For those of us who have been paying attention to the global economic and indeed geologic forces in play behind the gradual upswing in oil and energy prices, we can see that the long term projection of Peak Oil is going to have major ramifications on society—the era of cheap, easily accessible energy is gradually coming to an end. What will take its place? Will the world slide deeper into the simmering conflict that is already taking place on religious, cultural, and economic grounds, or are there solutions to be found that create a more harmonious solution? Let's take some time to consider what a meaningful means of combating the economic stresses might look like.
A good place to start is to look at the plan Sweden has in place to drastically reduce their use of oil by the year 2020. In December 2005, the Swedish government appointed a commission to reduce Sweden's dependence on oil. Their reasoning behind it is simple, and politically refreshing, given the way that American mainstream politics on either side of the aisle tends to obfuscate and politik their way around the issues rather than meeting them head on with frank discussion. The goal of the Swedish plan realizes the deep way in which oil plays into the peace and security of our world and the world that future generations will live in, and thusly, have set forth a number of drastic, but not wholly unreasonable goals.
Among the goals of the plan—a 40 to 50% reduction in the use of oil in transportation via extreme changes in fuel efficiency and use of alternative fuels, including biodiesel and ethanol, a plan to eliminate all use of oil in commercial and residential heating, and a reduction of oil use in industry by 25 to 40%.
Without hashing out every minor detail of the plan, a more summarized view of what Sweden has in mind includes many radical changes, but with the state and state owned operations leading the way. An emphasis on supporting rail over air, public transport over individual, innovation over dependence, and more than anything self-reliance on locally available resources rather than those which need to be imported from half a world away. Perhaps most important of all aspects of the plan is that beyond tax relief, fuel certificate programs, and general state economic support for new techniques and innovation at the private level, the state itself is going to get directly involved in manufacturing the infrastructure necessary for a paradigm shift of this magnitude to occur.
Another point of note is that the plan fully realizes that it is of the utmost importance for a renewed sense of community, cooperation, and responsibility that is deeply intertwined with a paradigm shift of this nature.
The question is, is it possible to attempt a similarly radical program in the US, where the need to wean ourselves off oil is even more pertinent to the continued economic health of the country. I hate to be negative, but I have major doubts due to the unfortunate paralysis of American politics, especially at the national level, with corporate money. For example, in the 2004 election, Exxon Mobil gave large political contributions to both parties, though more skewed to republicans. And, to this say, the CEO of Exxon Mobil refuses to even acknowledge that Peak Oil is a viable concept. I could find a slew of oilfield geologists who would beg to differ.
The trouble with American politics on the whole is that every time the conservatives come into power, they tend to drag the whole political spectrum into more conservative territory—and when the liberals once again manage to take it back, they have to do so by running as hard to the political center as possible, which by this point is a lot further to the right than it was since the last time they had control—it's a continual cycle into more and more conservative territory over the years. Which isn't to say there aren't independent thinkers in either party—Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a republican from Maryland gave the first major presentation on Peak Oil in front of the US House of Rep in early 2005—but the influx of corporate money and corporate interests into Washington makes the ease of promoting rail over interstate or imposing radical fuel efficient standards something of an unreality. And nowhere to be found, this much is certain, is the State going to step in and build the infrastructure necessary for the paradigm shift. America is much more on a course towards minor steps that don't seem, at least to this author, to offer a great enough change in the American way of life to change the structure of our economy—even if it is on something of a dire path.
The argument I have put forth, however, illustrates the much greater need of the private sector to step up the plate—the ability to see outside of the box and for major investors to do the same is going to be important to any American plan of meeting the challenge, for I highly doubt American politics ability for radical change—there is too much of a log jam in our system for that to occur.
