Starving for gasoline

The price of gasoline might become one of the more divisive issues in this election year.

Newt Gingrich promised a return to gas prices of fewer than $3 per gallon, and even President Barack Obama has been sounding stridently populist in the past few weeks.

One might be tempted to think politicians have some secret expertise in the oil business.

In reality, all the presidential candidates are just reacting to huge global trends beyond their control.

With that in mind, I would like to bring up what might seem like ancient history (although I promise it is very modern).

The scholar Thomas Malthus incorrectly predicted that limited food supplies would restrict population and perpetuate poverty.

Malthus’ equation used two known quantities: the rate of population growth and the food-producing capacity of farmland. The world of high-yield, mechanized agriculture was unimaginable to Malthus.

The same problem faces the developed world today, only our limited resource is energy, not food.

So-called “energy independence” is one of the greatest of oxymoronic political catchphrases.

Energy independence is impossible. The only reason we have debates about energy policy at all is that humanity is inescapably energy dependent.

This is why Malthus is still so relevant. His theoretical insight was essentially sound. Consumption cannot consistently outpace the supply of energy without leading to disaster.

The world will require vastly greater amounts of energy for every person in China, India and Africa to live the way Americans and Europeans have been living.

Contrary to political claims, energy prices are not going to decline without a decrease in demand, a technological breakthrough, or both.

Drilling for oil in the United States will not solve the ultimate issue of energy production and consumption. Oil supplies would have to increase at the same rate as demand for oil just to keep prices stable.

Returning to the example of Malthus, we can imagine what might have happened if the modern agricultural revolution had never occurred.

The current threat of scarcity should encourage personal conservation and diversification of energy sources.

However, energy policy cannot be based solely on the hope of a breakthrough in green energy technology. Solar, wind and biofuels are potential future sources but lack the capacity to supply current needs.

The U.S. should exploit fossil fuels and should especially seek cleaner, more efficient ways to use them. Proven alternatives like hydroelectric and nuclear power should also be integral parts of our energy policy.

The only road to stability in energy markets is to combine development of available resources with research into alternative fuels.

­— jzsoldos@indiana.edu