Is Energy Independence A Myth or the Right Goal for America to Pursue?

As the U.S. contemplates its "energy independence", it is equally important to look at factors that surround this issue: our current energy infrastructure, current means of energy production, and regional means and centers of production. First, before we even attempt to gain our energy independence it is critical to look at our current infrastructure. Currently, there is not an efficient way to move electricity from areas of overage to areas of need. Sure, we have a grid that stretches from coast to coast, but it has proven itself outdated and unreliable. Therefore, before we discuss new ways of producing energy we must update our power grid and allow for not only an efficient transfer of power across the country but a means for homeowners/businesses that employ alternative energy to contribute back into the grid. Second, we must reassess our dependence on coal fired electricity plants. This method is far more dangerous for the environment and much less efficient than nuclear power. We need to push nuclear power back into the spotlight as a safe and efficient alternative. Unfortunately, the growth in nuclear power has been slow and new incentives must be developed by the government. Third, the regional production must be developed. This would include wind power in the middle of the country, solar power from the west, and possible tidal power generated from the coastal areas. All of these methods (along with an improved infrastructure) can allow for regions to become self sufficient and rely on other parts of the country when conditions are not ideal. Along with nuclear power, we could possess a cheap way to provide electricity throughout the country. This generation of power could also begin to fuel our transportation needs, further removing us from energy interdependence.

Before answering the question as to whether energy independence is the right goal for America to pursue, we first spent time considering some of the many paths that
the US could take in order to try to achieve energy independence. The first would consist of a massive, immediate investment in offshore drilling, for example in ANWAR, as well as in other domestic oil and gas supplies in order to fuel the American economy with American resources, via the existing infrastructure. The second path would require Americans to make a massive energy shift towards renewable sources like wind and solar power, and would demand the overhauling of the distribution network of American energy.

In terms of energy independence as it relates to the “right goal” for the future, we thought in terms of two aspects, primarily we discussed energy independence and how it would hurt or help national security and secondarily we discussed energy independence and how it would hurt of help the environment.
Much of our discussion about national security revolved around the trade-offs surrounding the benefits of engaging in the global economy, and the costs of relying on unstable and/or hostile nations to fuel our nation. Give that many oil producing states, for instance, Russia and Nigeria, are politically unstable or at east undemocratic, and feature a massive wealth imbalance, some of us feel that the massive disparity between oil revenues and other sectors of their national economy are to blame for this instability.

The general consensus, although far from unanimous, was that the influx of oil wealth should be a powerful tool for reform, even though currently that is rarely the case.
We feel that America should attempt to better engage the nations and governments from which we buy oil as a way to promote stability of the global oil market. Additionally, because the current wealth provided by the United States purchase of oil may be holding together these unstable regions, independence must be slowly achieved so as to not send catastrophic shocks through the oil producing world. Although we may be funding somewhat hostile regimes now, an economic collapse in oil-producing regions due to a hypothetical (and likely impossible) sudden American independence would make our strategic position worse, not better as it could potentially harm the economies of other nations.

We also discussed the current volatility of oil prices, and the negative affect on the American economy. Although producing oil domestically would create a more secure supply, at least temporarily, a supply that is notably less vulnerable to pipeline terrorism or regime instability, domestic oil prices would not magically drop. The market overall would still face rising demand from nations like China and India, and a relatively stagnant supply- preventing the cost of oil per barrel from significantly lowering- making us no less vulnerable to the volatility of the oil market.

In terms of the environment, we concluded that while investing in increasing the amount of oil being circulated in the global oil market might be technically feasible by means of exploiting new oil fields, it makes little long-term strategic or environmental sense, and would deplete the resources – such as time and money—that are necessary for the United States to transition to renewable energy. As we weighed the costs of off shore drilling against the benefits, we feel that the amount of oil that would be added to the global market would not off set the environmental detriment we would cause.

Additionally, there was a thought that the high prices of oil may not be worth combating-- they facilitate the innovation which will hopefully lead to a transition to renewable technologies. With the easiest reserves of oil already tapped, oil production will peak or become more costly per barrel. Either way, higher prices are inevitable. By facing the pain now, America can begin to invest in an infrastructure based on clean and seemingly limitless fuels like wind and solar power, which are becoming more cost competitive. If America embraces this path to energy independence by exploring renewable energy, we will avoid the perils of peak oil or endangered supplies later.
So, for now, while the state of the global economy makes energy independence in the United States unfeasible and potentially dangerous, the United States should pursue alternative energy sources in order to begin a gradual transition to renewable energy dependence.

- Dartmouth Project Next America*

*This is a collective profile of Dartmouth students, who come together to discuss, debate, and engage each other on the issues posted on Next America. Each posted comment is an entry that results from one of our meetings. While it is impossible to represent the unique views of every participant in each comment, we strive to capture the general thoughts of consensus (as well as the significant dissenting opinions) on each topic of discussion.

