Last week, the average price of gasoline in the U.S. was about $3.38 per gallon with the price of crude oil hovering about $100 per barrel. As memories of 2008’s record high gas prices creep into the minds of motorists, I say, so what — let it rise high, higher than ever before!
My thesis is a persistent and pervasive higher pricing model is necessary for achieving the shift in behavior and outlook required to move away from fossil fuels, mitigate climate change and to ready ourselves for the world of tomorrow.
However, it will take a dual approach to face these challenges, simultaneously addressing supply and the demand in the economic equation.
The U.S. is the world’s top consumer of oil — consuming 22 percent of the world’s production — yet we make up only 4.5 percent of the total population. On the other hand, the People’s Republic of China makes up 19.4 percent of the total population, yet it consumes 56 percent less than the US. India, the third most populous nation comprising 17.3 percent of humanity, consumes 83.5 percent less than the U.S.
Although China’s economy continues to boom as it capitalizes on its vast supply of coal — consuming over three times what the U.S. does — we still manage to outpace China on a per capita basis. As the middle class grows in both India and China, each nation with a population greater than one billion, each nation’s demand for energy and infrastructure also rises.
Although it is difficult to admit, the fossil fuel-based economy of the world’s developed and developing nations is unsustainable. Eighty-three percent of the U.S.’s energy demand is met by such fuels, feeding the transportation, industrial, residential/commercial and electric power sectors. While U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, attempts to calculate when world oil production will peak have lead to various predictions ranging from the wildly pessimistic (it’s already past) to the utterly apathetic (no problemo).
A 2010 report released by the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggested that peak oil would not happen before 2035; however, staving off peak production for another quarter of a century “hinges critically on government policy action, and how that action affects technology, the price of energy services and end-user behavior.”
Such policy changes would likely be unpopular, yet their impact may be profoundly beneficial.
In the IEA’s “New Policy Scenario,” it advises governments to carefully implement policy that calls for a reduction in greenhouse gases as well as for a plan to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
The underlying idea is to limit the increase in demand by embracing higher prices, simultaneously mitigating climate change and encouraging a safer economic transition. In summary, engendering higher prices now would provide the impetus to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy sources, construct domiciles more efficiently, introduce increased mass transit and to inform city planning.
It cannot be overstated that all fossil fuels are finite in amount and are therefore non-renewable sources of energy, all works and efforts that depend on them being unsustainable.
The question that should rack the mind of every conscientious American is whether or not we are prepared to recognize the immorality of our prodigious appetite for fossil fuels.
Are we willing to deny our children and our children’s children a future founded on renewable energy and sustainability? Are we willing to deny them a future of great promise?
Christopher Ramos is a graduate student in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. He can be contacted at [email protected].