Petroleum is perhaps the most important resource of the twentieth century. We have to appreciate that our food is grown with petroleum products, our clothing is often petroleum based, and most of the energy we have comes from petroleum. Yet, it is very clear that we will run out of petroleum at some point in the near future. Why, then, are we not working on solutions to this? Some groups try to encourage ignorance of our coming petroleum shortage because they benefit from such a myth.

It is very easy to show that petroleum is a finite resource and that we do not have much of it left. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which is touted as the solution to America’s trade gap on oil, does not have enough oil to feed U.S. oil consumption for even a year. Overall, it is estimated by the Department of Energy that the United States has a total of 50 billion barrels of oil left in the ground, including undiscovered oil. Since the US economy gobbles up about five billion barrels of oil a year, that oil will only last for a decade. Around the world there is estimated to be a total of no more than 400 billion barrels of oil in the ground, discovered and undiscovered. The US alone could consume that much oil in 80 years. This is not a sustainable way of extracting energy.

There are many factors indicating that we will use up world oil supplies ever faster. The consumption of energy and the production of automobiles increases every year. Also, if you accept the fact that we have a finite source of petroleum, you should also consider that much of the petroleum that exists might be prohibitively expensive to get. We could very well end up fighting over other ANWRs as we search for more oil. Furthermore, what is there to say that we will ever find all of the oil that is out there?

Increasing the exploration of petroleum is only good for petroleum companies, because we are encouraged by new exploration to consume more oil, while the petroleum companies make a quick buck. If we were really interested in using our petroleum resources wisely, we would concentrate on conserving them. Instead, we want to accelerate the demise of our precious resource.

It does not help that our government is now controlled by the petroleum industry. In a January interview with Tom Brokaw, George W. Bush said this about conserving energy: "Well, I thought – listen, I believe we need to conserve, but I’m realistic. We can’t conserve our independence. I mean, you got an energy problem in California primarily caused by the fact there’s no plants, and there’s not enough to fuel the plants if there were new plants. We need to explore financial gas. I mean we need to be moving US product. And so I think the two go hand in hand. … And so I strongly believe in conservation. I believe we made great progress in conservation. But I know if we don’t find more product, we’re going to have a problem."

This sounds more like the language of an oil baron than a president. In fact, much of Bush’s cabinet has ties to the petroleum industry. Condoleeza Rice even has an oil tanker named after her.

If we run out of petroleum without finding other options, our whole world will collapse. We will no longer be able to produce the pesticides and fertilizers that we pile onto agricultural land to support our food industry. We will have trouble producing many of the plastic products we depend on. And, of course, energy production will come to a halt. We need to find some real solutions to our oil shortage, instead of letting the petroleum industry have its own way with the future of us all.