• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Deborah Gordon"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "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": [
    "Carnegie Oil Initiative"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Climate Change"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Drama at the Gas Pump: The Curse of High and Low Energy Prices

American consumers, industries, and policymakers cannot allow themselves to be seduced by short-term, reactive thinking when it comes to oil.

Link Copied
By Deborah Gordon
Published on Jan 2, 2015
Project hero Image

Project

Carnegie Oil Initiative

The Carnegie Oil Initiative analyzed global oils, assessing their differences from climate, environmental, economic, and geopolitical perspectives. This knowledge provides strategic guidance and policy frameworks for decision making.

Learn More

Source: National Interest

We have no clue where the price of oil will settle, when it will settle or if it will settle at all. After swinging wildly from $115 per barrel this summer to under $60 in December, experts’ predictions of future oil prices lie in a vast range between $50 and $200.

It is anticipated that small changes in oil supply and demand could lead to big price swings, disrupting the relative stability in the oil market witnessed over the last several years and introducing a new era of volatility.

There’s a global buzz about who will win and who will lose amid changing oil-market conditions. High oil prices benefit suppliers, mainly oil-rich nations such as the OPEC nations, Russia and Venezuela. Low prices can send these countries into an economic tailspin, depriving them of a major source of revenue and causing political unrest at home. In contrast, low oil prices benefit consumers, especially in wealthy and heavily motorized nations, including Japan, the EU and China. Here, high prices can constrain consumption and stunt economic growth.

Most nations fall into one of these two categories: either they produce oil and win when the price is high, or they consume it and win when it is low. America, however, is shaping up to be a major outlier.

Unlike the other leading actors in the oil market, America has recently achieved a relative parity between total petroleum production and consumption. In 2014, America’s crude oil and petroleum liquids supply averaged nearly 14 million barrels a day (mbd) while demand hovered around 19 mbd. (Other nations that figure prominently in global oil markets are saddled with net petroleum supply or demand imbalances of a factor of two or more).

America’s recent resource rebalancing might seem to be the best of all worlds. We enjoy greater economic stability than many other countries.

But there’s a catch. Our ability to make long-term energy plans and policy commitments is hampered by myopic decision making. Energy consumers and producers often act irrationally in the face of market uncertainty, basing decisions on short-term factors, rather than on enduring realities and opportunities.

Consumers tend to spend impulsively when oil prices fall and are ill prepared for uncertain oil markets. Take, for example, the recent uptick in U.S. passenger truck sales. When gas was $3.50 a gallon, the annual fuel bill for a Toyota Corolla was $1,320. Today, with gas perched around $2 (different parts of the country vary), it costs $40 less to fill a GMC Sierra (though it guzzles 70-percent more gas). Consumers buy this new math: Sierra sales were up 57 percent in November compared to last year. Purchasing an inefficient vehicle that will be on the road for a decade or longer will saddle motorists with highly variable fuel bills. When pump prices inevitably rise again, pickup trucks and SUVs become an economic burden, imposing difficult consumer trade-offs.

Producers tend to act boldly when oil prices are high and find themselves unprepared for market uncertainty. Oil infrastructure—pipelines, refineries, drilling rigs, shipping terminals, petrochemical plants and more—is expensive and built to last generations. High oil prices spur corporate spending sprees to increase marginal productivity and bolster industry returns. When prices are volatile, major oil investments and sound operating decisions are difficult to reconcile, risking market mayhem. Price volatility makes it as likely that some will rush into hasty investment decisions in order to reach for the next market peak, while others will pressure the government for subsidies, regulatory relaxation or other market assurances.

As consumers wish for oil prices to remain low, producers hope for high prices to support the next stage of resource development. Policy makers are pulled in both directions, hampering their ability to craft coherent long-term plans in the nation’s interest.

While the United States can more easily withstand low and high oil prices than Russia, China and others, increasing market volatility will nonetheless be costly and disruptive. American consumers, industries and policy makers cannot allow themselves to be seduced by short-term, reactive thinking when it comes to oil. Just because there’s no impending energy-supply crisis, does not mean that America can lose sight of the need to correct oil market failures and adopt durable energy and environmental policies, including more-robust oil reporting requirements, tighter heavy-duty truck fuel economy standards, more stringent marine vessel emission standards, vehicle electrification incentives and carbon taxes. It’s time to renew our oil vows—for richer and for poorer.

This article was originally published in the National Interest.

About the Author

Deborah Gordon

Former Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and Climate Program

Gordon was director of Carnegie’s Energy and Climate Program, where her research focuses on oil and climate change issues in North America and globally.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Petroleum Companies Need a Credible Climate Plan

      Deborah Gordon, Stephen D. Ziman

  • Article
    Advancing Public Climate Engineering Disclosure

      Deborah Gordon, Smriti Kumble, David Livingston

Deborah Gordon
Former Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and Climate Program
Deborah Gordon
Climate ChangeNorth AmericaUnited States

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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Far Can Russian Arms Help Iran?

    Arms supplies from Russia to Iran will not only continue, but could grow significantly if Russia gets the opportunity.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is There Really a Threat From China and Russia in Greenland?

    The supposed threats from China and Russia pose far less of a danger to both Greenland and the Arctic than the prospect of an unscrupulous takeover of the island.

      Andrei Dagaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Ukrainian Villages Are a Bigger Prize for Putin Than a Deal With Trump

    Western negotiators often believe territory is just a bargaining chip when it comes to peace in Ukraine, but Putin is obsessed with empire-building. 

      Andrey Pertsev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Has Trump the Destroyer Eclipsed Putin the Destroyer?

    Unexpectedly, Trump’s America appears to have replaced Putin’s Russia’s as the world’s biggest disruptor.

      Alexander Baunov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Latest Weapons Have Left Strategic Stability on the Brink of Collapse

    The Kremlin will only be prepared to negotiate strategic arms limitations if it is confident it can secure significant concessions from the United States. Otherwise, meaningful dialogue is unlikely, and the international system of strategic stability will continue to teeter on the brink of total collapse.

      Maxim Starchak

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.