[Tyler_JC]

You must be too young to remember...the economy sank into a huge recession in the early 80's.
Interest rates of 18% for an average home loan and record high energy prices slashed economic growth.

Consumers bought smaller cars and carpooled. Government regulations demanded energy conservation.
We also found some new supplies of oil such as the North Sea.

All of this prevented the doomsday scenario of Carter's speeches.
But because we didn't move off of oil, we only delayed the disaster.

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'Y')ou must be too young to remember...the economy sank into a huge recession in the early 80's.
Interest rates of 18% for an average home loan and record high energy prices slashed economic growth.
Consumers bought smaller cars and carpooled. Government regulations demanded energy conservation.
We also found some new supplies of oil such as the North Sea.
All of this prevented the doomsday scenario of Carter's speeches.
Many of Carter's actions stalled the disaster by 20 years.

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kwftide', 'W')hy did annual world oil demand growth fall from 5% to 1%?

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'B')ut because we didn't move off of oil, we only delayed the disaster.

[kwftide]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'B')ut because we didn't move off of oil, we only delayed the disaster.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kwftide', 'W')e've also seen annual world demand jump from about 1% to 2% in the last few years.
I was in the 6th grade when Reagan took office, if that tells you anything about my age. Obviously, I remember some things but wasn't driving or worrying about heating my home.
However, I remember Reaganonmics and "trickle-down theory". But weren't the 80's the "age of exhuberance"?
Also, I suppose our out-spending the Russians and their subsequent implosion helped ease world demand for oil?

[aahala]

In the US, there were demographic changes that could have been forseen
but weren't, that effected energy use.

In the seventies the baby boomers were forming families, demanding
homes, appliances and cars, all took energy. But there was a baby bust
shortly after 1953. The colleges were overflowing with students in the
late 60s and went on a building benge. It took a long time to get funding
and get buildings completed, by then a building surplus--fewer students because of age and the draft had ended.

[aflurry]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'B')ut because we didn't move off of oil, we only delayed the disaster.

[Tyler_JC]

Well considering that Global Peak Oil in 1970 would have prevented me from being born...I would object strongly to such a suggestion!

(out of a purely selfish desire to live)

[I_Like_Plants]

My understanding is that the new British North Sea oilfields staved off the disaster, and enabled Reagan and Co. to say the oil crisis was artificial.

[cornholio]

I was in grade-school when Jimmy Carter visited my hometown as president... At that time my mother drove a Datsun (smaller than any car now sold) and schools handed out stickers to put on lightswitches to remind you to turn them off when you left a room... It was a very different atmosphere and limitations were talked about. Recycling and Solar power were talked about. In addition to facing the peaking of american oil production the Carter administration suffered under an intentional reduction in oil provided by OPEC, and the Iran hostage taking. There were a lot of things to make Americans feel uncertain about the future, and it was not a "feel good" time for those reasons.

Regan felt like a breath of fresh air, and almost every experience under Regan seemed to prove how wrong the limitations felt under Carter were... America was able to meet it's growing oil need by buying Opec oil so no problem. America could afford to build a huge deficit because the growth afforded made debt irrelevent (Reganomics), so no problem. America could buy the biggest military ever with borrowed money and prove that lessons learned in vietnam no longer applied, so no problem.

It looks like Carter was generally correct (regarding American oil production) but underestimated world reserves. Now that those reserves are peaking America may be facing a situation very similar to those under the Carter administration (which were not feel-good years) with the added burden of huge government and consumer debt. Still, I think that when peak oil hits consumer response and economic response may be similar to the late 70's... for a while. Because of this I'm looking up "stagflation", a very 70's word : )

Stagflation:A term coined in the 1970s for the twin economic problems of stagnation and inflation. Previously these two had not appeared together: it had been one or the other. Keynesian policy had no solution for this problem at the time, hence the rise of monetarism. " monetarists argue that inflation is due to the money supply rather than to demand and predict that stagflation can occur with inflation and high unemployment if governments increase money supply"

[spudbuddy]

This all makes me wonder what the next couple of administrations are going to do...as far as responding to growing public awarenes of what we knew over 25 years ago. ...not to mention the present administration (but that's just a nightmare on Elm Street anyhow)
I just don't see the average American householder as ferociously fiscally irresponsible as the folks running the show.
I remember the 80's...but the feel of the times was not remotely like now. As mentioned here...we still had a lot of infrastructure left over from the 70's and earlier...we were far better set up to reduce energy consumption. People didn't mind at all driving smaller cars, and living in smaller square footage. Those changes at the time, were relatively painless, comparably.

Now...retraction from modern standards seems to feel like the worst tragedy ever visited upon us.
Have we all learned to think Globalized? Economies of scale?
I think Carter was right. He just didn't put it across...and then along came Reagan and undid a lot of the groundwork that was put in place.
Unfortunately, the 90's were awash in cheap oil, and the restraint of the late 70's just faded away.
Of course...we also didn't have a globalized world such as it is now ...the lifestyles of the rich and famous hadn't arrived yet...bad heavy metal didn't urge anybody to consume much more than bad drugs...America still manufactured much of what it used....ah - it was a different time altogether.

[chrispi]

Have you ever heard of the Carter Doctorine? That's why we're in Iraq.

