Commentary
The EU’s new migration policy is not suited to today’s realities. With climate change increasingly becoming a driver of displacement, Europe needs to rethink its deterrence-focused approach.
Shana Tabak
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SCP",
"programs": [
"Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"United States",
"North America"
],
"topics": [
"Climate Change"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Press Release
Offshore oil drilling will not solve U.S. dependence on foreign oil or reduce costs
U.S. offshore oil reserves are too small to significantly impact world oil prices or America’s reliance on foreign oil. However, five alternatives to offshore drilling could effectively maximize long-term environmental, economic, and security gains.
Published on Nov 3, 2009
WASHINGTON, Nov 3—Proponents of offshore oil drilling ignore reality—offshore oil reserves are too small to significantly impact world oil prices or U.S. reliance on foreign oil, explains a new paper from the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program. Offshore oil, which necessitates costly and environmentally dangerous drilling, would produce about 514 million barrels annually by 2030—less than 1 percent of global oil production.
Whitney Leonard identifies five alternatives to offshore oil for the transportation sector that would decrease energy demand, limit U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cut costs for consumers, and reduce carbon emissions. The transportation sector accounts for nearly three quarters of all petroleum use in the United States and is responsible for 42 percent of carbon emissions.
Five alternatives that make more sense than offshore oil:
- Increasing fuel economy standards: This is the single most important, efficient, and cost-effective way to reduce petroleum consumption. Raising the average fuel economy from 23 to 35 mpg could save 1.2 billion barrels of oil and up to $150 billion per year.
- Hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs): If half the cars on the road by 2030 were HEVs, the United States could reduce petroleum consumption by 1.2 billion barrels per year, saving consumers up to $120 billion annually.
- Alternative commuting patterns: If twenty percent of Americans worked from home three days a week, they could collectively save 149 million barrels of oil. Additionally, the United States could save 54 million barrels of oil a year if half of eligible workers switched to a four-day work week.
- Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs): While currently constrained by cost and technological advancements, plug-in hybrids could be an attractive option in the future, potentially saving 1.6 billion barrels of oil if PHEVs one day accounted for 50 percent of vehicles. But the full environmental benefits from plug-in hybrids will only be realized if the electric grid in the United States can be converted to use more renewable energy sources.
- Cellulosic ethanol: Unlike corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol—produced from the fiber of plants like switchgrass—could reduce emissions 87–94 percent compared to gasoline. Cellulosic gasoline is predicted to produce 133 million barrels of oil annually by 2030, saving consumers $5.6 billion dollars per year.
“The first step toward weaning our nation off petroleum is to take full advantage of the efficient technologies we already have,” writes Leonard. “We can then supplement these with more advanced technologies to maximize our long-term environmental, economic, and security gains.”
###
NOTES
- Whitney Leonard graduated from Williams College in 2008 and was a 2008–2009 junior fellow in the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program. She is currently working as a wildlife advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Livingston, Montana.
- The Carnegie Energy & Climate Program aims to provide leadership in global energy and climate policy. The Program integrates thinking on energy technology, environmental science, and political economy to reduce risks stemming from global change and competition for scarce resources.
- Press Contact: David Kampf, 202/939-2233, dkampf@ceip.org
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- The Climate Blind Spot in Europe’s New Migration Pact
- Taking the Pulse: Are Western Democracies Failing Free Speech?Commentary
The battle over free speech has taken center stage since U.S. Vice President JD Vance accused Europe of censorship. From travel bans to social media regulation, especially around the Israel-Palestine conflict, are liberal democratic governments weaponizing free speech?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Europe Should Not Let Nuclear Nonproliferation DieCommentary
Amid uncertainty caused by the Iran war, the global drive for nonproliferation has stalled. With Europe diplomatically marginalized and countries reassessing their nuclear options, efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons risk becoming irrelevant.
Jane Darby Menton
- Can Europe Compete with the United States and China?Commentary
Between the United States’ market-driven approach and China's state-led industrial strategy, Europe is reckoning with how it can remain competitive in the global economy. But is Europe in danger of becoming a U.S. or China colony?
Noah Barkin, Anu Bradford
- Trump Turns NATO into a Tool of CoercionCommentary
The full list of humiliations Europe has endured since Donald Trump returned to the White House makes for grim reading. But Washington’s adversarial approach to its allies undermines its own power base.
Rym Momtaz
