Petroleum not used by Prius owners will not be "saved." It will not stay in the ground. It will be consumed by someone else. Greenhouse gases will still be released.

But there are three other aspects of the problem which need to be addressed:

1. Over what time scale is the petroleum used?
   
2. How is the petroleum used?
   
3. Who wins, who loses as petroleum is used up?

Time scale

As odograph said, the fact that petroleum will ultimately be used up, is no argument for using it up FAST.  In terms of climate change, anything we do to reduce the rate of CO2 emissions is a plus -- it slows the process down, gives us more time to deal with the problem.

Using petroleum wisely

As we know, petroleum is unique for the tremendous number of uses it has.  In addition to being a liquid fuel, it's needed as raw material for the manufacture of chemicals and other products.  Future generations will look back at how we used oil to power inefficient vehicles on unnecessary trips, and they will curse us.

If we were wise, we would use petroleum to build a sustainable infrastructure.  My big fear is that we will wait until it's too late.  As petroleum and energy rise in price, it becomes more and more difficult to build a sustainable civilization.

Winners and losers in the petroleum game  

As the national security Republicans point out, petroleum is an issue of national security.  Wasting petroleum and running up debts to pay for it -- this is not how you build a strong country.  Our dependence on oil makes us vulnerable economically and militarily.

Oil is fungible now (sold on the open market), but as international tensions rise, it will be used as tool of foreign policy.  For example, Chavez in Venezuela is selling oil at below market prices to gain allies in Latin America.  

(That was a nice explanation of the Rebound Effect by Clark Williams-Derry.)

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Wow, Hadn't thought of it quite that way. A cynic would buy a Prius to ease his conscience, then start buying stock in oil companies. Those guys can't lose.

That may indeed be the most likely scenario, but it may not be inevitable. Another bit of wisdom that one can glean from the WSJ editorial page is that the peak-oil theory, in one form or another, has been around since the '70s. Yet the black gold keeps flowing. In the 19th century, the equivalent of peak-coal theories abounded. Now coal itself abounds.

Over the past five or so years, China has dramatically increased its demand for oil, and the price has reacted accordingly. When I was reporting on finance in Mexico in the late 1990s, a barrel of crude at its low point fetched $14--less than a same-sized barrel of Coca-Cola, as several Mexican newspapers pointed out. That's when the SUV revolution really gained traction. But with China taking so much, the price is hovering at about $60. Oil execs claim it's an inflated price, puffed up by speculation, but I'm not so sure. I think they're trying to calm the public down about their record profits; they also may be worried that people are ready to junk their SUVs for Priuses. Everything i read says Opec countries are producing near capacity--meaning they can't do what they normally do when the price of oil hits a level that inspires conservation, which is flood the market and drive the price down.

My point is that right now, we've hit a price level that isn't catastrophic, but that is inspiring people to conserve. But the calculations start to get hazy here. If U.S. consumers do start seriously to conserve, then the price goes down. Unless, of course, China and India can be counted on to pick up the slack. But if that happens, well--we're using all the oil up.

This is clearly a situation where the unbridled market leads to disaster. Our government is now working actively to bolster the oil industry, when it should be doubling CAFE standards, offering tax breaks on hybrid purchases, and building out train lines. The government has to change. And that's our job.


Victual Reality

So I try to limit myself .. 4 after each meal seems like plenty .. but sometimes when I get down toward the bottom of the box I say "well, if I ate them all, I wouldn't have this problem!"

I know that's silly, and I'm always amazed when the same argument is raised in "oil" circles.  "if we just used it all up, we wouldn't have this problem!"

As for what Dave wrote, it seems sound and only reinforce the fact that we will need government regulations and common sense measure to be taken; the market, with its use of money as a way to value everything, is not equipped to deal with the real costs of oil (it externalizes too many).

--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.

This is so basic that I don't like wasting time on it.  The WSJ argument can be generalized thus: no individual action for conservation ever matters.  If it works for cars, it works for fluorescent light bulbs, low-flow toilets, energy star refrigerators and so on.

They tell it in a nice emotional story form (specifically about the "hybrid" that has a little bit of a "distrust" vibe going) so that it slides right by you ... but the fact is, individual actions sometimes do add up, and their results can be seen at the macro level.

Which is why the solution isn't efficiency ALONE. It's part of the solution, and on the local level it makes a difference, but ALONE it is not enough.

--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.

Here in California we have seen both electricity and natural gas prices rise in response to increased consumption.  The utility companies apparently believe that personal conservation is an effective way to slow the increase.  They run public education and rebate programs for that reason.

