Fascinating idea, but it would ultimately be a game of chicken. Would the United States work to reduce demand if China did nothing, for example? Or what if all nations agreed to reduce demand, but some only made half-hearted attempts? Or the central government wasn't strong enough to prevent corrupt local officials from undercutting the policy?

Finally, if we did all of these things and were able to successfully bring the price down, would there not be a strong urge for people to try to backslide into old behaviors?

The other day I saw someone say this in regards to boycotts: I suggest you just don't buy gas for a month, then for a year. If enough people did that it would really work.

A boycott on oil for a limited time will bring prices down for a limited time only.

So you might choose to reduce oil consumption permanently. If you can achieve 3-4% reduction per year - this yould be a big achievement already. However this is about the same magnitude as the decline in global oil production. Hence you might end up with no price change - which would not be a failure but a great success. I do not think you can do anything to bring prices down permanently - you can only slow down the price increases.

Global treaties to save the world are not easy to negotiate. The Kyoto and subsequent treaties about stopping global warming have been opposed by the US government. Similar to peak oil you cannot stop or reverse global warming - you just can try to slow it down to a certain level.

On the other hand the abolition of CFCs proves that global actions are possible.

The time of cheap oil and gas is over - not even subsidies can change that permanently. You might remember today as the good old days where gas was only 4 bucks a gallon.

To fight the power of a cartel, you have to think like a union. We hang together or hang separately.

It is not clear to me that OPEC will benefit from a continuation of the current steady oil price increases. Eventually the world's economy is going to be seriously damaged, and a global financial collapse is not in OPEC's interest. The best option for extending BAU operation of the global economy for a period of time will be a global cooperative oil trade (i.e. rationing) involving both producers and consumers. However, the goal of prolonging BAU by such a method only makes sense if you think that electrification of transportation or some other technological innovation is going to ride to the rescue in a decade or so and allow the stock market to go on rising for many decades into the future. My best engineering judgment tells me that such an arrival of the technological cavalry is unlikely, and that the OECD nations are going to have to accept economic contraction. I am not saying that it is impossible for some combination of renewable/nuclear energy to help cushion the effect of the decline of fossil fuel supplies; I belive that they can do so. However, I believe we need to create an economic system in which it is not the goal of all major economic players to get richer forever. Abandoning this goal will require far more radical changes than energy conservation.

From what I see teh US culture would not allow it. The land of the free has taken on a meaning that I'm sure was never intended by the founding fathers. Free to do whatever you damn well feel like regardless of the impact of your behaviour on anyone else. No US President or congress is going to tell the people that tehy have to stop buying gasoline for the greater good.

I think the producers may actually like this. This would allow them to reduce their extraction. If I was Putin or the King, I would like to see my extraction get down to four or five million barrels a day right quick anyway. Enough to cover domestic demand and maybe export one million a day.

Way better than dollars in some bank somewhere these days.

While articles like the following appear, there is no problem!

----------

The Guardian, UK, yesterday...

"The world is not running out of oil and can continue to produce hydrocarbons for the next 40 years provided restrictions are lifted on where companies can operate, the head of BP said today.

"The Arctic and currently closed areas off the coast of America should be considered for exploration if rising global energy demand is to be met in future, said chief executive Tony Hayward.

"He insisted that all other forms of energy, whether clean-tech or otherwise, also need to be developed simultaneously while rising carbon emissions could still be curbed.

"'Declining oil production in the OECD highlights the fact that, while resources are not a constraint globally, the resources within reach of private investment by companies like BP are limited,' said Hayward.

"'Political factors, barriers to entry, and high taxes all play a role here. In other words when it comes to producing more oil, the problems are above ground, not below it. They are not geological, but political,' he added.

"Some of the difficulties of access were in nations such as Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East which have adopted clear policies of resource nationalism where the state has grabbed assets previously in the hands of independent oil companies, but Hayward also noted the 92% of the US is off-limits and the Arctic needed opening up.

"The BP boss was talking at the launch of his company's annual statistical review of world energy which showed that world oil consumption grew by 1.1% in 2007, or 1m barrels a day, slightly below the 10-year average, while production fell by 0.2%, or 130,000 barrels a day, the first decline in five years.

