The BP gusher fouling the Gulf of Mexico, and ultimately much more, is surely one of America’s greatest environmental disasters. Just as surely, it’s not President Obama’s fault. Rather, it’s a function of physics and probabilities. Similar although smaller events occur approximately every 20 years.

Union Oil’s Santa Barbara oil spill began on January 28th, 1969. According to a report by the UC-Santa Barbara Geography department, it released 8,400 gallons per day, roughly 200 barrels. It changed America. In addition to significant local problems in one of America’s most wealthy and sophisticated areas, it provided fodder for the first Earth Day in 1970. More generally, it alienated many citizens to “big oil,” even as they enjoyed its advantages as concentrated, readily utilized energy.

BP’s Gulf spill is putting out from 12,000 to 19,000 or more barrels per day. This is about 75 times as much as Santa Barbara’s spill. The social, environmental, and economic damage is incalculable but surely huge, even if the gusher is soon contained.

Here’s the fundamental cause of the problem; the modern world is dependent on cheap energy. Over the past century our industrial, residential, social, and agricultural patterns have evolved with the presumption that petroleum is readily available at relatively low prices. The reason is simply that crude oil has a high energy density, approximately 45 megajoules/kilogram. Less than one tenth of a gram of oil raises one liter of water one degree. Ethanol has just over half the energy density of oil. It takes about 20 years of constant use for a solar cell to return the energy required to build it. In sum, any quick shift to an oil alternative would inevitably be detrimental to our modern way of life.

Further, accidents will happen, corners will be cut, spills will occur. There were well over 3,000 successful tanker deliveries before the Valdez spill of 1989 and there have been over 30,000 wells drilled and developed in the Gulf of Mexico in the last 50 years. Given the large number of opportunities for problems, probabilities and human error yield eventual failures.

The resultant spills are a predictable consequence of oil production. Why not stop? There is one simple reason; at least in the medium run, we know no close substitute for petroleum products. Essentially, we’re locked in. Not all problems have acceptable solutions here and now. Further, there are confounding cultural issues.

First, some significant and vocal people are opposed to the social and environmental consequences of oil exploration and production, especially near where they live or in areas they care about such as the Rocky Mountain Front or even the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Due largely to its demographic and cultural profile, Santa Barbara was a dramatic precursor of opposition to come.

Second, some politicians and pundits have suggested that America nationalize the oil companies, especially since the high gas prices of 2008. In early May, Chris Mathews of “Hard Ball” urged Obama: “Why doesn’t the President go in there, nationalize an industry and get the job done for the people?” He pointed out that in China, “They execute people...that commit crimes like this.” They don’t merely, “Put a boot on their throat” or “Kick ass.” Instead, he alleges, they kill supposed malefactors.

Fortunately, our constitution constrains passions leading to hostile seizure of private companies and arbitrary executions. The unanticipated, but perfectly predictable, consequences of such politically opportunistic behavior would quickly destroy America’s political culture and our economy.

Third, for various reasons some people are opposed to contemporary American lifestyles. Our SUVs, RVs, ATVs, and independent mobility more generally are viewed with disdain. If we paid the nearly $6.00/gallon for gas as in Greece, we would change our behavior; constraints on drilling would move us in that direction. For individuals with these views, the Gulf gusher is a godsend. It provides a great reason not to drill.

Andre Angelantoni, director of Post Peak Living, recently observed: “The Deepwater Horizon disaster is showing people that all the easy and inexpensive oil is now gone. Slowly the world is realizing that global oil production is on the verge of decline, no amount of technology can stop it and we haven’t ramped up renewable alternatives in time.” Yet, “Our whole economy depends on greater and greater energy supplies, and that just isn’t possible. I wish I could say we’ll quietly accept having many millions of people unemployed, their homes foreclosed. But it’s hard to see the whole country transitioning to a low-energy future without people becoming angry. There’s going to be quite a bit of social turmoil on the way down.” This, of course, is something politicians want desperately to avoid.

So here’s where we are; we’re dependent on oil, accidents will happen, and people will be disturbed. Politicians will respond with regulations, posturing, and proposals. Some of these are sensible, double hulls for tankers for example, others symbolic or silly, such as attempting to impose high gas mileage standards on new cars. While 2000-pound cars, half as light as those commonly driven today, do save gas, we would be trading blood for oil.

As a result of all this, Louisiana’s governor Bobby Jindal appears competent and constructive, President Obama, perhaps less so. Yet, Mr. Obama has surely done America a huge favor; Friedrich Hayek’s 1944 book, “The Road to Serfdom,” is number one on Amazon’s list.