Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:37:17 -0400
From: christopher chase-dunn <chriscd@jhu.edu>
Subject: oil and the world-system
To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu
This posting is in response to Jay Hanson's email on the consequences of

growing oil and fossil fuel scarcity.  While I think Jay raises some
important issues, I think the following points need to be emphasized:

1) Estimates as to the amount of recoverable oil vary.

There is now, and has always been, serious debate within geological and
policy circles as to how much ultimately recoverable oil exists in the
earth.  Recent reports by economists at the World Bank, for instance,
point to rising oil extraction in non-Gulf nations (such as a variety of

countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America) to  make the argument that

'concerns about oil supply are outdated' (World Bank -- forthcoming
report).  This conclusion stands in sharp contrast to reports from the
World Energy Council, the US Energy Information Administration, and the
World Resources Institute suggesting that within a few decades growing
resource depletion will begin putting pressure on world oil prices.
James
MacKenzie of the World Resources Institute provides what I think is the
most judicious survey of varying estimates, and concludes by saying that

the geological consensus is that world oil extraction will plateau
somewhere between 2010 and 2030.  This does not mean that oil production

will suddenly cease, but that the costs of extraction and of the fuel
will
rise for purely geological reasons.  The last remaining producers of
oil,
which are likely to be in a select group of Persian Gulf states, would
then be able to charge premium rates for an increasingly scarce
commodity.

2) There are better and worse substitutes for conventional fossil fuels.

The plateauing and then gradual decline of world oil production will not

inevitably lead to global economic disarray.  Instead, it is likely that

market and policy dynamics will shift in favor of other energy
resources.
The question becomes, which resources?  According to a resource-fixated
analysis, coal would emerge again as the central fuel for world industry

(even in transportation applications) since it is the most abundant of
the
conventional fossil fuels.  Or, it is conceivable that nuclear
power could resurge. Indeed, advocates of nuclear power are already
pushing for the construction of a new generation of reactors that are
supposed to be 'inherently safe' in this era of concern about greenhouse

gas emissions. It is very important to note, however, that there are a
whole range of renewable energy technologies (small-scale hydroelectric,

wind, solar, and fuel cells) which now have the engineering and
commercial
maturity that could allow them to enter into widespread diffusion in the

next decades (as is argued by such mainstream organizations as the World

Bank, the International Energy Agency, the World Energy Council, and the

US Energy Information Administration). These technologies, of course,
would have fewer adverse environmental and health impacts than coal or
nuclear power.

3) World-systemic dynamics will determine which substitutes are favored.

Contrary to the most dire analyses, technological options do exist to
construct a post-oil dependent world-economy. Which of the technological

paths are taken, however, depends upon a grand convergence of political,

commercial, and social forces which has always favored one energy
regime over others at particular historical junctures (see Christopher
Freeman and Carlota Perez's analyses, as well as my own dissertation).
Given
the institutional power of coal and nuclear sectors, it may be that
those
technologies have the best shot at reasserting their growth.
Conversely,
given the weak political and commercial power of advocates for renewable

energy technologies, these systems may never enter into widespread
diffusion -- with extremely dire environmental consequences.
Nevertheless, it is I believe crucially important to recognize that
sustainable energy alternatives exist -- and that given the right
political, commercial, and social support they could replace oil as a
central component of the world energy system.  Extremely dire analyses
of
the consequences of growing oil scarcity may blind us to the fact that
such alternatives exist -- thereby fostering apathy among concerned
citizens.  Instead, recognizing that viable alternatives exist,
environmentalists, world-systemists, policy-analysts, and regular
consumers should push for their greater diffusion.  If such a movement
could capitalize on concerns generated by forecasts of oil
depletion, then the plateauing of world oil extraction could in the end
ironically turn out to be a beneficial rather than a disastrous world
geological event...

I welcome any response to this posting.  Any requests for citations or
clarifications can also be sent directly to me, at the following
address.

  |--------------------------|
  | Bruce Podobnik           |
  | Department of Sociology  |
  | Johns Hopkins University |
  | email:  podobnik@jhu.edu |
  |--------------------------|