Energy Independence?

There’s a lot of talk in political circles about the United States needing to achieve “energy independence.” This might be a nice political line on the campaign trail, but it ignores economic reality.

In case you missed it, Robert Bryce, who is a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research and author of the forthcoming Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence,” provided an excellent reminder on why “energy independence” is a myth in an op-ed in the January 13 Washington Post.

Bryce opened his piece:

With oil prices still flirting with $100 a barrel, everyone is talking about the need for "energy independence." Late last year, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Sen. John McCain has declared, "We need energy independence"; and Sen. Barack Obama has called for "serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence." This may all be good politics. But the idea that the United States, the world's single largest energy consumer, can be independent of the $5 trillion-per-year energy business -- the world's single biggest industry -- is ludicrous on its face. The push for energy independence is based on a series of false premises.

According to Bryce, those five false premises are:

1. Energy independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism.

2. A big push for alternative fuels will break our oil addiction.

3. Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries.

4. Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world.

5. Energy independence will mean a more secure U.S. energy supply.

Read the article to see how he makes the case on each. Indeed, it is must reading.