The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

The Long Goodbye to Cheap Oil

Mark Braly
June 18, 2008  |  15 Comments

Sales of SUVs -- often blamed for the nation's ruinous dependence on foreign oil -- were down in May 30% for General Motors and 19% for Ford. Civics and Corollas took over the top sales spots from big pickups. And GM and Ford executives think the switch to small, fuel efficient cars is permanent, even if gasoline prices go down.

If they are right, there's been a seismic shift in the auto market since last spring. Then, gasoline prices had declined 24 percent in the previous few months while gasoline-electric hybrid sales declined 31 percent. After rising for most of the year, Toyota Prius and other hybrid sales fell sharply right along with the price of gasoline.

These first few years of the 21st century have had much in common with the seventies and eighties. Oil prices spike, and the world is green again. Oil prices decline, and the market for efficiency and renewable alternatives fades.

We've been through this before. In the eight years following the second oil shock of the 70s — 1977 through 85 — the U.S proved that it could control the world price for oil by controlling its demand. The U.S. gross domestic product rose 27%, while oil consumption fell 17%. U.S. oil imports from the Persian Gulf fell by half, and imports world-wide by 43%. America is such a dominant consumer of oil that the world market shrank by 10%, cutting OPEC's market share from 52% to 30%. This broke OPEC's pricing power for a decade.

We did this primarily by using energy more efficiently — the federal government required new cars to get better mileage — and there was also a nascent renewable energy industry. The U.S. became the world leader in the new energy technologies as oil companies and investors clamored to get in on solar and wind energy. The return of low oil prices swept all that away.

Martin Wolf, the Financial Times columnist, thinks it, "quite unlikely that aggregate demand for oil will collapse, as it did after the two previous price spikes (in the 70s)." Too much demand is coming out of the fast-growing Asian economies. Still, Saudi Arabia is worried. After having rebuffed President Bush's pleas for more production, the world's biggest producer is hedging its bets by increasing output by a half million barrels a day. Nevertheless, something about the current dip in demand feels permanent.

Today Americans appear again ready to reassert their control of oil prices from the demand side. It's not just the sudden popularity of fuel-efficient vehicles. Carpooling, transit ridership and even bicycling are booming.

Remember Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the Saudi oil minister during the 1970s oil shocks? Yamani is often quoted for having said, "The Stone Age did not end for lack of stones, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil." Speaking in Houston last month, Yamani said his advice to OPEC is "to increase production and lower prices because this is harmful midterm (and) long term to OPEC itself. It will increase the activities to find alternative sources of energy, and OPEC will remain helpless at that time." With current prices hovering around US $130, Saudi Arabia may be unleashing a dynamic that could harm its long-term interests, and, says Rice University analyst Amy Myers Jaffe, "at US $200, almost everything works."

It looks like Saudi Arabia will follow Yamani's advice. But could Americans be persuaded that any future oil or gasoline price dips will be temporary, and that prices need to be stabilized at current levels? Some proposals to do this are daring to speak their names. One comes from Philip Verleger, for decades one of the nation's leading experts on the petroleum market. He has proposed a "price floor" for gasoline: US $4 a gallon for regular unleaded. This is still half the going rate in Europe, notes Tom Friedman in the New York Times. What this would mean is gasoline taxes on a sliding scale to smooth out market dips that might bring back the gas guzzlers or render new energy investment unprofitable. Verleger's idea is that the tax receipts could be used to lighten the burden on lower income drivers by reducing their payroll taxes. Or, some of it could be used for massive investment in new energy technologies.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer proposed a floor under the price of oil to ensure that synfuel from coal in his state remains economically viable. Financial journalist Eric Janszen suggests a floating tariff on imported oil: "What if by tariff imported oil was held at US $100/bbl no matter what the actual FOB costs and gradually increased to US $200, over say three years?"

But, maddeningly, American consumers can't seem to accept any intervention in the market place that might, however remotely, raise gasoline prices. Californians recently decisively rejected a ballot measure that would have put a severance tax on oil production in the state to finance energy alternatives. Opponents argued, implausibly, that the tax would raise gasoline prices. In fact, it would have been lost in the background noise of the global oil market. Gasoline is cheaper in other states — Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana — which do tax oil production.

What is becoming clear is that the long term trend must be up. The growing consensus is that global oil production has peaked or will within the next few years. With demand growing in emerging economies, such as China and India, pressure on prices will be irresistible. Can American consumers be convinced of this?

