Commentators

Showers (AM and PM) 5° London Hi 10°C / Lo 5°C

Hamish McRae: High prices won't stop the world going on growing

Friday, 23 May 2008

This time it is different. True, this is an oil shock akin to those that struck the world economy in the 1970s, for the price of oil – even allowing for inflation – is now a lot higher than it was at the 1979 peak. Those shocks pushed the world economy into two recessions, in the mid- 1970s and the early 1980s, and helped drive inflation into double digits in most of the developed world. Unemployment soared as interest rates were raised to try to curb inflation. But then the oil price fell back again as new fields came into production and countries made a start on conserving oil.

So will the surge in the oil price have similar consequences this time? It is a tough judgement because we don't know how high oil will go, but it looks likely that this oil shock will have a less damaging impact than in the 1970s. However, since the price is unlikely to fall back as far, it will have a more lasting impact on our way of life.

Since oil is the largest single source of global energy, larger than natural gas or coal, and far larger than nuclear or renewables, a rising oil price pushes up the price of everything, including food. That squeezes living standards still further.

As a result some countries may well be pushed into recession. There is a good chance that will happen in the US and maybe here in the UK, though in both instances the prime culprit would be the end of the housing booms. The surge in the oil price just happens to come at a very bad time. But even if this does happen there are a number of reasons to suppose that the world will continue to carry on growing, despite the pressure from oil.

One, of course, is the size of China in the world economy. Last year for the first time it added more demand for oil to the world than the United States. Demand from India, Russia and other large economies is strong too. The high oil price speeds up the shift of power from the "old" developed world to the "new".

Another is that inflation, while rising, is far lower than it was in the 1970s or indeed the 1980s. So there is much less need to crunch it down with high interest rates.

Still another is that the world is much better at conserving energy than it was 30 years ago. We use roughly half as much energy to produce a unit of GDP now than in the 1970s. But if we can probably cope better, we should not expect cheap energy to return for two main reasons. One is that demand from China, India and other fast-growing economies will remain strong: their growth will offset their efforts to conserve energy. The other is that there is no longer spare capacity; some geologists believe we may be close to peak oil production. Whether that proves right or not, there is certainly no easy oil to find and while alternatives such as biofuels are being developed they will take years to make a material difference.

In a way, though, this is good news. This time the world will be forced to continue its efforts to conserve energy. The market will drive us to reduce our carbon emissions. Many would say: about time too.

Click here to have your say

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

15 Comments

I was glad to see your article "High Prices.." The key insight, that rising energy cost "pushes up the price of everything", rarely comes out in discussions of oil prices. However, I disagree with your judgment that inflation is low, at least here in the U.S. When computed by the original methodology, our CPI is growing at about 11.5% per year. There are some useful historical statistics and discussion at shadowstats.com .

Posted by Bob Wise | 25.05.08, 13:12 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

For those who're are wondering if there is any substance to this I strongly urge you to spend some real time (not just an hour or two) investigating www.theoildrum.com and the links they also provide.

Such a shame that investigative journalism is no longer practiced. Otherwise someone might have noticed that inspite of the North Sea still being there, the amount of Oil and Gas left 'in our bit' meant that we (UK) had to start importing again in 2004.

It won't matter who's the Chancellor in years to come. Planning a budget will sadly no longer be possible.

Posted by Louis | 24.05.08, 18:45 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Man, these people writing comments are quite frightened. Don't worry— if we here in the US can overcome the Democrat's opposition and start drilling again, and building new refineries, we'll save the world once again. And we promise to get rid of all our SUVs— many are already doing so.

Don't fret, little bears! Everything will be okay!

Posted by Gregory Scott | 24.05.08, 02:28 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

No Hamish, it won't be less bad than the previous times. This is the end of the insane cult of economic-growth-at-all-costs-for-ever. The great god Growth is dead, at long last. The much-derided Limits To Growth are here, right on time, and will no longer be denied.

All other energy technologies piggy-back on oil, and won't function without it, for the foreseeable future. From here on there will be less oil every year. We're on the plateau now. Transportation, to point up one vital service for all other technologies, has NO credible alternative to oil on the near-term horizon -- not at current flow rates. The current huge flow-rates are the vital factor so often apparently not understood by economics pundits. Nothing else around scales to this size, as far as we can finesse it with current technologies.

