Here's to Energy Independence

Most of the 2008 Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle have already announced their "all-encompassing" plans for energy and the environment. With the exception of Kucinich, who attempts to address every possible issue, and Gravel, who attempts to provide a contrary position to every possible candidate, all the Democratic contenders place Energy Independence in the energy and environment spotlight. Likewise, with the exception of Paul and Tancredo, who lack an energy issues section on their websites, all the Republican candidates stress the vital importance of energy independence.

Energy independence is an issue for the United States right now. We do contribute to terrorism, albeit indirectly, by investing in foreign oil imported from countries that perhaps transfer some of the revenue to terrorist organizations. We do place ourselves in a potentially perilous position by importing an inelastic good, petroleum, whose price can be controlled exogenously by OPEC. We do place increasing strain on political and economic relationships around the world in order to secure oil imports – see Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Energy independence has become centrist territory. For Democrats and Republicans alike, the energy independence statement offers a unique opportunity to mix socially conscious environmentalism with security competence – essentially killing two birds with one stone. As long as independence comes from alternative fuels and more environmentally friendly options, energy independence can potentially appease environmentalists concerned about carbon emissions, global warming, and pollution. Similarly, independence implies greater economic freedom from oil-producing countries - especially the current America-haters, Venezuela and Iran - and we are told this will increase our national security.
But this cycle runs a number of risks. Excessive focus on energy independence detracts from additional meaningful discussions on global warming, alternative energy, and carbon trading programs. We can see that the independence discussion is occupying the area of debate that used to be reserved for environmental issues. As a result, the energy independence talking point detracts from a more productive discussion regarding the method to achieve independence, not to mention, other environmental issues of concern. The near-universally supported energy independence position inherently suggests that independence is achievable. It is not. Even with corn ethanol fuel, solar and wind power, and increased coal and nuclear energy, higher emissions standards, and higher fuel taxes, America will never be truly energy independent. At least, I’ve yet to see a valid document or policy that suggests it is possible. The costs associated with achieving energy independence greatly exceed the commonly suggested benefit of independence of five dollars a barrel (Parry and Darmstadter, 2003). I would bet that most of the candidates understand this.
So let’s call a spade a spade. Energy independence is a façade. Support hints at security competence and greater environmental consciousness without committing to anything, much like the “morals” debate did for gay-marriage, religiosity, and abortion in the 2004 election. So I wouldn’t expect a $3,150 tax credit for your next Toyota Prius (suggested by Obama) or immediate drilling in the ANWR (Romney) just yet. Energy Independence is more about gaining public support than enacting legislation.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ccgd/130988122