Sean O'Grady: The global economy will have to adjust – and it will
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Short term, there's no doubt that oil at $250 a barrel would be as traumatic a shock to the world's economic system as anything that has been thrown at it since the end of the Second World War. It would be worse than the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979.
Even as they stand now, oil prices have quadrupled since 2004; another doubling would be catastrophic for the world's economy, which is already teetering on the edge of recession. The chances are that the lethal combination of stagnating output and rising inflation – which has been called the "new stagflation" – would become more painful. Spending power is being sucked from the world's major economies. Only rapidly growing China, India and the other emerging nations stand in the way of a global slump.
Much of the reason why the price of oil, food and almost every other commodity has soared in recent years is down to the insatiable appetite of the Chinese for the raw materials of their industrial revolution. Even now China is growing at more than 10 per cent a year. (We'll be lucky to see 1.8 per cent). But it is difficult to see it withstanding the impact of such inflation. Its heavy industrial growth is exceptionally energy-inefficient and dirty – coal being the fuel of choice for much power generation. It would also be unable to withstand the collapse in Western demand for their exports. We should then see China stumble. That will be to no one's great benefit.
Longer term, though, there is every reason for optimism. Economies always adjust. The world is far less reliant on oil than it was in the 1970s. The high price will – again – call forth those traditional economic responses, substitution and increased supply.
Even the much-rumoured oil in the Falkland Islands might be recovered at these prices. The world's car makers will, as ever, offer more fuel-efficient vehicles. Small things – energy saving light bulbs, double glazing, more efficient appliances – will help, as will the more ambitious technologies: the hydrogen fuel cell, renewable energy supplies, second, third and fourth-generation biofuels (which will be sustainable).
President Bush may have been wrong to reject the Kyoto treaty, but he was right to press the case for technological advance as an answer to climate change. It's also the answer to the oil crisis.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

"Economies always adjust."
That's for sure. I'm afraid I probably won't like the way it's going to adjust and treat me, the common bloke. After having already gotten rid of the car, just want to keep feeding my family..
Cheers, Dom
Posted by Dom | 11.06.08, 15:47 GMT
Oh, please. China's economic growth is caused by the shift of manufacturing away from the previously industrialised countries - it is accompanied by a decline elsewhere - in order to meet credit driven demand in western economies.
I suppose we are being asked to believe any reason for this rise in price, apart from the real one - the speculative bubbles have moved from shares and housing to oil and food. Otherwise we might have to see the parasitical greed and deadly behaviour of the world's rich and that would never do.
If it isn't speculation, we should have seen an 8 or 10 fold increase in global industrial activity i.e. demand causing price rises. But this hasn't happened.
Posted by Mike Murray | 11.06.08, 11:39 GMT
That's a completely blind and irresponsible article. Economies always adjust...but at what cost...free market capitalism is consuming itself, and the world along with it...Biofuels are not the answer: we must learn the true value of the word no, of the idea of responsible self-limitation. Reference to 1973 and 1979 are irrelevant, given today's prevailing conditions. 'Longer term, there's every reason for optimism': how deluded can you get; this thinking is why the human species will become extinct very soon.
Posted by john H | 11.06.08, 10:16 GMT
Sean,
China is creating not just a gigantic INDUSTRIAL leviathan, but is funding from this, the creation of a massive military build-up, which is probably going to be the next headache for the west.
Once the western world is economically and politically weakened, a huge Red army (and navy and airforce) will without doubt hold sway across the globe.
It's all about Hegomony (and the USA's loss of it.)
Why must I be concerned then, if China 'stumbles' ?
Roy Davis
Posted by Roy Davis | 11.06.08, 09:36 GMT
i note that you dont mention nuclear power in your list of 'more ambitious technologies' - toeing the party line eh?
Posted by leor | 11.06.08, 09:17 GMT
Fantasising about nebulous schemes for 'technological fixes', which in this case exist only in the author's imagination, will get us nowhere - and will prevent us from dealing with the situation as seriously as we should. The 'technical fix' for oil is a replacement - there isn't one.
Step one should be to reduce usage across the board. As an example, the age of discretionary motoring is nearly over. As Adam York states, the first priority for oil should be for its use in agriculture and essential manufacturing. Implement fully coordinated public transport systems, and if motorists want to chug around the country on their remaining fuel allocation (those days are fast approaching) that will be entirely their prerogative.
Posted by Leslie Carter | 11.06.08, 09:13 GMT
Dear Sean,
back to school;
look up Haber-Bosch Process(making nitrate fertiliser using Gas),examine world population growth/oil consumption graph over last century(parallel lines),think for a bit,rewrite article.
Contemporary farming is a system to turn oil into food.Other materials such as asphalt,pesticides and plastics are similarly oil/gas based.Whizzo tec solutions won't magic many more oil reserves and more frugal use of existing will slow consumption, but understanding humble nitrate fertiliser production is critical.
Less oil less western world,less food, less people,etc. Planning now would make this a less painful process. Delay makes it worse.
Posted by Adam York | 11.06.08, 07:34 GMT