"An increasing number of oil industry commentators have put forward the view that "peak oil" has now been reached - or shortly will be - and is responsible for a 40% rise in crude prices this year to record highs of nearly $140 a barrel. BP, though, said today that proved oil reserves at 1.24tn barrels are enough to meet current production for 41 years.

"Hayward also batted aside Opec arguments that the extremely high price of oil could be attributed to financial speculators playing the commodity markets and the slump in the dollar's relative value to other currencies.

"'The defining feature of global energy markets remains high and volatile prices, reflecting a tight balance of supply and demand,' he said, adding that 'I am certainly not a subscriber to peak oil (theories)'."

------------

No doubt PO is an obvious reality - crude oil is finite, I understand this. And I understand that oil-producing nations must look after their own interests first. But who's telling the truth? Surely there's no conspiracy, is there? Surely the head of BP isn't publicly proclaiming a pack of lies?

Is PO with us today or do we have another 40 years to adjust?

As an Average Joe, attempting to (secretly from my wife!) research as much as I can, while trying to raise a family and pay the bills in this BAU world (climate change included), "where we're at" is where I hesitate.

Regards, Matt B from Melbourne, Australia
(Still sitting on all kinds of fences!)

I don't get it. What would a buyer's strike do? What are the demands?

Whatever the role of the oil cos and speculators, here at TOD we know the deepest reason for the high prices. People need to understand that reason and get active in demanding that the gov't start taking appropriate actions to deal with it, and help the people deal with it. If a strike were part of such an effort, maybe it would make sense. But that's not what it would be about at this point. The demand would be to lower prices!

All in all, a very bad idea until there is enough consciousness to properly focus it.

Oh oh oh. Pretending we have power by "going on strike" is fun, but it's simply wrong-headed.

Sadly, we ought be GRATEFUL for the low prices we've had in the past, and "slow and steady" transition ourselves to other energy sources for transportation.

What's "killing us" is not the high prices but the future uncertainty of price. Sellers are afraid high prices will lead to reduced demand and lower prices.

I think buyers ought to mentally "tax" their own consumption. ASSUME gasoline ought to cost $20/gallon, and therefore any gasoline you purchase that is cheaper is SAVINGS to you. Then take that savings and INVEST it in something good!

I know plenty of people who will still drive at $20/gallon. It's still a good deal (in time savings) compared to their alternatives.

I started my "buyers strike" in October of 1998. That's when I started walking to work; 4.5 miles one-way over a mountain. The practice received some local news coverage http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/61846 but I haven't seen any evidence that it motivated any imitators.

Well, that's all great, but what happens when we all want to buy some of this suddenly cheap fuel?

Even if we all reduce demand by using less during the "strike", once we go back to business as usual doesn't the same supply demand dynamic reassert itself? Worse yet, from the perspective of long term prices, does this game of "crack the whip" cause producers to dial back on marginal production projects? After all, who knows when the G8 will decide to do another "strike"? To be fair, the future production argument could be used against long term conservation programs.

Boycotts usually have a very limited success at best. Even if it is true that most of the cost of oil is from a bubble, price increases are going to be inevitable. The best thing to do is change behavior.

A well meaning boycott would show people very quickly how dependent we are on oil. It would also illustrate wide vs narrow boundary analysis. Not driving and using that gasoline would be a narrow boundary attempt - not buying imported items, heating oil, trucked in food, etc. would be a real boycott but next to impossible. Bill McKibben did it 2 winters ago in Vermont - stayed in his cabin and ate only locally - said it was very tough (especially the spices) but he did it.

The only chance for a boycott to work is to make it 'cool' and make people not boycotting look like they are losing status. But that would be a hard trick to pull off because of tragedy of commons setup.

The other chance that might work would be a mandatory boycott. But thats called something different - R-A-T-I-O-N-I-N-G.

Since I believe that oil is growing scarcer, and that most of the price reflects that reality, rather than some conspiracy, I'm not interested in a buyers' strike. Any reductions in price would be fleeting and it would divert attention from the cliff-edge we are driving towards.

