SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

|

Energy Independence: A Bi-Partisan Pander

If there is one issue that brings out the worst in our politicians (and us) it is energy.

The debate over a national energy policy is bathed in a miasma of self-serving myths and demagoguery.

While Barack Obama and John McCain diverge on many energy issues, there is one theme that unites them: both believe the U.S. needs to become "energy independent." Following President Bush's declaration that the U.S. is "addicted to oil," Americans have routinely told pollsters that energy independence is an important goal. According to a 2006 poll from the non partisan research group Public Agenda, close to 90 percent of Americans said the lack of energy independence endangered national security.

Like Santa Claus, energy independence is an alluring figment of our imagination. Unlike Santa, this illusory phantom isn't peddled as a harmless fairy tale to kids but to voting age Americans by supposedly serious politicians. It began with President Nixon, gravely intoning that by "the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." The spectacular and demonstrable failure to achieve this goal has yet to persuade any of Nixon's successors, and potential successors, to set more realistic goals.

The journalist Robert Bryce documents the collective fantasy of energy independence in his book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. "America's appetite is simply too large and the global market is too sophisticated and too integrated for the U.S. to secede," he writes. Yet the delusions endure.

To understand the immensity of the challenge of achieving true energy independence, it's worth reading the words of former Intel CEO Andy Grove. Writing in the American magazine, Grove observed that while oil is a global commodity that moves to the highest bidder, electricity is "sticky" - "it stays on the continent where it is produced." To achieve energy independence, then, would require shifting America's energy consumption entirely to the grid.

That means everything - industrial power generation, cars, trucks, planes, boats, home and commercial heating - would need to be powered by electricity. Have you flown in a battery-powered plane lately?

Of course, we use oil for more than just transportation: it is a lubricant and a feedstock for a variety of industrial chemicals. After we exhaust our own domestic supplies of oil, someone would need to engineer an alternative.

Lost in the fantasy of energy independence is any honest discussion of what, exactly, the point of the effort would be. It is a staple of the liberal indictment against President Bush that he should have announced a "Manhattan Project" after 9/11 to push the country off of oil. But what would that have accomplished?

The challenge of Islamic radicalism is an urgent problem in the here and now. Even if the U.S. were to fundamentally revamp its energy infrastructure in a crash program that would make Stalin blush, it would take decades to transition to an all-electrical power energy economy. If we are still seriously threatened by Islamic jihadism in 2030, it's a good bet a plug-in hybrid won't be much help.

Nor would American energy independence deprive Saudi Arabia or Iran of income. The growing economies of China and India - some two billion people - will continue to consume their oil and natural gas. Since terrorism is inherently inexpensive, even a drop in oil prices to 1990s levels (when al Qaeda was ascendant) would be sufficient to fund terror attacks or foment radicalism.

That energy independence is a solution in search of a problem has not stopped the two presidential contenders from debasing themselves on its behalf.

John McCain's staff has begun to distribute tire pressure gauges at campaign events to mock Barack Obama's suggestion that properly inflated tires would reduce oil consumption. "We're not going to achieve energy independence by inflating our tires," McCain said.

It's obvious what the McCain camp is trying to do. Ever since Jimmy Carter sat before the nation in a cardigan sweater and had the temerity to suggest that we turn down the thermostat, conservation has become an object of ridicule among conservatives. In crafting a national energy strategy in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed conservation as a "personal virtue" not up to the challenge of providing the nation's energy. Rather than have individuals take a measure of personal responsibility for mitigating energy costs, Cheney argued, the government would handle it.

But there is an irony at the heart of McCain's tire gauge mockery - it repudiates a central theme of his campaign. McCain has frequently referred to the need for Americans to sacrifice for "a cause greater than self." He has encouraged Americans to volunteer for military service. He has called the battle against Islamic extremism a "transcendent challenge" requiring national sacrifice. In a stump speech he even indicated that "true happiness... can only be found by serving causes greater than self-interest."

In the litany of sacrifices one is exhorted to make on behalf of the country (and your own happiness), keeping your tires properly inflated is apparently a bridge too far.

Not to be outdone, Obama has waded in with his own panders. In a speech in Michigan, he suggested that we levy a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies. Implausibly implying that the oil companies - not global demand and instability in oil producing regions - are responsible for the run-up in gas prices, Obama insists that the government should be empowered to determine the appropriate level of profitability for private industry (just one industry though, similar suggestions are not floated for law firms, Hollywood studios or other Democratic donors).

Obama has also suggested that we tap into the strategic petroleum reserve to alleviate the burden of higher prices. Releasing oil from the strategic reserve may, temporarily, bring prices down, but it would be reckless. It would do nothing to address the cause of higher prices, while simultaneously reducing America's capacity to respond to a real national emergency (the actual purpose of the reserve).

By promising energy independence, both campaigns have engaged in a sideshow. An intellectually honest debate on energy would take as a given the impossibility of independence and instead focus on realistic measures that would improve America's overall energy security while debating what cost, if any, should be imposed on carbon-emitting energy sources. Addressing the twin concerns of energy cost and environmental impact can be done without recourse to fantasy.

Indeed, true independence will only be achieved when we can harness the voluminous quantities of hot air being generated by our political leaders. That, at least, appears to be an infinitely renewable resource.

---

Facebook

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: energy | mccain | obama |

Sponsored Links