Come on guys, why would we worry about auto buying patterns and aggregate fleet mpg if it we didn't think it would make a difference?

The WSJ may want you to think of one Prius in isolation, but it isn't in isolation is it?  It is a component in whatever market trend is out there.

The situation isn't the same with electricity or cookies.

--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.

But I could ask you about an easier example in "fungible" world resources, endangered ocean fishes.  Any point in not ordering some for lunch?

But yeah, Odograph, I think oil is different, mainly because of the combination of peaking-and-then-declining supply and rapidly rising demand.

I should say to everyone that I love hybrids, dearly. Buy one! Please. Really.

And I really do think that we should all use less oil. The U.S. should reduce its oil consumption for a wide variety of ecological and national-security reasons. The faster we free ourselves of oil, the less we suffer when it becomes prohibitively expensive.

But I think there's a worldwide hunger for oil that oil producers are barely able to fill now, and won't be able to fill at all in coming years. If the U.S. reduces its demand a little -- or even a significant amount -- there's more than enough demand from China and India to make up the difference. There's no hope, no matter how many Priuses are sold, that oil producers are going to have to go out searching for customers.

Like it or not, I doubt we can stop or even significantly slow the process of humans sucking oil out of the ground. We're not going to leave it in there. What we can do is prepare for the day when it "runs out."

Sorry so rushed and incoherent.

grist.org

BTW, the book "Cod - A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World" is a great read. (review)

Oil is the whole ballgame. It fuels our civilization -- mobility, agriculture, materials, you name it. And for the forseeable future, there's no alternative.

grist.org

Mike tried to tell me "peak oil" was unique, and not like electricity and natural gas.  Why does google have 399 hits for "peak natural gas"?  Not a huge number perhaps, but it shows I'm not the only one thinking this way.

IIRC the google count doesn't include comment threads, to keep spam out of the page rank.  Important to note because:

I hang out a bit on "the oil drum" where people often compare contrast "peak oil" with "peak natural gas" or "peak coal" or even "peak fish" and "peak tree."

This old oil drum comment thread has quite a few compare/contrasts between cod fish and oil.

Finally, I've read 3-4 books on Peak Oil, and I can't remember right off if End of Oil was one of them.  The cover at amazon doesn't look familiar - but what did I say that implied things were not screwed up?

With the advent of Plug-in Hybrids and the matching energy supply of rooftop solar photovoltiac panels, homeowners/apartment dwellors gain the ability to measure their motoring habit and household electricity use.

Motoring on home-based electricity has a limited range. This is an advantage! In time, shorter drives establish and support local economies, services, institutions and amenities, more of which become assessable without having to drive.

Cars that run on renewable fuels and clean energy is not half the solution. The only way to maintain human habitation is to restructure economies so that driving is the secondary choice alongside other means of travel, (walking, bicycling, mass transit). The WSJ realizes the potential Hybrids have toward this goal, and dismiss Hybrids because they are a threat to corporate power. The Frickin Nazi's at WSJ don't care who suffers and dies as long as corporate masters continue to rule.

Mike tried to tell me "peak oil" was unique, and not like electricity and natural gas.  Why does google have 399 hits for "peak natural gas"?  Not a huge number perhaps, but it shows I'm not the only one thinking this way."

I did not say oil was unique; I said it was different from electricity and cookies.

And btw, one of these hits for peak natural gas is mine, as I wrote a post about it on Treehugger.

But anyway, the difference between oil and natural gas and electricity, for example, is that you can build new hydro, solar, wind farms and (gasp) nuclear plants, but you can't create more fossil fuel supplies once it has truly peaked (at least not on the human timescale).

The difference with fossil fuel is on the supply side, not the demand.

If there is a sudden surge in the demand of cookies or electricity, prices will spike, then new factories and plants will be built, then the prices will go down again. But with oil, after the peak it's all downhill...

--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.

You say that you know about "peak natural gas" and return to peak electricity and cookies again.

Maybe it would be productive to focus on those two parallel fossil fuel issues: "the Prius and the thermostat" to coin a phrase.

If we (as 'environmentalists' on gristmill) buy the WSJ line that buying a Prius doesn't matter, why would we turn around and turn down our thermostats?

... both fossil fuels, both efforts at personal conservation ... Cheney's "virtue"

BTW, I think the reason that a lot of us try to conserve electricity is that we "[cannot easily] build new hydro, solar, wind farms and (gasp) nuclear plants."  Our power companies burn fossil fuels, and (we think) the more electricity we use, the more they burn.  The WSJ argument returns though, if our electricity is really an itermediary for fossil fuel.