I think this is a great idea... but there will always be one major problem... to quote 99% of the consumers...

"ME ME ME"

I filled up last Friday for the first time since last January.

There was still 4 gallons of diesel left in the tank, plus I filled by my old 2 gallon gas can and a new 5 gallon gas can, so I am good to go ! (Absent a hurricane evacuation).

Best Hopes for bi-annual fill-ups :-)

Alan

I don't know that you need a 10% move. If the results of a recent study by Iowa State on the marginal price impact that ethanol has had on pump prices is correct - a small 2 or 3% change would likely have a 20 to 40 cent change in pump prices. We could use the SPR to push up supply by that much without too much drawdown and make a tidy profit too boot.

Additionally, don't sell short the ability of Americans to react to adverse conditions. In California gasoline and aircraft fuel usage for February was down 2.5% on a year over year basis...

I second DaveByGolly's sentiment. I don't think you've made the case for why you would want this.

What's the goal you are trying to achieve? I know a large number of people who have been wanting $5 gas for decades. Now that it's here, why precisely should we make it cheaper?

-Andre'

I live in Washington State, USA. I am convinced that it would take $8.00 a gallon for the drivers here to start making a pullback. Large numbers of people are still buying very large vehicles, including pickups and SUVs, and I see a dozen or so of the things every day still wearing the temporary license taped to the back window.

For me, $8 would be $160 a tank, and my income doesn't even get me into the lower part of the middle class. However, I don't know what else I could do but grumble and pay. It would mean no trips to Ellensburg where my kids live (a four hour drive), and after my wife recovers from her knee surgery, she would drive the car to work and the doggie and I would do without the dog park. However, the car would still be a necessity.

This is a rather rich county, and while there is a lot of grumbling at the pump, the average person here wouldn't be too wounded at $8 a gallon.

Doomed to failure... Let's take a moment, and suspend disbelief that China and indeed the rest of the developing world would for a moment opt to go along with this, and that in turn oil prices came down - what then?

The reason oil prices are high is that demand now exceeds supply, and its increasingly expensive to keep finding enough of the stuff to satisfy the world thirst - the oil that is still undeveloped is more and more expensive to find....

If oil prices go down - that expensive stuff won’t get developed.... until.... you guessed it, prices go up again (which will happen if oil companies curtail current exploration activities)

Make no mistake, exploration & development activities have skyrocketed in the past few years - it's not as if oil companies are just sitting on their hands here - and so too have costs. A well that used to cost $1.2M only a year ago, now costs upwards of $2.4M due to spiralling costs of personnel, steel, raw materials... you name it (I work in the industry, so can say this quite confidently).

If the record oil prices significantly pulled back, then I guarantee that a lot of this (very expensive) increased activity would reduce as well - there's only so much oil in the ground, and it's getting more and more expensive to find it folks.

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for sharing this.

I agree with Andre', when he asks what the goal is. Some clarification might help the discussion.

From what you write, it sounds like you would like to see lower gasoline prices. I also get the idea that you'd like for people to be empowered - that is, to see that there are actions they can take to effect their situation and the things that are troublesome, such as the current prices.

Do I have this about right?

In any case, I've been mulling over something similar, and I'm glad you're thinking and talking about this. Quite a while back, I was thinking (Nate? sorry if this is too obvious) - people do things when there's a point to it. (I mean, not always, of course.)

John Darnell uses the term "purposeful conservation".

Is there some way that postponing or curtailing consumption could actually get a person something tangible they can see happening in the future?

People save for their children's education or employment, for eg. Sometimes, anyway. Or many examples. "We do this, because it gets us this."

I used to think there might be a "People's SPR." But then, I couldn't figure out how to prevent it from being seized. (Kind of the same problem we often gravitate back to when talking about how to mitigate on the personal level.)

If there was a direct or visible connection between the action (consume less gasoline) and...what? mass transit? Lower food prices? More fun?

Also, it might be good to put a number on it.

Europe and Japan are already engaged in a 'buyers strike' and have been for more than a generation. We in America are the scabs. We alone don't tax gasoline at a reasonable rate (like enough to cover the cost of a navy to make sure it keeps coming).

