• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
Five Alternatives that Make More Sense than Offshore Oil

Source: Getty

Paper

Five Alternatives that Make More Sense than Offshore Oil

Offshore oil reserves are too small to significantly impact world oil prices or U.S. reliance on foreign oil. Alternatives to offshore drilling exist and could maximize long-term environmental, economic, and security gains.

Link Copied
By Whitney Angell Leonard
Published on Nov 3, 2009

Additional Links

Full Text
Program mobile hero image

Program

Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics

The Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics Program explores how climate change and the responses to it are changing international politics, global governance, and world security. Our work covers topics from the geopolitical implications of decarbonization and environmental breakdown to the challenge of building out clean energy supply chains, alternative protein options, and other challenges of a warming planet.

Learn More

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. 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.

This paper 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.”

About the Author

Whitney Angell Leonard

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Whitney Angell Leonard
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
North AmericaUnited StatesClimate Change

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 Endowment for International Peace

  • Trump and Netanyahu speaking
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Diverging U.S. and Israeli Goals in Iran Are Making the Endgame Even Murkier

    The cracks between Trump and Netanyahu have become more pronounced, particularly over energy and leadership targets.

      • Eric Lob

      Eric Lob

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?

    In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.

      Nur Arafeh

  • Commentary
    Is the Radical-Right Threat Existential or Overstated?

    Amid increased polarization and the influence of disinformation, radical-right parties are once again gaining traction across Europe. With landmark elections on the horizon in several countries, are the EU’s geostrategic vision and fundamental values under existential threat?

      Catherine Fieschi, Cas Mudde

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Tehran’s Easy Targets

    In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The Gulf Conflict and the South Caucasus

    In an interview, Sergei Melkonian discusses Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s careful balancing act among the United States, Israel, and Iran.

      Armenak Tokmajyan

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.