It can be considered ironic that most people don’t question their use of fossil fuels until times of great crisis. This was seen during the major fuel shortages in the 1970s; it was seen after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska; and more recently, after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. But like clockwork, as time passes after each disaster, people start returning to their previous levels of fossil fuels, leaving future dangers unabated.

Not only the ecological messes, but the legal messes as well, that follow these disasters leave many consumers dreaming of taking out 21st century insurance towards future incidents. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible, but the practice of conservation can replicate some of the advantages of being insured. How conservation affects such things as demand and operations will lead to results in how extensive fossil fuel accidents are and how fast they are cleaned up.

By conserving more fossil fuels, there will be a drop in production. This means much lower volumes of things like oil or coal being shipped or processed at any one time. If an accident were to occur, chances are the amount contaminating the environment would be significantly lower than those seen in previous disasters.

In relation, clean up efforts would also be much faster and much cheaper. This aspect is appealing to both consumers and producers alike, not to mention taxpayers. Since the amount of fossil fuels involved in an accident would be relatively small due to weakened demand, clean up would be more manageable and require fewer volunteers along with fewer machines. This will additionally result in less ecological damage, saving not only the environment but also avoiding contamination of other industries like fishing, tourism or housing markets. So while you pay to insure your car, why not drive it a little less to save gas too?