood where possible. Not romantic; realistic. Without demand reduction, no combination of bio+recycling+CO₂ meets 2050 volumes.
In conclusion, we must not let perfect be the enemy of enough. The end of fossil petrochemicals is inevitable and welcome. But if we pretend bio-based alone will ride to the rescue, we invite a supply shock that will rattle every sector from healthcare to housing. The solution is a portfolio: bio-based where land-efficient, chemically recycled where possible, CO₂-derived where cheap power exists, and—most importantly—conscious material frugality. Otherwise, the world moving “away from fossil” may not mean moving into abundance. It may mean moving into a different kind of hunger: a hunger for the molecules that still, quietly, hold civilization together.
The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya.
About The Author