In light of current U.S. energy market demands, the balanced way toward eventual energy independence is to pursue an "all of the above" approach to energy research and development policy. Until recently, one could argue the U.S. government did not fully weigh the consequences of relying on a short-sighted, one-dimensional energy production policy. This, in turn, weakens our ability to lead negotiations in strategic global energy partnerships.

First, we must send strong signals to the market by building capacity for responsible American energy production and American refining using the most environmentally-friendly technology on the market. Simultaneously, the U.S. government must also heavily invest in and promote research for alternative energy resources to ensure our long-term energy consumption does not negatively impact U.S. energy security. In an American shift toward cleaner, sustainable energy sources, international energy markets and foreign national leaders would gain confidence in U.S. motives during global energy negotiations. A nation's economy is perhaps emerging to be THE MOST critical instrument of national power, as Colin Powell noted in his opening address to launch Next America.

I would suggest that "U.S. energy independence" will never exist. All nations import some aspect of energy, be it manufacturing products, services for some element of the fuel cycle, or intellectual capital. Were America to achieve this "all of the above" goal, we still would not be energy 'independent,' but the U.S. would, however, advance our international goals with more projection power because our energy supply and demand ratio is more secure.

An "all of the above" approach would bring timely confidence in the U.S. energy market and also build crucial infrastructure toward energy security. And, in my opinion, an "all of the above" approach is the only course of action that significantly advances the U.S. capability to be the lead in global energy security matters.

Just yesterday, President Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore oil drilling that his father issued via executive order during his tenure in the Oval Office. The move, empathetically supported by John McCain, and heavily criticized by Barack Obama was done in an effort to "increase" the amount of oil that American's can access domestically. This is supposedly the best way to achieve energy independence and decrease the price of oil, but unfortunately it will fail to do so.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil industry's main trade group, has estimated that it will be between 7 and 10 years before American's even begin to see a DROP of the oil buried deep underneath the continental shelf. Most environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club point to a timeframe much greater than the 10 years.

While this form of energy independence seems like a worth goal to pursue, given the fact that out petroleum imports have doubled since 1973 and come to represent nearly 40% of over 710 billion dollar trade estimate (2.3% of total GDP!). However, the US utilizes about a quarter of the world's 86 million gallons a day, of which we import 60%. Digging up over 14 million gallons a day (the difference between domestic supply and demand) is going to be nearly impossible.

Put simply, any gain in oil supply from drilling is so residual, that it easily becomes outweighed by the potential environmental damage inflicted. Rather than "drill our way out", we should end the tax breaks for Big Oil and redistribute the over 150 billion dollars in subsidies that that we have given to nuclear power in the past 50 years. In that same time period, we gave a paltry 5.7 billion dollars to subsidizing wind and solar energy combined. We can model our energy market after Germanys, if those numbers are reversed-7% (and rising) of German energy comes from wind turbines.

Its time to end the political gimmicks of a "gas tax holiday" and "drilling our way out of the crisis" and present real, long term solutions.

First, you are certainly correct that Al Qaeda's make-up is consistent with what you'd expect from a radical Wahabbi Sunni organization. Similarly we are indeed popular among the Iranian people and I take great comfort in that. My argument is that we are unpopular in Saudi Arabia and popular in Iran because the Saudi government is widely seen as a U.S. proxy but the Iranian government has no one to blame but itself for its unpopular policies. If we were still propping up the Shah in Iran, having successfully crushed the Iranian revolution, and had no real presence in Saudi Arabia than the situation might be reversed. (Of course, we've now largely removed any military presence from Saudi Arabia, so the main source of inspiration at this point is Iraq).

That said, existing radicalized members of Al Qaeda would likely still need to be dealt with even if we disengage. There'd be far less recruitment which means it won't be a long term issue, but I'm not claiming a magic wand for the short term.

As for Afghanistan, I'm increasingly worried about the country, but I am willing to stay for now. After all, as you say, we aren't there because of oil and I didn't claim we were. But one of the many critical differences between Iraq and Afghanistan is that in Afghanistan the majority of the populace still support us. I will concede Pakistan as a rather tricky problem that doesn't have oil at its root, although I think Middle East disengagement would free up more resources to help in Afghanistan and improve popular opinion of the U.S. which would help (but certainly not solve) in Pakistan.

Otherwise, I don't think we disagree. I'll just note that the key trick for a cap and trade scheme is to fully sell the credits. Europe ran into trouble through use of set asides that undercut the program.

