OIL PRICES 173
In the case of the current price oil fluctuations, another factor
was emerging. Energy demand in mature industrial nations was
continuing to grow as energy demand in India and China was
also beginning to make an impact. By 2002, the United States
Department of Energy was predicting that China would soon
overtake Japan and become the world's second-largest petroleum
consumer and that developing Asia as a whole would account for
about one-fourth of global consumption by 2020. Also evident was
an unmistakable slowdown in the growth of world production, the
telltale sign of an imminent approach of an oil peak in global output
(Klare, 2007).
With these trends in mind, it is again time to revisit policies that
will minimize future reliance on oil in the United States. Energy
conservation needs to be emphasized, and the development of
climate-friendly, alternative sources of energy, such as biofuels,
wind, solar, and geothermal, need to be promoted and followed
assiduously. However, there are still those who believe that while
energy conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, it is not a sufficient basis for a sound and comprehensive energy policy. During
this time of investment in other sources of energy, there is still the
need to rely on oil, natural gas, and coal.
Continued reliance on oil, of course, means increased reliance
on imported petroleum, especially from the Middle East, but
there needs to be a careful watch on the implications of continued dependence on imported oil, because oil from other domestic
sources, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and
previously-prohibited offshore areas, may only reduce the need for
imports into the United States by a low percent.
Indeed, increased reliance on imports means increased vulnerability to disruptions in delivery due to wars and political upheavals. Increased military involvement in major overseas oil zones,
especially the Persian Gulf, is not the answer. Furthermore, threats
to countries that do not see eye-to-eye with the policies of the
United States can also cause disruption in the supply of crude oil.
But, such decisions cost the American people credibility and trust
by foreign nations and present the picture of the United States as an
unreliable trading partner.
Such actions usually initiate a rise in the price of crude oil, and
while there is always the argument that the rise in the price of
crude oil is due largely to increasing demand chasing insufficiently
expanding supply, energy policies can intensified the problem.
In the case of the current price oil fluctuations, another factor
was emerging. Energy demand in mature industrial nations was
continuing to grow as energy demand in India and China was
also beginning to make an impact. By 2002, the United States
Department of Energy was predicting that China would soon
overtake Japan and become the world's second-largest petroleum
consumer and that developing Asia as a whole would account for
about one-fourth of global consumption by 2020. Also evident was
an unmistakable slowdown in the growth of world production, the
telltale sign of an imminent approach of an oil peak in global output
(Klare, 2007).
With these trends in mind, it is again time to revisit policies that
will minimize future reliance on oil in the United States. Energy
conservation needs to be emphasized, and the development of
climate-friendly, alternative sources of energy, such as biofuels,
wind, solar, and geothermal, need to be promoted and followed
assiduously. However, there are still those who believe that while
energy conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, it is not a sufficient basis for a sound and comprehensive energy policy. During
this time of investment in other sources of energy, there is still the
need to rely on oil, natural gas, and coal.
Continued reliance on oil, of course, means increased reliance
on imported petroleum, especially from the Middle East, but
there needs to be a careful watch on the implications of continued dependence on imported oil, because oil from other domestic
sources, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and
previously-prohibited offshore areas, may only reduce the need for
imports into the United States by a low percent.
Indeed, increased reliance on imports means increased vulnerability to disruptions in delivery due to wars and political upheavals. Increased military involvement in major overseas oil zones,
especially the Persian Gulf, is not the answer. Furthermore, threats
to countries that do not see eye-to-eye with the policies of the
United States can also cause disruption in the supply of crude oil.
But, such decisions cost the American people credibility and trust
by foreign nations and present the picture of the United States as an
unreliable trading partner.
Such actions usually initiate a rise in the price of crude oil, and
while there is always the argument that the rise in the price of
crude oil is due largely to increasing demand chasing insufficiently
expanding supply, energy policies can intensified the problem.