• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [],
  "type": "pressRelease",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "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

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.

Link Copied
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:

  1. 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. 
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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

  • Click here to read the paper

  • 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
Climate ChangeUnited StatesNorth America

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Firepower Against Willpower

    In an interview, Naysan Rafati assesses the first week that followed the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    What Is Israel’s Plan in Lebanon?

    At heart, to impose unconditional surrender on Hezbollah and uproot the party among its coreligionists.

      Yezid Sayigh

  • people watching smoke rising at sunrise from rooftops
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.

    Just look at Iraq in 1991.

      Marwan Muasher

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Axis of Resistance or Suicide?

    As Iran defends its interests in the region and its regime’s survival, it may push Hezbollah into the abyss.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    U.S. Aims in Iran Extend Beyond Nuclear Issues

    Because of this, the costs and risks of an attack merit far more public scrutiny than they are receiving.

      • Nicole Grajewski Profile Picture

      Nicole Grajewski

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.