Cheap Oil: Good or Bad?

Last week I paid about $20 to fill up my Prius. The last time I remember a similar experience was in the late nineties. Lower oil prices certainly ease pressure on our wallets, but are they ultimately good or bad for the economy?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Last week I paid about $20 to fill up my Prius. The last time I remember a similar experience was in the late nineties. Lower oil prices certainly ease pressure on our wallets, but are they ultimately good or bad for the economy? It's complicated.

When consumers save money on energy, they should spend more money elsewhere, so there's a ripple out effect that boosts the economy over time. How big a boost is up for debate, but some analysts predict the figure to be as high as $400 billion. Meanwhile, the dollar is strong and businesses that benefit will add jobs spurring growth. Just last month, the U.S. economy added 257,000 jobs. So far, so good.

But it's not quite so simple. Cuts in the energy sector also come at a cost--estimated to be as much as $150 billion. On top of that, what do falling oil prices really indicate? Should we be worried about the global economy? Think big picture.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Add to this how cheap oil may impact incentives for the development of alternatives like solar and wind. Or the effects on the expansion of hydraulic fracturing. And we have already seen a fair amount of rekindled interest in large SUVs. So surely there are longer term economic and environmental impacts of falling prices.

Inexpensive gas feel great at the pump, but it's part of a much more complex conversation. We'll see how this unfolds in the months to come...

Sheril Kirshenbaum is executive director of Science Debate, a nonpartisan org working to get presidential candidates on record on science policy. She co-directs Michigan State University's Food Literacy and Engagement Poll and hosts the NPR podcast Serving Up Science.

More by Sheril Kirshenbaum

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe