There are some things I just don't get.
One of them is America's chronic inability to address our energy dependence on countries hostile to our core values.
Though grave damage is being done to our national security and economy, as a nation, we just can't summon the will to solve a problem which does have a solution.
Thirty-seven years ago, a shot was fired across our bow. OPEC, the oil cartel, decided to mix politics and economics by declaring a boycott of the U.S.
Then came the quadrupling of oil prices, sending our economy into a tailspin.
Our political leaders all promised dramatic action to wean us from our addiction. Initially, some progress was made in raising fuel economy standards and improving overall energy efficiency. But, in the end, their promises fell short.
The price of oil stabilized as output kept pace with demand, and we were quickly lulled right back into collective national complacency. We felt that it was no one's business to tell us what to drive, how to drive, or what to do in our oil-heated homes. This was America, after all, not some nanny state.
So when President Jimmy Carter turned down the thermostat in the White House one winter, donned a sweater, and asked us to do the same, we scoffed at our leader. Didn't he know that, as Americans, we were entitled to be the world's biggest energy consumers? How dare he ask us to sacrifice?
Then Congress made matters worse. Even as fuel economy standards were being raised for cars, Capitol Hill exempted light trucks and vans from the rules. Lo and behold, as Americans bought more and more of these gas-guzzlers -- eventually more than half of all vehicles sold in any given year -- our oil needs only grew.
In more recent years, we again became aware of the danger of our oil dependence. The 9/11 attacks were a sobering reminder. We learned that Saudi Arabia, with the world's largest oil reserves, was spending tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue to support the extremist Wahhabi version of Islam around the world. Mosques and madrassas were purveying a message of intolerance and conflict, even as Saudi Arabia was taking out slick ads in the American media promoting our two countries' "shared values."
We watched as Venezuela, the fifth largest exporter of oil to the U.S. and owner of CITGO, used its petrodollars to undermine American interests in Latin America and to forge ties with Iran.
And more broadly, we witnessed energy security issues penetrate just about every nook and cranny in international relations.
America tried to bring the horrors of Darfur to an end, but China's interest in Sudan's oil made it difficult to get concerted international action -- and China isn't alone.
We've tried to forge consensus against Iran's nuclear program, but China's interest in Iran's oil complicates that, too -- and, again, China isn't alone.
Meanwhile, European countries, most of which are heavily dependent on imported oil, are forced to tiptoe politically around the likes of Libya, a nation with the eighth largest proven reserves in the world.
And do we Americans need reminders about the costly consequences for our own foreign policy of our reliance on Middle Eastern oil?
What can be done about this?
For starters:
First, focus on the prize -- a world where the value of oil has dropped dramatically. Imagine what that could mean for the distribution of global power.
And think about the impact on our economy if we could keep hundreds of billions of dollars per year right here rather than sending them overseas to Venezuela to buy weapons from Moscow or to Saudi Arabia to fund madrassas in Pakistan.
Second, it's time we demand -- yes, demand -- concerted action by all our elected officials. Words won't suffice. We've had too many of them. Excuses for inaction won't wash. The very future of our nation is at stake, and it's high time to put this issue at the top of our agenda and keep it there.
Third, let's drop the partisanship. This is about America, not about political parties. Both parties should have an identical interest in moving the country toward real energy security. However naive it may sound, what a sight it would be to see Democrats and Republicans standing shoulder-to-shoulder and pledging united action to deal with our energy dependence head-on until we reach the goal.
Fourth, think bold. Brazil did in the 1970s. It was even more dependent than we on imported oil. No longer. The country today is energy independent, through a combination of national planning, technological innovation, and exploration. And now China is on the way. Beijing has already announced that it seeks to be the global leader in post-oil technologies. Are we going to be content one day to replace our dependence on Middle Eastern oil with dependence on Chinese alternative energy technologies?
Fifth, look in the mirror. How many of us have been part of the problem -- by our buying and driving patterns, by our lifestyles, by a sense of entitlement, and by a belief that some are exempted from the rules that should govern others? With modest changes in our own behavior, we can have a dramatic impact.