Boom and bust cycles have characterized petroleum prices since the beginning of the industry. There used to be a national consensus that this was not a good thing. With full backing of the oil industry, the Texas Railroad Commission effectively controlled U.S. oil prices by regulating production in the biggest oil-producing state. U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, rendering production controls superfluous. Pricing power passed to foreign importers. Worse, most of the importers are now national oil companies with political aims that can take precedence over market efficiency.

We can get back in the driver's seat if we give up the dream of permanent cheap oil.

The case for taking back the world petroleum market using our demand leverage has never been more compelling. Oil is the fastest-growing component of our trade deficit. Our oil import dollars are funding world-wide terrorism. Much of our defense budget is spent for protecting overseas oil supplies. We need to create a new domestic energy economy that will spin off good-paying jobs to replace those which are being outsourced. Despite the nation-wide recession, Iowa reports a job surplus, partly due to the booming biofuels and wind industries there. And, finally we seem to have a working consensus that climate change is real and must be dealt with.

The only thing standing in our way is the long goodbye to cheap oil.

15 Comments

Register To Comment
Paul Justus
Paul Justus
June 27, 2008
In the development of human civilization the harnessing of fire was a major step forward. So was the development of language and writing. Probably the next biggest step in the advancement of civilization will be the "Green Tax Shift".

Most honest economists thoroughly endorse the idea of removing taxes from labor and business activities and replacing the revenue with user fees on the extraction, waste disposal, and monopoly of our common natural resources. These are resources that no human being has lifted a finger to create. (The work of digging up these resources is another matter. This is work and should not be taxed).

The enactment of a carbon user fee where the funds would gradually replace payroll taxes (that are paid by both business owners and workers) would both stimulate the economy AND move us toward the development and production all types of clean and renewable energy technologies.

Please visit the Carbon Tax Center website and spend some time there. We need to put a stop to the Cap and Charade business as soon as possible.

Please consider telling two friends about the Green Tax Shift and have them do the same.
Kevin Gray
Kevin Gray
June 23, 2008
Plug-in hybrids are not "wrong" just because "most apartment dwellers can't use them"--this is an overly simplistic criticism, as a significant percentage of the US population does not live in apartments. I personally would love to have a plug-in hybrid, as my wife's daily commuting cost would drop to pennies, and we would stop purchasing about $3000 worth of gasoline a year. I think a Tesla electric sports car might be considered more of an "elite" solution, because of their $100K price tag. In northern cities in Canada, there are usually electrical outlets provided next to parking spaces in apartment complexes, to run vehicle engine and battery warmers--very necessary in areas where the temperature can go far below zero for extended periods. If demand warrants (and perhaps local governments legislate) electrical outlets for plug-in hybrids at apartment parking spaces, it isn't rocket science to install them.
Therese Shellabarger
Therese Shellabarger
June 21, 2008
Plug-in Hybrids are wrong because most apartment dwellers can't use them. They would be an "elite" solution. We have to be realistic. Diesel hybrid would be the next best thing because diesel engines to run on most any fuel, including waste vegetable oil, by replacing the seals with oil-resistant ones. (There might need to be other modifications, I'm not a mechanic.) Don't be fooled by the term "bio-diesel" -- it's not the same and causes added pollution during processing to turn it into regular diesel fuel that can be used by unmodified diesel engines.
Paul Justus
Paul Justus
June 20, 2008
We need higher gas prices to encourage ongoing investment in clean, renewable and resource conserving technologies. As long as there is a boom-bust cycle renewable energy companies will be hesitant to invest. A sliding-scale tax that would maintain higher prices is a good idea.

However, since the American public wants cheap gas they will be reluctant to support taxes (or user fees) on fossil fuels. The only way to overcome this reluctance would be to guarantee an "earth inheritance" citizen's dividend that could go into their social security accounts (retirement, health savings, food, shelter, and energy transition) -- as we remove the payroll tax and, eventually, taxes on all forms of human production. In other words, Tax Waste, Not Work.

