[richlevy]

I'm a little suspicious of anyone who would use the word 'autarky' instead of 'self-sufficiency'.

I am soooooo glad we have online dictionaries.

BTW, the article reads essentially, "Why worry, the Saudis and Chavez would never get together to screw us" and "The technology is not there" and "Dictators will just get money from someone else".

I think it misses the point that our foreign policy gets mixed in when we are an energy client of political rivals or enemies. Also, saying that the technology isn't there is a bit like saying "That plane won't fly, Orville".

One positive aspect to the credit crunch is that with a lack of credit, oil speculation has been dealt a blow, so price fluctuations based on 'leverage' have been dampened now that there is less OPM (other peoples money) to put into it. Still, a lot of our oil depends on safe ocean passage, and the current experience with Somali pirates shows how fragile that can be.

Living in a public transportation 'dead zone', I can appreciate the shock to the economy if a large amount of our oil supply was cut off.

The article speaks of national security in terms of supporting rivals or enemies, but still misses the advantages of supporting ourselves. Our entire military is oil dependent. There are no electric tanks. With such a large amount of oil imported and integrated into our economy, sustaining it with gas rationing such as was used in World War II would be difficult if not impossible.

I'm not sure about ecological benefits, but from a national security perspective, I think this guy has it wrong.