And sixth, look to Europe. Not a single one of the most fuel-efficient cars in the U.S. would make the comparable list in Europe, where the base line for the top ten models is 64 miles per gallon. Are Europeans any less interested in safety, emissions controls, or comfort than we are?
Europe has also gone much further than the U.S. in developing public transportation. So, too, has Japan. Now China is leaping ahead. This is especially striking in the realm of high-speed trains. We waited decades for the Acela, but compared to what's available elsewhere, including the Maglev in Shanghai and the TGV in France, forgive me, it's practically ancient.
This is true in metropolitan areas as well. Outside a handful of American cities, public transportation options are few and far between, compelling residents to rely on private vehicles for everything from work to shopping. And even in New York, with its extensive network, a project like the Second Avenue Subway has been in the works, according to author Robert Caro, since "shortly after World War I," yet we're still not there.
Saddest of all is the knowledge that it's well within our grasp to break the stranglehold. We can dramatically reduce our dependence on imported oil from hostile countries, while boosting our national security and enhancing our domestic economy -- not to mention the benefits that measures reducing greenhouse-gas emissions will provide in terms of climate change and the environment. We have the scientific and entrepreneurial know-how to develop new technologies, and, save oil, abundant natural resources. There's no one silver bullet for our problem, but there are several promising possibilities. All should be pursued, consistent, of course, with strict environmental safeguards.
President Obama, speaking last year of "our journey toward energy independence," said that "America's dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation faces. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism."
By contrast, the former director of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, replied that "Like it or not, the fates of the United States and Saudi Arabia are connected and will remain so for decades to come" because of the oil link.
Which will it be? President Obama's vision or Prince Turki al-Faisal's?
The answer should be obvious. The ways to reach it are clear. The bottom-line question is whether there's the national will.
Loading comments… 
Ordinary water may be able to replace gasoline in the not too distant future.
A barrel becomes equivalent to two hundred barrels of oil when fractional Hydrogen is utilized.
See: "Hydrinos Offer Free Fuel for the World's Power Plants" at www.americ
It seems fractional Hydrogen will allow water to fuel hybrid vehicles. A few gallons may provide 1,000 miles of driving.
These engines could run when the car is parked, providing substantia
See: http://www
Although two laboratori
Ending the dependency on oil rapidly may be much more urgent than even this article suggests. As the rising price of oil can cause economic recovery to reverse.
It will require new science and new technology that will initially be difficult to believe.
As products appear in the market that is bound to change.
Accelerati
The typical answers here are, “we need to use less oil not more” or “burning oil is bad for the environmen
Well no argument there, but I challenge anyone to explain how stopping drilling in the US accomplish
If the US was an isolated country (no exports or imports), then you could make a reasonable argument that opposing drilling would lead to less petroleum use in America.
But we do not live in an isolated country. When you stop Americans from getting US oil, you do not change in any way how much petroleum we use!
You only increase imports of oil.
That increases how much money we send abroad to countries we do not like!
That exports both our money and our JOBS!
That is the only effect of stopping drilling here, it makes us poorer, we have less money for health care or education or anything else, and if you don’t believe that, google “balance of payments”.
Why would any sane American be FOR that?
Most people realize this simple economic truth and they are mad about it.
It is very well documented for people that can read real data on the US government energy department web site, but ignored by those that only listen to nebulous talking points, that we could drill every square inch of the US and we would still have to IMPORT over 70% of the oil we use.
The oil that you think is there, is less than 3% of the US need and extracting it is extremely expensive (that is, the price of oil has to be over US$70/bbl for extraction to be profitable
The US oil production peaked in the 1970s and has continuous
Which is exactly what China is doing to ensure that it can move off oil based energy as quickly as possible to renewable sources. China is not doing this to get rid of greenhouse gasses, but to ensure that its economy will be viable for the long term future. The fact that it will help cut greenhouse gasses is secondary.
They are building new coal plants at the rate of opening a new one every day.
They are building windmills and solar to sell to us.
Yes they are putting up a little wind and solar for show, and have committed to a few new nuclear plants, but they are using cheapest sources available, they have lots of coal, to maintain their cost advantage over their trading partners, mainly us.
Hence their stance at the climate talks.
