The US consumes a quarter of the world's oil, compared to 8 percent for China. Even with high growth in China expected in coming years, the world will not run out of oil anytime soon. Over a trillion barrels of proven reserves exist, and more is likely to be found. But two-thirds of those proven reserves are in the Persian Gulf, and are thus vulnerable to disruption.
In the past, rising prices had a strong effect on US oil consumption. Since the price spikes of the 1970s, US oil consumption per dollar of GDP has fallen by half, which also reflects the general economic shift away from industrial manufacturing to less energy-intensive production. After all, it requires a lot less energy to create a software program than it does to produce a tonne of steel. In the early 1980s, energy costs accounted for 14 percent of the US economy. Today, they account for 7 percent. Adjusted for inflation, oil prices would have to reach US$80 per barrel (or US$3.12 per gallon of gasoline) to reach the real level recorded in March 1981.
According to the US government, if there are no supply disruptions, and the US economy grows at an annual rate of 3 percent, the price of a barrel of oil will decline to US$25 (in 2003 dollars) in 2010 and then rise to US$30 in 2025. The energy intensiveness of the economy will continue to decline at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent, as efficiency gains and structural shifts offset part of the overall growth in demand. Nonetheless, dependency on oil will grow at an annual rate of 1.5 percent, from 20 million barrels per day in 2003 to 27.9 million in 2025.
The US political system has difficulty in agreeing on a coherent energy policy. But over the next decade, the politics of energy in the US may gradually change. Some observers detect a new "Geo-Green" coalition of conservative foreign-policy hawks, who worry about the US' dependence on Persian Gulf oil, and liberal environmentalists.
In the hawks' view, the real energy problem is not the absence of petroleum reserves, but the fact that they are concentrated in a vulnerable area. The answer is to curb the US' thirst for oil rather than increasing imports. Greens argue that even if energy supplies are abundant, the ability of the environment to support current rates of consumption is limited. The middle of the range of scenarios considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will reach nearly three times their pre-industrial level in 2100.
While the Bush administration remains skeptical about the science behind such projections, some state and local governments are enacting measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions. More importantly, companies such as General Electric are committing to green goals that go well beyond government regulations. A recent report by the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy exemplifies the new coalition. While US President George W. Bush argues that technological advances in hydrogen fuels and fuel cells will curb oil imports in the long run, such measures require major changes in transportation infrastructure that will require decades to complete.
The commission suggests policies that could be implemented sooner. For example, in recent testimony before the US Congress, James Woolsey, a commission member and former CIA director, urged the use of hybrid gasoline/electric vehicles that could charge their batteries overnight with cheap off-peak electricity; energy-efficient ethanol made from cellulose; and a 10-mile-per-gallon (4.25km per liter) increase in fuel-efficiency requirements. He argued that this agenda could cut gasoline consumption significantly in a matter of years rather than decades. It would also avoid the need for dramatic increases in gasoline or carbon taxes, which are broadly accepted in Europe and Japan, but remain the kiss of death for US politicians.
But US government policies are unlikely to change the US' energy consumption significantly in the next few years. Even if a new administration were to enact new policies after Bush leaves office in 2008, there would still be a lag prior to any effect on actual consumption. In the next few years, market forces are likely to be more important than government policies in influencing consumption patterns. But over the next decade, the combination of markets and policies could make a big difference. For example, between 1978 and 1987, government regulations produced an improvement of 40 percent in the fuel efficiency of new US-made cars.
In a surprise-free world, the Bush administration is probably right that the US' thirst for oil will grow by 1.5 percent annually over the next two decades. But political disruption in the Persian Gulf or a new terrorist attack in the US would drive up oil prices rapidly, and the political climate in the US might also change quickly.
The probability of such events is not negligible. Energy independence may be impossible for a country that consumes a quarter of the world's oil but has only 3 percent of its reserves. Even so, a major decline in the US' thirst for oil is not out of the question in the longer term.
Joseph S. Nye is Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard and author of The Power Game: A Washington Novel.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with