Recycling Debates on Energy Independence and Energy Security

As illustrated by the Presidential candidates’ perhaps unexpected diversion into discussion of energy independence during their first debate, energy remains a contentious political issue – as it has been for the last few decades. We seem to be making little progress, however – either on the pursuit of energy independence (as if that were even a valuable goal) or on defining what its achievement would mean.

This isn’t a new point. Presidential candidates since the 1970s have stressed energy independence, but – although US oil consumption has been declining relative to GDP – we remain solidy addicted to oil (whether produced in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Canada, or Texas).

In pondering how this state of affairs creates enduring national security as well as economic challenges, it may be worth recalling some brief remarks on energy and national security I prepared for an RFF event shortly before the 2008 election. Some specific examples aside, it could have been written today and remains relevant:

In the [2008] Presidential campaign, mercifully grinding to a close, you will have heard much about energy security and energy independence – with much of the rhetoric misguidedly conflating the two: even zero oil imports . . . do not spare us repercussions from events outside our borders. There’s a saying which has by now morphed into a cliché but remains valid: An oil disruption anywhere – and whatever its genesis – means price increases everywhere. As long as the US remains a substantial oil consumer – not just importer – those threats endure.

Or, as I put it in a 2006 paper, and again in a recent post, “it is U.S. oil dependence, rather than oil-import dependence that exposes the country to the macroeconomic impact of turmoil in world markets.”

In my 2008 talk, I followed up this line of thinking, arguing that:

We may . . . have reached a point where consideration of geopolitical factors, on the one hand, and analysis of markets, on the other, are more and more flip sides of the same coin. Focusing on one aspect without the other might be a seriously blindsighted approach to strategic thinking.

That remains valid today. The strategic concerns I had in mind in 2008 (Chinese control over Sudanese oil, Russian strongarm tactics over natural gas, feared machinations of a Hugo Chavez) persist, though they may no longer command the same degree of headline attention. Other sources of supply disruptions seem more likely- the Arab Spring was one illustration, and recent East Asian tension over possible undersea oil or Persian Gulf conflict arising from Iranian nuclear ambitions are others (and Chavez’ persistence as a hemispheric irritant or worse seems likely given his recent reelection). But the underlying story remains the same. As I put it in 2008:

No matter how resourceful we are in seeing to our domestic energy needs . . . we’d better keep an eye on those events and situations where energy-rooted turmoil can genuinely impact our – and other countries’ – national, and not just energy security.

At least, that is, until and unless we can finally reduce our oil consumption, which neither candidate seems to have a plan for doing (though recently tightened fuel economy standards are a step in the right direction).

Don’t take any timelessness of my 2008 arguments as evidence of foresight – picking energy independence as a controversial issue in the next election has been a winning bet for a long time. Politicians apparently enjoy recycling arguments almost as much as academics do. Nevertheless, the virtually timeless persistence of myths and clichés on matters relating to energy is both interesting or profoundly frustrating.

About Joel Darmstadter

JOEL DARMSTADTER is an economist and senior fellow at Resources for the Future, which he joined in 1966, following an earlier stint in the corporate sector and several research organizations. Specializing in economic and policy aspects of energy and the environment, he has written, co-authored, and contributed chapters to, numerous books and journal articles. He has appeared as an expert witness before congressional committees, been a consultant to several government agencies, and served on a number of National Research Council panels. During 1983-93, he was a professorial lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He has degrees in economics from George Washington University (A.B., 1950) and the New School for Social Research (M.A., 1952).

Views expressed above are those of the author. Resources for the Future does not take institutional positions on legislative or policy questions. All information contained on Common Resources is intended for informational and educational purposes and may only be used for these purposes. Please see RFF's Terms of Use for further information.

2 Responses to “Recycling Debates on Energy Independence and Energy Security”
  1. James Singmaster, III, Ph.D. says:

    I have posted a comment on Revkin’s Dotearth Oct 16 stating that for our children to have a future, we have only 2 viable actions to prevent events triggered by nature turning our present misguided environmental actions into messes that overwhelm our children’s futures.
    I. We have to make the SUN our sole energy source taking steps of getting hydrogen, the clean fuel, by splitting water using a catalyst as outlined in The New Yorker article “The Artificial Leaf , by Owen on May 14, and of making windmills, solar panels and solar mirror systems concentrating sun energy to distill ocean or dirty water possibly with electricity generated
    II. By use of pyrolysis on our massive ever-mounting messes of biowastes including separated sewage solids, we can get an expelled mix of organic chemicals to refine to get a fuel renewably or raw materials to make drugs, soaps. etc. And to make charcoal, that’s remaking coal to remove some energy and CO2 from the biosphere. The charcoal would b not be burned but used as a soil amendment as it will contain some plant nutrients. Huge benefits accrue as drugs, toxics and germs are destroy saving billions of $$$ presently being spent trying to keep those hazards from escaping out of dumps. I urge RFF Leaders to get attention to biowastes as being the KEY RESOURCE FOR THE FUTURE. FOR YOUR KIDS’ SAKES!!!!!!
    I have posted many comments, some with more details, on this on various blogs including NYTimes Green, Yale’s E360, & NRDC/s Switchboard. J. A. Singmster, Fremont, CA

Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] misinformation about gas prices, RFF Senior Fellow Joel Darmstadter revisits the perpetual call for energy independence, and RFF Research Director Karen Palmer discusses how market forcesare driving the decline of coal […]

Leave A Comment