Interesting proposal Glenn--Kudos!

It seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard with Peak Outreach to convince everyone around the planet that our burning energy to try and get black tarmac to reflect photons is a waste. Turning off the streetlamps [not the traffic-lights], illuminated billboards and signage, and outdoor lighting [especially Xmas lights] would be quite painless with huge savings. If a person is out after the Natural Darkness sets in: the vehicle headlights or personal flashlight/lantern for task illumination should be sufficient.

Recall the satellite photo of the Earth's dark side and the billions of pinpoints of light. Then recall that we are evolved, by 100,000 earlier generations, to tolerate, even thrive in the natural 24-hr solar sunrise-sunset cycle. Early nighttime Olduvai acceptance can jumpstart massive acceptance to delay [maybe prevent?] the
FF-entropic 24/7/365 Olduvai---besides, many have long forgotten just how beautiful the stars & constellations are when a' twinkling away.

Recall that Stonehenge and other temples for star, planet, moon, and solar tracking were vitally important for proper societal function and planting/harvest timing. We must not forget that the 'Circle of Life' extends far beyond our earthly grasp. Of course, the ArchDruid could explain this deep-emotional need and science-basis much better than me.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Most portfolio managers would just see it as a buying opportunity.

Demand destruction is already happening...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25091451

U.S. retail gasoline demand slipped 3.8 percent from last year's levels, as gasoline prices posted yet another record high last week, MasterCard Advisors said Tuesday.

Year-to-date, American gasoline consumption is down 1.9 percent from last year's levels, according to MasterCard's weekly Spendingpulse report.

And thats despite all new SUVs - the question is how this is offset by growing demand from China/India etc., and particularly within the large oil exporting countries. Also how supply is will hold up.. short term we are finely balance and prices could go either way in my opinion.

My back of the envelope estimate is that if there were a concerted effort by the major economies (hello G8 ministers meeting in Japan) to have demand pulled back sharply (10-15%) over the Summer, we could see oil prices go down fairly rapidly.

Interesting idea, but the question is: how exactly would you achieve that? The problem with any voluntary approach is that while most people would agree that people should use less gas, the people they mean are always other people.

For example, here in Edinburgh a while back, we had a major international conference (G8, IIRC), with all sorts of security involving major road closures. For weeks in advance, there was a big publicity campaign to alert people to this, warn them to avoid driving into the city where-ever possible, and inform them of the many park-and-ride options introduced to deal with the problem. The result? Everyone assumed that everyone else would leave the car at home, so they would be able to drive into town on traffic-free roads. We actually ended up with no reduction in the number of cars on the road (maybe even more than usual), plus a whole bunch of virtually empty buses serving the park-and-ride schemes. The entire exercise was completely counter-productive.

buyers to go on strike.

The only vote you have is your money.

What prospects do people think there is of it?

Great 'on paper' idea, not gonna happen. Because you have to have hard assets (land) - for food and energy capture. Energy capture allows for food processing (cooking and storage) and keeping shelter environment A-OK. Because you have 'land' and 'fixed assets' - the sovereign will want to tax you - for all the services they provide.

Getting rid of the land now forces you to have to use "money" as an way to obtain food/energy from hard asset holders. To obtain "money" - typically that is the result of someone somewhere making a purchase.

Some form of general strike will restrict the transfer of money in purchase form.

I personally feel that unified, serious buyers' strikes are a remedy for quite a few wrong goings-on, high prices included. But I agree with Glenn, that a "buyers' strike" can't be some silly symbolic brief suspension of making purchases, such as "buy nothing day."

Big business banks on the notion that large numbers of consumers want change ONLY if it's pain-free.

Maybe they're right. But I feel that if consumers in large enough numbers can (forgive me) grow up enough to realize that sometimes you have to suffer to improve things, and to truly take on some metaphoric scraped knees, they could effect change.

What does this mean in actual terms? It means that consumers would cut — TO THE BONE — all expenses not absolutely required for the maintenence of life.