Energy Independence is often put forward as an alternative to the U.S. policy of military engagement with the Middle East. If we stopped working to provide hegemonic stability to the Persian Gulf there may well be more fluctuations. However, as Neelesh Nerurkar and Rachel Posner mention, the global oil market itself can provide much of the resilience the U.S. needs. Moreover, the Soviet Union is gone, while great power games would take place neither Russia nor China, let alone Iran, are in a position to dominate the region.

Here I strongly disagree with Joshua Marcuse's statement above: "America has national security objectives (terrorism, Iraq, Iran's nuclear aspirations), treaty obligations (Israel, Egypt, Jordan), and numerous other reasons why we are heavily engaged in the Middle East. We aren’t going to just leave. Sadly, America is committed to defending unpopular policies and regimes that have nothing to do with oil."

The U.S. alliance with Israel would continue even if we stopped trying to guarantee the security of Middle Eastern oil. Because of that alliance we will likely continue to work with Egypt and Jordan, although there's certainly flexibility to reduce the unpopularity of our policies. However, terrorism, Iraq, and our concerns about Iran all intimately involve a policy of maintaining a stable flow of Middle Eastern oil. There's a reason 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from ally Saudi Arabia and none of them came from theocratic Iran. The cost of blood, treasure, and ill will generated by these policies far outweigh the benefits we receive.

Fortunately, energy independence is not the only way to reduce our role as a Middle Eastern security provider. In fact, I do not disagree with the gradual transition approach favored by Mr. Marcuse. Between the global market, cooperation with our neighbors, and some of the more practical proposals of T. Boone Pickens mentioned above, we can protect ourselves from shock during the transition. A military approach to guaranteeing oil access is simply unnecessary. At the same time we can make ourselves more resilient without chasing the costly goal of independence.

In the long term, we need to focus on reducing our dependence on carbon in general, not just oil. As Mr. Nerurkar mentioned, focusing on short term energy independence will run against the goal of dealing with global warming. As others have raised, new sources of energy and conservation, encouraged by a carbon cap and trade system or similar measures, provide a slow but wise path to reducing our dependence on foreign oil as well as all other forms of carbon.

While the debate on this blog has been very good, thus far there have been some false assertions and rhetoric thrown out there. Energy security IS an important and crucial goal to strive towards, but it will be a very long time before total energy security will be accomplished. But before looking at a balanced approach, lets evaluate these claims some have made.

First, the idea that we are "hostage" to Middle East oil prices, is absurd. Out of all of the petroleum we import, only 15% goes to fuel-the rest of it goes towards commerical uses, such as creating plastic products. So even if we completely stop importing Middle Eastern oil for fuel, we will only free ourselves of 15% percent (at best) of our dependence on Middle Eastern fuel imports. Finding a biodegradable and useful alternative to petroleum based plastics is thus far, not economical.

Second, we are framing this debate SOLELY in economic terms, which ignores the most pressing part of the question. Despite the American Right's claims to the contrary, science has moved beyond politics on the issue of climate change. A recent government report indicates that this may be the first season with a completely iceless north pole. Australia has been in a continuous drought for the past 11 years, leading to the destruction of this year's rice crop in it's entirity. A recent report in Nature (http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0807/full/climate.2008.59.html#B3)

indicates that if the world (not just U.S.) doesn't change its carbon policies significantly by 2015, we could move beyond our ability to decrease emissions in time to avert the catastrophic 2 degree celsius change in climate. Within the next SEVEN years, US and world policy must be changed to avert climate disaster.

However, it makes sense to undergo these changes economically as well. For the price of just two weeks of the Iraq War, we can retrofit every car in the United States to run solely on Hydrogen-which gets much better gas mileage and only emits water as a byproduct. Corporations on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index outperform their competitors on the Dow Jones Standard, by 7-15%.

In order to achieve energy independence, all of you are correct-there is no single solution. While EISA 2007 (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) is part of the solution, in calling for ethanol to be used, it would take 97% percent of US land (all, not just ag. land) to power every car on ethanol (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html). Ethanol should be a tiny part of the solution, not the entire thing, and the massive subsides for blending ethanol should be removed.

Additionally, investing in wind and solar power seems to be the future. According to estimates, just the states of Nebraska and Kansas could power 45% of the nations future energy needs, via wind farms.

The US should also set a price for carbon. Something the EPA and DOE (Dept. of Energy) have thus far failed to do is "price" carbon and many of our natural resources such as water. Once an economic value on carbon is realized, it will permanently keep the price of gasoline high, naturally forcing innovation to create carbon-free technologies, and moving us towards independence.

While McCain's idea for creating a $300 million dollar government incentive for carbon free technology sounds nice, ignores market forces the fact that if someone created the technology, they would make WELL over $300 million dollars in profit.

In short, if we are to achieve some semblance of energy independence, we must focus on both the economic and environmental costs and benefits of doing so. If the US utilizes effective policy to create energy independence via many difference avenues: investing in hydrogen and electric vehicles, creating wind farms and solar energy fields, creating hydroelectric dams in the West and Northeast and many other policy prescriptions, we can achieve results that are both business friendly and environmentally friendly.

