by Leanan » Wed 04 May 2005, 11:05:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es this is the stock answer; but demand in the 70's was much lower than it is today. It doesn't add up; the amount that was "conserved" due to the OPEC embargos wouldn't last long in a world with 90's demand levels, but we got all the way through the 90's and at least halfway through the 00's with barely a hitch.
Remember, they extrapolating from current trends. The problem wasn't really how much we were using, it was how fast the population was growing, and the standard of living was increasing. From the 1970s, they were looking at spiking energy demand over the next two or three decades.
It didn't happen, partly because of the oil embargos. It encouraged more energy efficient cars, homes, offices and industries. And it led the western nations to discourage the American way of life among developing nations. Though we didn't get much greener ourselves, we preached to other countries that they should. And many of them listened, banning cars with more than four cylinders, putting their money into public transportation rather than highways, etc.
But what they really didn't anticipate back in the '70s was that the population bomb would be diffused. All over the world, birth rates fell sharply from what they were in the '60s and '70s. Europe, South America, Africa, China, India...the only place they didn't drop sharply was the U.S., and that's mainly due to all the immigrants we take in. The combination of women's rights, birth control technology, and urbanization greatly reduced population growth in most other countries.
The other thing they didn't anticipate was that the gap between the haves the have-nots would widen into a chasm. They imagined that the rest of the world would catch up to the west, and therefore demand similar amounts of energy. It didn't happen. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer. It may be grossly unfair, but it's let the party go on a lot longer for those of us on the industrialized side of the divide.