expaand

In the Washington Post on Sunday there was one of the most ridiculous articles I have read! Robert Bryce claims that the idea of energy independence for the US is a myth. Here are what he calls the myths, and how I would answer his absurd arguments:

1. What he calls a myth: “Energy Independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism.”

He says “remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the US market are Canada and Mexico”, and since neither is known as a “terrorist haven”, the link between terrorism and oil is tenuous. Ok, but what about the other necessary 70% of our oil?? Yeah, you got it: it comes from other countries, many of which are politically unstable, unfriendly, or terrorist breeders at best. So regardless of who the largest suppliers are, we are still screwed! The third largest exporter is Saudi Arabia, followed by Nigeria, Algeria, and Iraq. Why do you think we are fighting in Iraq right now, increasing terrorism as we speak? Could maybe a large reason be …. oil? So what he says here is absurd. To me it is obvious that if we didn’t need foreign oil, our footprint around the globe would be smaller - and “terrorists” would be much less likely to attack us.

2. What he calls a myth: “A big push for alternative fuels will break our oil addiction”

Well, yes, I agree - this is completely a myth if you consider the utterly ill-conceived push for ethanol from corn, or even cellulosic ethanol. But why did he only mention these (to me), obvious failures? Of course we can break our addiction if we come up with the right alternative ways of getting energy - like solar cells producing hydrogen. This won’t happen tomorrow. But it can if we decide that’s what we should do!

3. What he calls a myth: “Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries”

Oh, again, his argument is based on small thinking. If an alternative to oil energy is developed, all over the world people will use it. So of course the petrodollar flow worldwide will be reduced.

4. What he calls a myth: “Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world”.

Well, I don’t know what will reform the Muslim world. I am not sure that energy independence, directly, has anything to do with it, to be sure. But all the money we send over there from our profligate use of foreign oil does indeed enrich especially a select few and enables them to stay in power (witness the current arms deal we are doing with the Saudi rulers). And our wars to defend our oil interests don’t exactly inspire reform.

5. What he calls a myth: “Energy independence will mean a more secure US energy supply”.

His arguments here are just plain absurd. Yes, we are woven into the world’s economy. But if we went solar, for example, a lot of what he says just wouldn’t matter as much.

What I really find disgusting about this article, is that he seems to be saying: “Just give up! - becoming energy independent is impossible. You are all idiots for even contemplating that!”. I submit that the current path the world is taking, with the insatiable and rising demand to burn increasingly rare and expensive petroleum products will lead to nothing but more war, terrorism, blackmail, higher prices for everything, starvation, and worldwide pollution, all with potentially devastating consequences. So we must become energy “independent” if we (the world, really) are to survive. And of course, it won’t happen overnight. It will be a long path with many ups and downs. It actually has begun. But it needs a major push to put it on the front burner.