Energy is one of several hot button issues currently in vogue on the campaign trail this year. America remains addicted to oil and is having difficulties finding it, affording it, transporting it, and ensuring sustained production of it, while simultaneously protecting our environment and climate. Politicians often frame solutions to the energy crisis with the catch phrase “energy independence”. However, this term has not been clearly defined, nor has this political goal resulted in the policies necessary to increase supply and reduce demand.

Given the increasingly interdependent nature of the global economy on finite energy resources, pure energy independence in where supply meets demand is unobtainable. “Energy independence” as a political goal must be re-defined as the ability for America to sustain its wealth, maintain its geopolitical standing, generate economic growth, and eliminate oil based energy as a cause for instability at home and abroad. This clarified goal of “energy independence” can only be accomplished through the creation and implementation of innovative technologies and initiating consumption conservation practices that bridge us into a future of secure energy sustainability.

Currently, America remains dependent on foreign oil from increasingly unstable regions. In 1970, peak oil occurred in the United States and by 1973, cheap oil abroad resulted in the country importing 30% of its needs. Our nation’s addiction to hydrocarbon fuels is based fiscal, regulatory, and foreign policies of the current and past Congresses and Administrations that found increasing imports of foreign oil politically more suitable and economically cheaper than developing improved technologies and non-traditional energy sources in the United States; even given the additional geo-political problems and costs associated with exploration, extraction, production, sustainability, and transportation of oil in increasingly sensitive and fragile eco-systems or in unstable countries or prone to anti-U.S. sentiment.

Today, the United States imports more than 60% of its demand at a cost that exceeds the budget of the Department of Defense. Current domestic reserves (ANWAR, other Federal lands and outer continental shelf reserves included) would provide, at best, 4 years of oil at current rates of consumption (proven crude oil reserves from the Energy Information Agency: 21 billion barrels divided by a daily consumption of 21 million barrels divided by 365) and involve huge amounts of short-lived infrastructure investments at great cost and long-lived expense to the environment. Part of a true energy independence strategy must come from infrastructure and R&D investments that harness new energy resources.

Geothermal, wind, wave, solar power and others in combination with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can play a large role in our ability to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while increasing the reliability of the electric grid. Small scale, diversified power plants make the grid more resilient in the event of natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Coal will continue to play a large role in powering the country; however, once the price on carbon is set, coal’s economic viability is uncertain. Nuclear power requires more government loan guarantees than any other energy option, posing “significant technical and market risks” according to the Congressional Budget Office. Nuclear power also requires massive amounts of another limited resource, water. Ethanol, another water intensive energy resource aimed at creating “energy independence”, has resulted in soaring grain prices around the globe. Energy independence at the expense of global instability will not serve the United States’ national security interests. Consequences must be thought through before politicians throw money at “energy independence”.

Ultimately, the United States will be more energy independent through conservation initiatives. Greater conservation and efficiency policies in conjunction with energy literacy and awareness are critical to achieve energy independence. Recent policy proves politicians do not yet understand this. In 2007, when oil cost $82 a barrel, gasoline cost $3 per gallon and “energy independence” all the rage on Capitol Hill, Congress finally approved the first big increase in fuel-efficiency standards in 32 years, requiring the fleet average to reach 35 mpg by 2020. This type of leadership will not lead us to energy independence.

The paradoxical value of “energy independence” is that it’s not a realistic goal in terms of the current status quo: its true value lay in the creation of a geopolitical environment where smart energy thrives on global production and regional use from an array of clean and zero carbon technologies. Working to achieve energy independence on these terms will spur a renaissance that transforms our nation and the world resulting in new jobs, new wealth, and a better quality of life for all.

I believe there is a growing consensus among experts and those who have posted here that sole "independence" from foreign energy will not suffice in solving the burgeoning energy crises, and in fact could potentially create even greater problems. Rather our best hope for working solutions might be an arrangement of multiple and diverse sources, including foreign. In todays WSJ, oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens is approaching a possibly functional plan. He believes than stemming the tide of the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world is critical to national security, and in order to end our current and unsustainable trend clean renewable energies like wind and solar are critical. These present sources will then create a "bridge to the future, affording us the time to develop new technologies and a new perspective on our energy use."

Here is the link to Mr. Pickens piece in today's Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556087828237463.html?mod=opinion_main...

It's all well and good for individuals to get together and pursue goals (and I think energy independence is probably a good one), but when someone asks "Do you think America should..." what they really mean is "Do you think the American government should use violence and theft to pursue this goal, regardless of whether the governed agree with it?"

I'll never support this. "America" is just a collective and doesn't do things. Only the American government and American citizens do things.