I feel that most Americans do not fully grasp what these words mean. Consumer spending is thought by many to be an inextricable part of the fabric of life itself, and this is where we're hung by the 'nads.

What more to say?

BF

A short-term reaction like a buyer's strike or a boycott seems to me to be completely wrong headed. It would make sense if the reason oil prices are high is that the evil OPEC cartel driving them up. It does not make sense in a world constrained by supply.

What we need are fundamental changes in behavior to permanently reduce demand. Maybe "strike" is just a poor choice of words on your part, but a strike implies a return to BAU as soon as the strike has had its effect (presumably to bring the evil oil prodcuers to their senses). But if you really meant "strike", then all you're buying is a short period of relief before the relentless rise starts again. Only this time, it will be harder to get concerted action out of people, because the strike will so obviously have failed.

Sorry to be a spoilsport, but this idea is going nowhere. You are too late by a long way. There is already a buyers' strike. Check it out. Gasoline sales in the USA and the UK are down, well down. Oil consumption as a whole in the fat countries is falling, will fall more while the lean countries continue to grow because they need it to build industrial muscle to produce goods that you buy cheaply. Energy has been too cheap for decades to build sufficient new capacity. Its capitalism, the theology of the rich. Energy will be more expensive. You will use less. The price will stay high. That will release alternatives over the next decade. You will be free one day of the hated imports, partly because the exporters want it themselves (read West texas) and partly because you will one day burn clever synfuels that you have invented but which the oil companies pushed onto the back burner with a monopoly of the cheap fuel market.

Get a horse and enjoy.

Personally, I am riding an electric bike:

http://www.x-tremescooters.com/electric_bicycles/xb600/xb600.html

and a Vespa LX150 (72 MPG) instead of using my car whereever possible. In the Mid-Atlantic area, the number of scooters on the roads is just exploding. My wife recently traded an SUV for a Prius and also uses an LX150. And the old 12 speed racing (pedal) bike is suddenly seeing a lot of miles.

My guess is that consumption rates will continue to fall. The rate of decline, however, will be constrained by the substantial capital investment of the public in old technology (SUV's, etc.) and the relative scarcity at the moment of good, affordable alternatives.

I filled up my Vespa this am right next to a Hummer. I have to say, the Hummer driver was looking a little wistfully at my bike...

Pilot

I actually laughed out loud. Oil isn't just an important commodity in our economic system. It IS our economic system. It is like the world saying: Since CO2 levels are going up why don't we just have everybody stop consuming oxygen and exhaling CO2 and hold our breaths for 5 minutes. That will stabilize things!! There are worldwide water shortages. Stop drinking water. That will cut demand and increase supply! It is a great suggestion to try to reduce demand by curtailing consumption if it is part of a broader attempt at using less energy, trying to move to greater efficiency and utilize non petroleum energy sources. Absent that, it's fatuous and ludicrous.

Pilot,

Regarding the XB-600 - How does pedaling work on that thing? Its not geared like a bike is it? It looks uncomfortable to pedal. Real curious. I already have a Giant electic bike.

bodyelectric

I just got back from travelling to the UK. $9+/gallon for gas - plenty of complaining - but plenty of cars on the road as well.

A boycott sounds too gimmicky to me. Fundamentally changing one's transportation behavior - walking, biking, public transit, telecommuting - sounds like a more realistic approach.

It's all about choices. People need to stop the whining already. We've made our bed, it's time to lie in it.

Many responses seem to think a buyers strike will not work. Almost everyone has the ability to dramatically reduce their own impact of high petrol prices; replace your low fuel economy car with a much higher fuel economy car. It may require replacing a newer large car for an older smaller car, although many new small fuel efficient cars are less than a 3year old SUV. Only those driving very old cars or driving very fuel efficient vehicles cannot not much except drive less. The former will be forced off road because of the rising costs, and the latter probably don't worry too much about petrol prices. Two years ago, I made a transition from a 1989 commodore(14L/100km) to a 2006 Mazda-2(6.5L/100km), fuel savings of $12 a day just about cover my car payments, but give a permanent >50% reduction in petrol use. The only thing I cannot do with the new car is tow a trailer or carry a coffin in the back.