Last week Kurt Vonnegut came to our campus for the Distinguished Lecture Series.. And as one would expect, he was an unbelievable mix of cynicism and light-heartedness.
Vonnegut, playing the role of his fictional Kilgore Trout, mentioned a book that, because of his age, he will never be able to write- hopefully he is wrong. The main character is both a stand-up comedian and the last man alive. He spends the last moments before the end of the world ranting about the folly of man, most importantly, our waste of oil.
How absurd. Many of Vonnegut's stories are absurd, but this one is particularly telling. Vonnegut, like many others, has come to view oil as a resource that is good in and of itself, much like a natural forest. He views oil as something we should protect for future generations to enjoy. The question for Vonnegut: why?
Before clever inventors working in our capitalist system developed engines, electrical generators and numerous other inventions, oil was pretty much worthless. Oil is only as good as the energy it provides.
Are we actually running out of oil? No. This myth refuses to die. In fact, fear of a limited oil supply dates back to 1914. That year the U.S. Bureau of Mines estimated that only 10 years of consumption remained. As we know from history, the wheels of our industrial machine ground to a halt in 1924 after the last drop of oil was consumed. In 1939 oil was projected to last 13 years. In 1955 the oil supply was estimated to last 35 years. We have been running out of oil since before my grandfather was born.
Today our known reserves will last at least 60 years. Notice that the known reserves, instead of getting used up, continually get larger and larger. This strange fact depends on the fundamental difference between the oil we know to exist and how much actually exists.
The known reserves of oil only account for the deposits we have so far discovered. Searching for oil fields costs money; therefore, it is not profitable to search for oil fields too far before they will be used for production. If demand for oil increases then it becomes profitable to look for new oil deposits and more fields will be discovered. This explains why our known oil reserves have and will continue to outpace consumption. For example, my refrigerator currently has enough food for maybe a week. Yet at the end of that week, I will not starve. Instead, I will look for more food.
Moreover, I will claim that we will never run out of oil. As oil supplies diminish, the price of oil will rise. Eventually, the cost of oil will be great enough that other sources of energy, such as solar power, will become competitive.
Currently, we use oil for energy not because it is the only source, but because it is the cheapest. At the end of the 19th century, oil replaced coal as the most important energy source because it was cheaper and easier to handle, not because we ran out of coal. If oil becomes scarce, we will find another energy source.
So maybe we should not worry about running out of oil, but what about the dangers of the United States depending so heavily on terrorist-supporting states like Saudi Arabia for our oil? Shouldn't we decrease our oil consumption as a matter a national security?
Well, yes, but the impact on our security will be minimal. Even if we drilled every national reserve in the Arctic Ocean and had cars able to reach 90 miles per gallon, we would still have to rely on Middle Eastern oil. Moreover, our economy is vitally linked to the economies of other countries. No matter if we could cut off our need for oil from the Middle East, other countries that are even more dependent, such as Japan, cannot. Thus, instability in the Middle East would still damage our economy and our security.
The ultimate goal is not to protect oil or decrease our consumption, but to find a better energy source. This goal is not a pipe dream. Renewable energy sources are rapidly becoming more cost efficient, nuclear energy production can be increased and fuel cells will soon provide an alternative portable energy source for cars.
Vonnegut should be more optimistic about the prospects of the human race, but, then, I suppose he wouldn't be Kurt Vonnegut.