In fact, this is the opening of a set of synergising global crises which threaten to be like nothing we've ever known before.

Suggest you do some intensive study on The Oil Drum, Ham

Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym | 24.05.08, 01:34 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

I hear this a lot: “well, at least peak oil will sort out climate change”. Such Panglossian sentiment couldn’t be more wrong. Even if we can’t afford to burn oil as if there’s no tomorrow, there’s still plenty of coal down there. I mean, seriously lots of the filthy, carbon rich stuff; in some parts of the world it’s found in seams 100 feet thick and covering hundreds of square miles. Way more than enough to screw up the climate big time. So I don’t see any quick emissions reductions coming on any time soon. Instead, all we’ll see is a shift from oil to coal. There’ll still be the economic shockwaves caused by a sharp increase in the cost of energy, but the net carbon emissions won’t fall dramatically.

The only thing that can solve the twin challenges of peak oil and climate change is a fundamental shift to a low carbon economy. If we’d got our act together a couple of decades ago, we could have managed this. But now? It’s way too late for that. In spite of all the warnings we’ve been given about oil supplies and about climate, we’ve still managed to sleepwalk into this catastrophe. For those of us aware of peak oil and climate, it’s been like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Posted by Captain Flint | 23.05.08, 16:50 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Oil provides at least 30% of the energy input to global industrial civilisation. Natural gas at least 15%, nuclear at most 7%. Net energy from oil extraction has peaked. Natural gas will peak in about a decade. Coal has limited room for expansion, but it will never make up the numbers from the decline of oil. Each barrel of oil now supports twice the GDP that it did in the 1970s. That means each barrel that we don't (can't) pump destroys twice as much GDP. This time the depression will be deeper, and this time it is permanent.

Posted by Ralph W | 23.05.08, 15:14 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Easter Islander 1: Ooh, maybe we shouldn't cut down that last tree. How will we transport our Big Heads when there are no trees left to make rollers from? Maybe we should think of a different way to transport the Big Heads... Big Heads are really important to our culture, I'd hate to think what'd happen to us if we had to stop making Big Heads.

Easter Islander 2: Don't worry, something's BOUND to turn up. CHOP - CHOP - CHOP - CHOP...

Posted by McGlashan | 23.05.08, 14:59 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Nuclear energi is not the answer, to Peak oil. We use 1 mile3 of oil every year. To replace that we would have to construct one 900MW powerplant every week for 50 years. That is not going to happen, we vill have peak uranium before that.
We are in a Cul de sac!

Posted by Klimatjagare | 23.05.08, 14:46 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Good comment, and I certainly hope that the final paragraph becomes true. It's a shame that there seems to be so much short term electioneering on the subject, Hazel Blears was talking about breaking sovereign countries cartels on oil for fairer distribution and oil price reduction on Question Time last night, which I'm pretty sure wasn't motivated from wanting the world to be a fairer place, and smacks of Energy Imperialism. Simon Hughes' ideas about graded tax b/w city and countryside use was interesting, as far as the short term goes, I hope it goes to cross party implementation. Still, it's all short term stuff, a big change to our diet of fossil fuel is definitely needed.

Posted by open.critique | 23.05.08, 14:32 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Until last week I took economists' word as good that that these high oil prices were only down to speculation and increasing demand from China/India. After Saudi Arabia refused to increase production the other day it is pretty clear that they simply don't have any more oil to pump into the system, but they are too scared to admit it. This is fundamentaly different from the 70s, now the OPEC is also powerless.

There are just too many vested interests in the West and Middle East for anyone to face up to the truth, so much money, jobs and tax depend on oil that changing the model is too scary to even think about it.

Conservation will mitigate the shock, but only technology can help us now. However, I suspect that the breakthrough will come from China or India this time, the only economic powers that are truly committed to ending the oil dependency, as they have very little to lose and a lot to win in comparison.

Posted by Monocle | 23.05.08, 13:41 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

15 Comments

Columnist Comments

steve_richards

Steve Richards: Damian Green will soon be forgotten

Cameron’s speech, though good, was upstaged by Brown’s mortgage coup.

matthew_norman

Matthew Norman: A written constitution is the answer

Jacqui Smith is Brown’s lightning rod when it’s the PM we should be frazzling

john_rentoul

John Rentoul: Thanks Queen, but it's about the Budget

The Queen's Speech never has a theme, New Labour has never fabricated one.