That seems to go against basic economics. Basic economics says that supply AND demand determine price.
Well, yes and no.....
Yes, it is a supply and demand balance. What I am saying is that where we are falling short (as regards what we should be doing) is supply. Here is what I mean:
We are actually very efficient now. All the propaganda regarding SUVs aside. We use 50% of the energy we used in 1975 to make the same goods-that's a huge improvement.
Gasoline consumption in and of itself is not the boogyman here.The portion of a barrel of crude that can be cracked into gasoline is relatively fixed. And that portion can't be used for another purpose. i.e. plastics, kerosene etc.. So, say we make a substantial cut in our use of refined gasoline. OK, that does change the supply/demand ratio for gasoline. And that will have an effect on gasoline prices [within limits]. But that's all. Our other needs from oil are not going to change. And there won't be more crude freed up to make plastics or what not.And the cost of crude will set a minimum base for gasoline, regardless of the supply of refined gas.
So, barring an unanticipated leap in technology, we have the most control over supply. We have expended much effort in improving efficiency, but the world's economy will continue to grow. That's what I mean by "you can't conserve your way into growth".
However, there is an almost inexhaustible supply of coal and oil out there. Higher prices make a lot more of it accessible. But, and this is the big thing, do we have the will to get the oil? So far, production has declined since 1975. The states and the feds have excluded more and more oil bearing land since then. Do you realize that the North Slope was opened up on a 51-50 senate vote in 1975(VP tie breaker)?. Where in the hell would we be right now without that production?
I spent the night in gas stations in the early 70's to get gas. What have we done since then to address the problem? Well, we've gotten much more efficient. But we have done almost nothing to improve the supply end of things. But we do have more people, more cars and more goods being produced. New drilling off the Gulf is nonexistant, same off California. Clinton excluded the 2nd largest clean coal deposits in the world (Utah I believe) from development to pay off Indonesian campaign contributions (bribes).
So, not to beat a dead dog, but solving our energy needs via major changes in consumption is a myth, pure and simple. We have much more [potential] control over supply.
I don't see how you can say that the problem is in one but not the other. If we did not have the higher demand, we would not need the higher supply.
And the unfortunate thing is that we don't control the supply. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela do. So if the problem is entirely the supply, and not the demand, then we don't have much hope.