Calgary's sprawling suburbs should become a thing of the past to save the city from future energy drains.

In late October 1973, the first global “oil shock” was triggered when Arab members of OPEC boycotted sales to specific industrialized nations — including Canada — to try and coerce them into changing their foreign policies concerning the latest Arab-Israeli war then raging. Along with the embargo came 25 per cent cutbacks in production, which, within months, caused world oil prices to quadruple. The global economy descended into chaos.

Experts warn we are on the eve of another oil shock. But unlike in 1973, when the scarcity was artificially induced, this time the increasing world demand, decreasing reserves and poor prospects for large new discoveries mean we can expect prices to rise indefinitely.

This isn’t an ideological statement. Given that reserves of liquid fossil fuels are finite and that a growing world population is stimulating accelerating demand, at some point the two streams must cross. Demand will exceed supply; the main question is: when? Some think we will cross the threshold very soon, within a decade. Others believe there is more time, perhaps 50 or 100 years. Others believe it’s already in the rear-view mirror.

So there will be no more cheap energy in the future, yet we’re still building the city as though we haven’t heard. Isolated, auto-dependent suburbs, and the structures they contain are not only the costliest form of human habitation ever devised, but, to function properly, demand significantly more energy per person than all other urban forms. In Calgary, virtually all our growth has been, is and continues to be planned for the suburbs. Plan It (the city’s blueprint for more sustainable development) notwithstanding, the suburban monoculture we’re building not only lacks social resilience, but it’s energy-stupid.

It’s possible that technology will save us. We may find inexhaustible supplies of non-polluting energy alternatives along with means to store and deliver them to consumers. We may find ways to capture the emissions from coal-fired plants to keep pollution out of our lungs and carbon from the atmosphere. We may find a way to extract natural gas from shale formations without ruining our drinking water. We may find ways to safely use up or store nuclear waste and methods to finance new plants and protect them from terrorism. We may find ways to live on Mars.

We may indeed, but is the promise enough, as they say in poker, to be going “all in”? We’re betting the farm on the suburban model with a hand that’s not exactly a pair of aces.

Diversity, in all kinds of systems (not just cities), provides multiple pathways to choose from as conditions change. This is why diverse systems are more adaptable to new or unanticipated conditions. Diverse systems are able to learn and evolve; they provide options. Uniform systems underperform, or if things get really bad, collapse.

Diversity was the lesson of the 1973 oil shock. The countries with the least energy resilience fared worst and took longest to recover. Having learned the lesson, places like Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, which were among the hardest hit in the ’73 shock, began taking issues of diversity seriously. Apart from diversifying their energy sources, these countries also began making heavy, long-term investments to reduce their urban energy footprint. Yes, the Europeans have suburbs too, but by investing in urban mass-transit systems and by insisting that energy conservation be a core principle of urban design and building construction, they have strengthened their ability to deal with the new energy reality.

Things are oddly upside-down in Alberta. When the world suffers high-energy costs we prosper. This muddles our thinking, causing us to flaunt both sense and prudence in our city-building habits.

That’s not to say there aren’t some great things happening in the city. Some new communities are being built with sustainability features, but most are on the city’s fringes where alternatives to fossil fuel-powered car dependence don’t exist. The sad truth is, progressive development projects comprise only a tiny fraction of Calgary’s total development.

What about the next oil shock? Where would our urban form leave us if energy prices quadrupled tomorrow? Paraphrasing acerbic suburban critic James Kunstler: “Up cul-de-sac creek in a concrete canoe,” is where.

Barring a miracle — or several of them — we know what’s coming. It may not happen suddenly like in 1973, but we know energy prices are only going higher. We also know that beyond a certain energy price threshold, suburbs become dysfunctional. The math is simple, so why don’t we get it?

They tell us it’s the market speaking. If so, it’s operating with imperfect information.

Or, maybe it’s that we don’t want to know. Our prosperity bubble shields us, or seems to, and that’s all that matters. Inside it we can pretend that energy is not a problem, at least not our problem.

Next article: Our take on the tunnel

Geoff Ghitter teaches urban studies at the University of Calgary. geeessgee.blogspot.com. Noel Keough is an assistant professor in the faculty of environmental design at the university, and is co-founder of Sustainable Calgary Society. nkeough@ucalgary.ca.