This paper examines contrasting perspectives on energy economics, focusing on the views of Ian Mearns, BP chief economist Christof Ruhl, and author Paul Gilding. Mearns emphasizes conservation and social outcomes, arguing that finite hydrocarbon reserves necessitate greater efficiency. Ruhl contends that energy intensity in the West is already declining and that market forces will naturally drive a transition to cleaner fuels. The paper also critically evaluates Gilding's claims about renewable energy disrupting fossil fuel business models, challenging his assertions about causation, market subsidies, and the pace of the energy transition. U.S. Energy Information Administration data is incorporated to assess domestic energy trends.
There are competing theories with respect to energy economics. Ian Mearns argues that people should conserve energy because there is a limit to the proved reserves of hydrocarbons, and there may even be limits to how much non-hydrocarbon energy is available. It is necessary, therefore, to be highly efficient in our energy use (IanMearns.co.uk, 2014). His views contrast with those of Christof Ruhl, chief economist for BP. Ruhl argues that such efficiency is already occurring, that the West is experiencing lower levels of energy intensity, and that demand is primarily being driven by the developing world. Changes in the fuel mix are also a factor, he argues, and when developing nations follow the West in lowering their energy intensity, energy demand will start to stabilize (Ruhl, 2014).
The EIA release (2014) supports Ruhl's contention that energy use in the United States is starting to stabilize, and that further development of domestic energy reserves is reshaping energy markets.
The two perspectives differ in terms of the use of energy, which Ruhl argues is becoming more efficient such that the economic value of energy is improving. Mearns does not appear to agree, and views energy consumption as wasteful. He would like to see more efficient use of energy but does not share Ruhl's assessment that this is already happening.
There is a definite difference in the underlying philosophy of these two figures. Mearns clearly sees energy as a means to an end — and that end is social rather than economic. He argues that people should not "have to grow up in a cold home," a distinctly social outcome. This reflects his role as a Member of Parliament. Ruhl, by contrast, works for BP and views energy as a unit of economic value. Furthermore, the two men differ on where energy development should be directed. Mearns advocates for increased efficiency and the development of non-hydrocarbon sources, while Ruhl prioritizes hydrocarbons but acknowledges that over time there will be a shift toward renewable sources.
Gilding's (no date) opening premise is a little too hyperbolic to be taken seriously. Renewables are not currently disrupting fossil fuel business models in any meaningful way, and it is not renewables that are pushing the fossil fuel industry toward collapse. First, Gilding contradicts himself — if the collapse of fossil fuels is inevitable, it cannot simultaneously be caused by renewables. More than that, it is the declining supply of fossil fuels that will bring about their eventual end, and renewables may rise as substitutes, but only when fossil fuels are no longer economically viable.
"Critique of Gilding's hyperbolic renewable energy arguments"
"Solar subsidies, causation errors, and grid disruption"
"Cited sources in APA format"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.