Some ecological economists characterize this public policy as the "Green Tax Shift". If everyone reading this would explain the Green Tax Shift to just two people and have them explain it to two more people and so on...then we would be able to generate the political will to implement the Green Tax Shift much sooner rather than before it's too late.
Geoff Steele
Geoff Steele
June 20, 2008
Defining, and perhaps separating the sectors of petroleum energy use might be helpful. I've seen stats indicating as much as 70% of oil consumption here goes for the transportation sector. With increasing gridlock in many larger cities during rush hours, the spectre of millions of cars creeping along burning millions of gallons of gasoline wastefully makes this a believable number. Also, multiple competing airlines flying the same route sectors, but operating their aircraft at less than 40% load factors is just wasteful. If we could shift commuters to electric vehicles (rechargeable at drivers' offices during the day) and reduce the number of total daily jet flights in the country somehow (striving for 100% load factors on each flight leg), then we might begin to turn this around. I also have seen new material indicating new types of nuclear reactors using 'pelletized fuel' will be both 100% 'safe' and dramatically reduce the problems associated with spent fuel disposal. If this is true, then the country could embark on a new effort to build scores of new reactors to respond to increased demands for electrical power to serve an electrically-based transportation market. The decline in world petroleum reserves is -- at long last -- forcing us to think outside the box, carefully consider truly viable energy alternatives, and begin aggressive R&D and technology transfer efforts to make things happen. It's just too bad that American industries like GM, Ford, and others have to learn the hard way to be better 'futurists' and plan to deliver what this country will "need", rather than joining with Madison Avenue hucksters to sell us some image of "what they think we want". I think the days of urban cowboys driving around in 500 horsepower pickups and wearing cowboy hats are rapidly coming to an end. Maybe it'll be Bermuda Shorts and Priuses from now on...
Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson
June 20, 2008
It's not just America this needs to understand cheap oil is gone.

The price of oil dropped $5/bbl yesterday with China just mentioning they were going to lower the amount of subsidy provided.
Joel Davidson
Joel Davidson
June 20, 2008
When I left California in 1972, 7 out of 10 cars were large, gas guzzlers. When I returned to Los Angeles in 1982, over 50% of the cars on the road were small to medium size in reaction to the Oil Embargoes and high gasoline prices. Over the next 25 years, Californians went back using large, gas guzzling cars, but small car purchases are on the rise again and hybrids are becoming common in LA. My friend who lives in a PV powered home and drives a Rav4 EV and has not bought gasoline in 5 years tells me that I will have to wait until 2010 to trade in my Prius for a plug-in hybrid. The points are change takes time and short-term goals can be counter-productive. Make energy conservation and efficiency your personal long-term goals and stay focused. Your neighbors will eventually change.
Dan Borroff
Dan Borroff
June 20, 2008
Maddeningly, American consumers can't seem to accept any intervention in the market ... Californians recently decisively rejected a ballot measure that would have put a severance tax on oil production in the state to finance energy alternatives.

Not much has been said about political and perceptual challenges. There's nothing 'maddening' about the public if we understand, and harness, public perception. The oil industry has and is.

In September 2006 Prop 87 - the ballot measure mentioned above - enjoyed 70% approval. An oil industry group launched a month long multi-million dollar ad campaign. The simple message was "It will cost you more." The measure garnered only 40% of the vote - a 30% change in four weeks. 80% of African-Americans voted No.

At this moment Exxon Mobil is sponsoring a 15 city bus tour, in conjunction with the Congress for Racial Equality. Their messages, "Green will cost you more." and, "What's a green job? It's not Your job!"

African Americans from low-income communities in my state feel the same. Unions are finding excuses not to place at-risk youth in pre-apprenticeship programs in the green sector. Millions are pouring into these programs. The most common excuse, "We tried but your kids weren't qualified."

As long as this situation continues people from economically disadvantaged communities will be used as pawns.

Programs like Green for All, Solar Richmond, and Sustainable South Bronx have broken through the barriers but they are a drop in the bucket. There must be a steady stream, or as a prominent African American pastor told me, "You can't keep dashing these kids hopes and dreams. You're killing them, indirectly. I'm tired of putting kids in the ground."

It's time to change course and create robust programs that give at-risk youth an option to idleness and jail. $30,000 to $80,000 per year for jail, or $10,000 - one time - for training?
Gary Tulie
Gary Tulie
June 20, 2008
Regarding the question of 40% load factors on aeroplanes, the most obvious answer to that is to move from an landing fee based on the number of passengers on an aeroplane to one based on the amount of fuel used by the aeroplane on the journey, or possibly even a penalty tax for each empty seat. In this way, the airlines would be far more keen to fly fuel efficient planes of suitable size for the number of passengers.

