Is war for oil inevitable destiny for the humanity?

Humanitys economy is literally driven by oil. Economies were

designed around oil, Men stopped riding the bike, the Electric tram
was removed in favour for cars which run on oil through the internal
combustion engine.
In the USA, Petroleum, just one component of how oil is being
used in economy accounts for more than a third of USA energy
needs. Oil is also widely used in areas such as a petro-chemical
industries to create plastics and pesticides that we have come to
take for granted. In fact, virtually everything that we know uses
some oil.
This shows our reliance on oil and how inelastic our demand for
oil is.
In fact, there are articles citing people who believe that without
oil, there is no productivity, no markets and the end of capitalism as
we know it.
We have come to take for granted that the supply of oil is cheap
and plentiful.
However, the age of oil as the documentary declares is over,
We reached the peak of production of oil in the 1990s, Even Saudi
Arabia which has one of the largest oil reserves has lost 50% of its
reserves. Yet, oil demand continues to rise despite the fact that
supply is rapidly declining.
As a result, it appears on the surface that war for oil is inevitable.
Our economy is too rigidly designed around oil and demand for it is
still growing inspite of declining supplies.
Barriers to change
Firstly, renewable energy has and continues to receive much
lower tax breaks than fossil fuels The huge sunk investments in
existing energy systems and infrastructures accumulated over the
last century make policies to prop up the failing system seem more
rational than those that promote change.
government policies are stimulating sustained demand for oil
resources. In order to sustain further economic growth to achieve
economic aims such as low unemployment quickly, governments
carry out expansionary fiscal and monetary policies in order to
stimulate their economy.
Countries such as the USA provides tax breaks for oil companies
and road builders, allowing oil prices to be kept artificially low. These
factors contribute to ever increasing demands for oil. In the
readings, it was reported that if government subsidies were
removed and the environmental costs were included within the oil
prices, oil prices would have spiked and demand effectively
reduced.
However, due to government actions, it appears that war for oil
will be inevitable

 Secondly, like many other social problems, the salience of energy

problems follows an issue-attention cycle, a cycle of rising and
falling concern due to energy-related national events and the
volume of media coverage they enjoy. When supplies increase and
prices moderate, the combination of public concern and media
attention that would impel political action is at a low ebb.
Thirdly, effective energy policies need to be articulated on a
global basis. Even dramatic improvements in energy efficiency will
not be sufficient to protect the global environment if they are
confined to the MDCs. Pleas from the MDCs to address the energy
crisis through energy restraint will fall on deaf ears in the LDCs
unless the MDCs can find ways for the LDCs to achieve increased
economic well-being at the same time.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), it is projected
that there will be a significant growth in the world commercial
energy consumption and is pessimistic about the any significant
changes in the present mix of commercial fossil fuels. Furthermore,
the organization believes that under optimistic conditions, no
combination of alternative fuels will be able to meet the world
demand for energy for many decades.
HOWEVER,
Why war for oil is not inevitable.
Own words in red, after this is what is relevant in the notes
Firstly, a combination of declining demand for the oil and a switch to
alternatives will have stretch out supplies for many years. This will
allow more alternatives to be discovered and existing alternatives to
be made more viable.
Although our economy is designed around oil, it is believed by many
economists that the market economy is flexible enough to switch
away from oil when it drops to a critical level. When prices rise high
enough such that it is economically unprofitable to sustain
businesses on oil, alternatives will be readily considered. In fact,
countries such as Saudi Arabia is already beginning to conduct
research into viable alternatives such as solar energies. We have the
technology to produce solar energy but it is still too expensive
(deterrence)
Relevant to the above point is the economic-rationality model,
favored mainly by economists and engineers. This model
emphasizes that humans rationally respond to changing energy
prices, given the presence of more efficient technologies. As a

result, escalating prices and efficient technologies played an

important role in energy conservation.
Attitude-behaviour models favored by social psychologists. This
model argues that the economic analyses of the economicrationality model exaggerate the significance of energy prices and
underestimates the effects of noneconomic behaviours. Studies
suggest that while prices play a significant role in household energy
behaviours, they could be limited by social, psychological and
marketing factors. The results showed that economic incentives are
likely to be more effective when they are combined with other
influence techniques such as moral and ethical arguments.
Here, education also plays a key role. Understanding sustainable
development will help students to grow up to be more responsible
citizens and be more receptive to the economic incentives to switch
to viable alternative energies.
What alternatives do we have? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of the existing energy sources?
Existing:
Fossil fuels:
Cheap and easily transported
Has a high yield of net useful energy
It can be burned to propel vehicles, heat building and water and
supply high temperature heat for industrial and electricity
production
Coal:
One of the dirtiest forms of energy but there are lots of it. Coal
deposits is estimated to be able to last the world between 200 and
1125 years depending on the rate of usage
Furthermore, after the installation of catalytic converters, coal
pollution could be reduced significantly
Other advantage!
Even with their problems, we have an enomous sunk investment in
infrastructures to produce process and use them. TO develop new
energy technologies that are economical and practical on a wide
basis requires new large sums of investments and decades of
experimentation. As a result, maintaining the fossil fuel system has
short tem but very real advantages for both individuals and the
powerful corporate interest groups that profit from them.
Alternative sources of energy and their advantages and
disadvantages can be found in notes UNDER CHAPTER FOUR:
ENERGY AND SOCIETY approximately pages 135 and beyond