I have three reasons for saying this. The first is that energy independence is impossible. Oil is an integral part of the market for all sources of energy. Even if we import no oil from Saudi Arabia, what Saudi Arabia does with its oil will affect the worldwide energy market. If they decrease the supply of oil, it will raise prices for non-renewable fuels such as ethanol. Similarly, if we increase the supply of renewables it will decrease the price of oil.
The second reason is that seeking energy independence distracts us from the real goal of avoiding cataclysmic climate change. You hear people advocating the use of coal, the dirtiest and most CO2-emitting fuel around, because it will give us energy independence. But it will also hasten rather than prevent climate change. Let's not take our eye off the ball: Preventing the horrors of climate change is more important than achieving energy independence.
The third reason is that working for energy independence will hinder us from achieving our climate change goals. Climate change is not an American problem. It is a worldwide problem. To solve it we must enlist the help of all nations - or at least most nations. We can't do this with the politics of conflict we have been pursuing among nations.
One expression of the politics of conflict is energy independence. We are saying to the Saudi's,
We don't like that you are taking advantage of us. We'll develop our own sources of energy.
When we are trying to get all nations to work together we must adopt the politics of support, effectively telling the Saudi's (and other nations),
Climate change is a worldwide threat. How can we work cooperatively to solve this overriding problem?"
We do not need energy independence. We need cooperation among all nations to combat the greatest threat to confront the world - climate change.
Comment here.