Unfortunately for the above idea, the USA is launching a legal challenge to UK plans to move to a tax on the plane rather than the passenger, claiming breach of treaty.

As for the tax situation on aeroplane fuel, there is growing concern in Europe about the unfair tax advantage of the sector. For example, in the UK, Diesel is around £1.30 per litre, which converts to around $9.25 per US gallon. Truck drivers are paying this amount, of which over 50% is tax while the airlines are paying no tax at all on their fuel - even though it is largely burned at high altitude where emissions have greater effects on climate change.

In regards to the tax on road fuel, why is it that in the USA, even the poor are against taxing fuel? Possibly if that tax was spent on decent affordable public transport, measures to make their homes more energy efficient - thus cheaper to heat and cool, and on measures to reduce the energy consumption of the public sector, so freeing up resources to spend on improving their neighbourhoods, then opinion might begin to change.
Steven Mielke
Steven Mielke
June 19, 2008
Steve Buzzell writes: "...at 6$ a gallon the waste would stop and people would beg for wind and sun power"

Oil is mainly valuable as a transportation fuel due to its high energy density. Wind and solar power are hardly adequate substitutes for that--at least not with the current capabilities of electric vehicles. If oil prices remain very high we will see an increase in non-traditional hydrocarbon fuels (such as coal to hydrocarbon conversion schemes, shale oil, various types of biofuels, etc.) but very little increase in the solar and wind markets.
Brandon D Hunt
Brandon D Hunt
June 19, 2008
I think with plug-in hybrids, the first of which are set to be sold in the US in 2011, there will be a good market for wind, photovoltaics and Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)/solar-thermal electricity. CSP would be great for southern California in reducing smog as well as the rest of the Southwest. Wind would be great in places like the Great Plains states from Texas to North Dakota. Algae-based biofuels and biomethane should be ideal for the East that doesn't get the best solar and wind but gets more rainfall and therefore access to water. At first plug in hybrids would use mostly fossil fuel, but could in time use algae-based green gasoline, algae-based biodiesel or compressed biomethane.
Steve Buzzell
Steve Buzzell
June 18, 2008
The best thing that could happen is to have a sliding tax on oil to put it and keep it at 6$ a gallon the waste would stop and people would beg for wind and sun power
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
June 18, 2008
I agree. If only this wasn't America. Of course, if we get into war with Iran, we'll see $6/gal whether we legislate it or not. It will effectively shut off the flow of Persian Gulf oil to the world. Great for greenhouse gas reduction, too. Problem is, the economy would largely stop because freight and workers couldn't afford to go anywhere. It would be sort of like the days after 9/11, only it would go on indefinitely.
Jonathan Cole
Jonathan Cole
June 18, 2008
If only the problem were as simple as cheap oil! The ability of the global natural infrastructure to support life is being destroyed by the unintended side-effects of the industrial revolution's harnessing of combustion and chemistry to increase the material standard of living for humans. The interdependency of all living systems (ecology) is a fact that our economic system has failed to come to terms with. There are ways to approach this, but no one seems to be talking about the magnitude of the problem. So I am trying to start this conversation in "The Eco-Industrial Revolution" at http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2008/06/eco-industrial-revolution.html
David Carlson
David Carlson
June 18, 2008
We will get $6/gal gas whether we go to war with Iran or not, and without higher gas taxes. The question is just how soon, and whether we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is draining so much of our capital as a nation. Yes - the benefits go beyond financial (as long as we don't just burn more coal or nat gas) by reducing emmissions, but things need to make sense financially in order to get priority right now. The argument I make is that high oil prices now may kick start the long needed shift to more energy efficient lifestyles, home design, and even city planning in time to avoid a truly disastrous crunch in the future. Think about gas rationing, $20/gal gas, production shutdowns and the like that will occur as total production begins to decline.

This will happen - not for 20-30 years, but that's not very long.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Mark Braly

Mark Braly

Mark Braly was energy advisor to the mayor of Los Angeles during the 70s energy shock, author of the city's prize-winning energy plan, and president of a State of California non-profit corporation which made loans to renewable energy businesses....
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 13
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets
  • 1
    EU Should Scrap Energy Subsidies to Fight Warming, Poland Says

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Rotork plc
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information