US energy consumption could fall dramatically with more efficiency

One of the more contentious issues that President George W. Bush is discussing with European leaders during his trip is his stance on global warming. When he decided to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, because of its ostensibly unrealistic targets, he generated a worldwide backlash, particularly in Europe.
With good reason. A close look at the numbers shows that if the economy of the United States operated as efficiently as those of Europe and Japan, American energy consumption and greenhouse emissions would fall dramatically -- even below the emission levels envisioned in the Kyoto treaty.
It is well known that the United States consumes more energy than the size of its economy or its share of the world population would suggest. Specifically, the United States produces 22 % of the world's gross domestic product but uses 25 % of the world's energy, and in doing so also accounts for 25 % of global emissions of carbon dioxide.
The European Union accounts for 20 % of world GDP while consuming only 16 % of the world's energy. Proportionately, the numbers for Japan are similar to Europe's. What these figures boil down to is that for every dollar's worth of goods and services the United States produces, it consumes 40 % more energy than other industrialized nations.

Unique factors, like the greater geographic distances in the United States, account for some of the higher energy usage. But according to the US Energy Information Administration only about 25 % of American energy usage is for transportation, so something much more significant than geography is at work here.
The fact is that if, from an energy policy perspective, the US economy operated as efficiently as those of Europe or Japan, American energy consumption would fall by about 30 %. In that case US carbon emissions might be expected to fall to the European rate per dollar of GDP; that would mean a 35 % drop.
This means that the United States would already meet the Kyoto emission targets -- to be 7 % below its 1990 carbon dioxide emissions by 2012. In fact, emissions in 1999 would have been about 22 % below the quantities outlined in the Kyoto Protocol. The American appetite for energy will only become more of a problem in the future. No boost in domestic energy production will suffice to keep up with the projected growth in American demand over the next 20 years.
The Energy Information Administration estimates that US demand for natural gas will rise by 62 %, for electricity by 45 % and for oil by 33 % over that period. Where will all of this energy come from? American domestic oil production has been falling in the past 30 years largely because the relatively cheap oil has been pumped.

Opening areas like Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling would provide only a slight, and temporary, change in this long-term trend. Simply put, the oil to support ever expanding energy use is just not there. Nor will it be possible for America to continue to make up its shortfall with oil from abroad.
International supplies of energy will be increasingly scarce, especially if China and India continue growing at rates of 5 to 10 % a year. Increasing scarcity and rising prices could thus be a real long-term threat to US economic growth. For the past decade the United States has grown faster than any other member of the Group of Seven industrial countries.
As the world's largest economy and the global leader in the political realm, it needs to assume leadership on environmental matters, too. It can do so by creating a framework of incentives that increase the energy efficiency of its economy to match that of Europe or Japan. This is important not just to ensure the future health of the American economy, but also to send a signal to less developed nations.
These countries have little choice but to generate higher levels of pollution for the time being, largely as an inevitable result of less access to capital and modern technology. That excuse does not apply to the United States, which has a responsibility to demonstrate that a country need not ignore its environmental responsibilities to remain an economic leader.

The world can only hope that Mr. Bush is serious about making the United States a leader in dealing wisely with energy.