The OPEC countries need the United States, and for the short term at least, the United States need the OPEC countries. Can't we all just get along? Well, yes, and no, we've seen some countries that have oil wells basically start taking a hostile stance towards us over the years, though we be their biggest benefactor
The US could develop and manufactur
- Eliminatin
- Laws demanding technology developers share all their technology with US competitor
- Laws to prevent US companies from manufactur
- Laws providing incentives for the adoption of the new technology
- Laws severely punishing people/com
The scientific consensus is Peak Oil is coming, the ONLY real disagreeme
If this plutocrati
Well, Mr. "Prince of Nowhwere" I don't think so.
This is MY country, just because we've been sold out by Exxon-Mobi
No we will extricate ourselves from this mess, take my word for it.
With no leadership and no willingnes
"Which will it be? President Obama's vision or Prince Turki al-Faisal'
People get so caught up in the xenophobia and lunacy of "foreign oil" chatter that they miss the point - oil is GLOBAL COMMODITY, and we get almost all our "foreign oil" from CANADA, for chrissakes
We are at a crossroads allright, but it is not the one that Big Energy keeps bullying us about. We are at a crossroads of Big Energy vs. Democratic Energy, because point of use solutions are coming on fast and furious, which can be REAL GAME CHANGERS if we encourage them - but Big Energy is trying to pretend like Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Transmissi
Rooftop solar, efficiency
Canada, our leading source of petroleum, is hostile to our core value of health care for profit, but shares our
appetite for rich foods like poutine.
Check out the abundant resources about Peak Oil.
China knows it is real and is rapidly working to get off oil-based energy, even though they have enough wealth to be able to out-bid the rest of the world for oil as the price goes up.
These are the same enviroment
http://en.
Fluorescen
Personally I also agree that we should not be exporting our industrial sicknesses to other countries less equipped to guard against them and less equipped to treat the victims.
The bottom line is the amount of usable oil left untapped is minuscule compared to US needs.
So drill all you want, but know that it will not make one bit of difference
BTW - Who do you think buys a lot of the Alaskan oil? Japan and China have long term contracts for most of it!
Oil is a fungible commodity traded on a world-wide market and the stuff that come out of the ground goes to the highest bidder. Just because the oil is pumped in the US does not mean it is used in the US (but other than Alaskan oil, it usually is).
Next talking point to debunk, please.
"Oil is a fungible commodity traded on a world-wide market "
Both are true. But is a matter of net money into, or out of america, balance of payments.
The more we produce, the less we spent on imports even if we sell some to Japan, then turn around and buy some from Mexico.
Again google “balance of payments”, it is an economic fact and most people understand that.
supplies of oil off-shore and in Alaska.
We also should time the traffic lights across the country
to avoid wasting gas sitting idle.
And we should harness hydrogen energy
as described by the author of the novel,The Originator
--chaz
There is no oil!
The US government energy department keeps track of all the potential oil and what you think is there, isn't there.
The amount of oil that is untapped, would not add more than a few days to the total US supply.
As for hydrogen, exactly where will you get it? hydrogen is a very volatile element and when it is not carefully stored, it rapidly combines with other elements to make stable compounds, like water. The only ways to get free hydrogen is to crack it from ... wait for it ... OIL or crack it from water, both processes require a lot of energy.
I am sorry to kill your delusions, bu the real world has to obey the laws of physics and chemistry, which say energy can not be created out of thin air.
I think a realistic future solution is useing solar power to make hydrogen, then use the hydrogen in fuel cells at night. Dr. Chu' Dept is doing research on this but it is almost unbelievab
As the uranium runs out, we will have the same economic problem we will soon have with peak oil.
Note that one of the problems with nuclear is there has been little research into how to use nuclear fuel in a safer and more economical way than the current primitive reactors we use. Current reactor designs are extremely unsafe, risky and wasteful of the finite uranium.
See Bill Gates TED talk at ... http://www
http://www
and has Dr Chu, Obamas Energy Czar (a PhD in Physics and a Nobel Prize winner in Physics), pointed out to Obama, and as Harry Reid, Democrate Senate leader has pointed out (Google it), New Thorium reactors offer no possibilit
Here is a link on from MIT on Thorium reactors and Thorium fuel rods (MIT, Massachuse
http://www