[cornholio]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chrispi', 'H')ave you ever heard of the Carter Doctorine? That's why we're in Iraq.

[nero]

In my opinion Carter was wrong because of peak oil.
Around that time the world economy switched from a high growth trajectory to a go it slow approach. If we had continued at the rate of growth witnessed in the 50s and 60s there would no longer be third world poverty and everyone would be living the north american dream by now.
Instead OPEC put on the breaks early by limiting the availability of oil.

The reason they could do this was because of the peaking in US oil production left them the dominant oil producing cartel.
So thank OPEC for allowing us to have this extra time to prepare for global peak oil. Of course someone stomping on the breaks was pretty much inevitable since oil is a non-renewable strategic resource and a developing country would be pretty foolish to squander their inheritance in a single generation.

I personally suspect that in 50 years time the period 1980 to 2020 will be considered the peak oil plateau. And when they fit a hubbert curve to the historic data they will consider the 70 and 80s oil shocks to have been fundamentally hubbertian.

[cornholio]

The carter administration admitted there was a shortage of oil and promoted alternative energy use and conservation. He didn't invade a Middle East country. He just said that this is something we need to deal with. His "error" was that it was the US oil peaking and not the world's... He didn't jump to the conclusion that we should become dependant on foreign oil or start a war: Speech

Wouldn't it be remarkable if Bush held a speech with the same wording Carter did in 1977, and wouldn't it be a different world if we followed the goals he proposed instead of abandoning them in the 80's?...

The President's Proposed Energy Policy
Jimmy Carter April 18, 1977
"Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.
It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.
We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.
Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.
The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" —except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy...."

[I_Like_Plants]

My understanding is that Jimmy was right, and what made him look wrong was new oil discoveries in the North Sea, which allowed Reagan (whom I voted for) to make Jimmy look foolish, and bring oil prices down. Also, Reagan wanted oil prices low since low oil prices forced the USSR to produce tons of oil and "try to make it up on volume" they were losing money and this was key to defeating the USSR. (I think Patton had the right idea about how to defeat them right after WWII.)

We all loved cussing out Jimmy Carter, but he was right. I now have a great respect for the man. He came up from nothing, incidentally like Cheney did also, got an education and won the Presidency the hard way. Now he's out there swinging a hammer, building houses for the poor and honestly going to church and preaching and praying, something you'd never catch any modern Democrat doing - although in all honestly it would not surprise me to see El Busho doing so as he ages and mellows. It is not un-imaginable to me, whereas I can't imagine Kohn/Kerry doing anything but sitting back, flattering his latest rich old dowager, and taking sandwiches with the crusts cut off delicately from a silver tray.

We need a real populist in the WH, a real man of the people. Reagan and Carter were the closest we've seen since Lincoln, and it's been a while.....

[rockdoc123]

Well I might have my timing slightly wrong but I seem to remember that Reagan lucked out simply because the Saudis realized they had to get back market share and forced the price down. In 1986 the Saudis instigated netback pricing ...basically refiners got a set fee no matter what the price of crude..Saudis took the loss figuring they would make up for it in volume and as a consequence take out of play all the oil that was more expensive to lift outside of Saudi. Worked for them...they got back market share but for those of you employed in the oil industry back then it was brutal. In one day I remember watching 50 oil geologists and geophysicists escorted out the doors from the company I worked for...fully half of the staff. Oil companies had to stick to their knitting and actively find ways of cutting operating costs and finding costs. This took 5 or so years to have much affect but the oil companies got lean and mean so that when the bottom dropped out of the market during the Asian crisis they were able to wait out the storm. Because of the discipline they were enforced to deal with western oil companies became quite successful at developing smaller reserves economically and they gradually dragged back market share...
Why was Carter made to look wrong...or why is there a difference now...simply I think it has to do with demand. It has increased immensely in the Asian continent. Back when Carter was in office the US was head and heels above all other consuming nations...China and India were a pitence of where their consumption is now. Although supply has increased since then it hasn't increased proportionately to demand. And add to that that the swing producer who wielded all the power in Carters day...Saudi Arabia appears to be hamstrung now by their inability to increase light sweet crude deliveries.

[UncoveringTruths]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ymbols aside, the former oilman who occupies the White House today shares a problem that plagued Carter, a former peanut farmer and naval nuclear engineer: How to solve an energy crunch in a nation utterly dependent on fossil fuel?
Conservation is only a tiny part of Bush's answer, although on Monday, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman will lay out what his office calls a comprehensive, national conservation campaign in the face of rising winter energy costs.
In the past, Bush focused on promoting new nuclear power plants, better use of coal, new shipments of liquefied natural gas and further exploration of oil and gas in Alaska.

Bush's energy problems stem largely from growing worldwide demand for limited supplies of oil and natural gas. The situation has grown worse because of the war in Iraq and, recently, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which knocked out rigs in the Gulf Coast and hampered refineries.
Carter faced a crisis from a combination of economic problems, failed policies of his predecessors and, finally, an Iranian revolution that cut access to some Middle Eastern oil.

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')eantime, the solar energy industry is hopeful - not because of anything that occurred in the White House after Carter, but because the 2005 energy bill, signed by Bush, will give up to $2,000 in tax credits for anyone installing solar energy in a home. The credits begin next January, although they will be available for only two years unless Congress extends them.