Any natural resource that can be pushed into permenent decline by increased demand and consumption is going to follow the same logic.  Cod were nominally renewable, until they were pushed too hard.  Etc.

on home heating oil: actually, it is a very good example of the same argument dave is making. if a bunch of us turn our heat down, hoping to save energy, the market would probably respond by reducing cost. lower cost may have at least the following effects:

(1) in the short term, people will be less frugal about thermostat settings, so some of the heating energy that we "saved" will be used anyway. [most people turn the thermostat down because it's expensive to heat their home.]

(2) in the longer term, it will lower incentives for good insulation and thus require more energy to heat a home to a given temperature. again: most people are interested in good insulation because heating is expensive.

the problem here is that up-front monetary cost is not tied to the total cost (production, marketing, delivery, environmental, social, etc) of the product. if that were the case, gas prices would be high and steadily increasing.

Maybe the defense in the face of that is that there is strength in numbers.  It won't matter in the least if I have the only Prius in the world, or if I'm the only guy with my heater turned off ... but it might start to matter if there was ... hey, a movement out there.

You are the one confusing things here. I never said that buying a Prius didn't matter, otherwise I wouldn't be writing about them all the time on Treehugger.

I said that the WSJ had a point in saying that in regard to oil efficiency ALONE wasn't enough. It doesn't mean it's not part of the solution.

--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.

"Isn't Dave's point that oil is different from electricity or cookies or whatever because in the current way it is allocated if you, say, reduce the US' consumption by 5mbpd, the price of oil will fall on the market and this will allow other countries to just buy more of it that they couldn't afford before?"

I honestly think this is a result of a lack of rigorous thought.  Oil is not the only resource heading for depletion, and it is not the only resource in which conservation, and regulation, will play a role.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/12/9/1442710.html

The cost of electric transportation given this new lithium ion battery will insure that any economy using it will far surpass those using ever more expensive oil.  This is how and why oil will be left in the ground unburned.

Survival of the fittest...economy.  The manufacturing base with the lowest energy costs wins.  Robotics beats cheap labor costs in underdeveloped countries as long as energy costs are lower.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

And I think it is important to focus on the logic of the WSJ claim, because if the following quote really is true, conservation really is futile.  If the following claim is just widely accepted (even if false), it will still reduce the conservation effort:

Petroleum not used by Prius owners will not be "saved." It will not stay in the ground. It will be consumed by someone else. Greenhouse gases will still be released.

The WSJ does not say conservation is good, but not enough.  They say it doesn't matter.

This is the conslusion the WSJ writer would like you to come around to.  

In fact, if green energy makes for lower energy costs and reduces costs related to global climate disaster, the point about oil conservation in the short term not reducing the overall use of oil, is moot.

Those economies that shift away from oil will be more competitive.  and the economic climate of spaceship earth will be healthier in general without the costs related to global climate disaster from greenhouse gas emmissions.

Neolibertarian=sophist, that's the main principle to remember when addressing these so-called free market arguments.  Markets in energy are not free, they are manipulated by monopoly forces.

The hidden cost of energy war alone, which adds a dollar or more per gallon to fuel costs in the form of national debt, makes oil based energy economically unsustainable.

Isn't it strange that the newspaper dedicated to business would promote this sophistry?  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Oil is not unique in that it is a depleting natural resource sold through a combination market and non-market entities.  In such situations people attempt both consumer conservation and changes to market regulations.  We know from history that consumer choice can change the global level of oil consumption.  That's what happened in the 80's, in response to the 70's price shocks.  Changes in regulation were made in the same timeframe.

One aspect of the WSJ sophistry, that sadly is finding so much traction in the environmental community, is that while such consumer driven changes in consumption might happen in response to price ... we shouldn't do them voluntarily.

That's an interesting take on the "free market."  It's free, but they want to discourage you from certain free actions.

From a standpoint of capitalism, it doesn't matter if gas prices go up, or if more SUVs or hybrids are sold.  It's all business, it's all good.  But the WSJ editorial was written in a certain environment.  SUV sales were down, and GM in particular was getting the whammy because they didn't plan to produce these hybirds.  So, the WSJ makes a good defense for GM the only way they can ... by telling you it doesn't matter, and that a Hummer is as good as a Prius in the long run.

Another thing: doing the right thing, such as not consuming oil, or consuming far less of it, makes one a better person.  Better people make better societies and cultures, which makes a better planet.

Jeff Hoffman

buying priuses here won't change china directly, but at least we can make the case that we are trying to get our house in order, as we make suggestions about how they order their house.

and the fact that hybrids are moving not just from japan to the us, but also to china, might be reason for hope.