Why the US will not become energy dependent

[piercehawkeye45]

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...rgy_nivola.pdf

This article shows why the US will not become energy independent. Basically, an energy dependent and energy independent state are subject to same price impacts as the outside world, it will not save fossil fuels, it does nothing to anti-American countries do what they do, and alternative fuels are not productive enough to be put in use.

[Clodfobble]

I'm assuming you actually mean why the US cannot become energy independent?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm assuming you actually mean why the US cannot become energy independent?

Haha, yes.

[Beestie]

We'll be energy independent just as sooooon as the wells run dry.

[classicman]

Oh so what you are saying is that there is no real viable alternative...yet?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Oh so what you are saying is that there is no real viable alternative...yet?

No, actually it lists many alternative fuels that can be produced in the United States at this time but they argue that there is no logical reason for the United States to become energy independent.

In fact, the biggest reason they do give for being energy independent is for environmental reasons.

And yes, this is taken from a more worldly perspective as Clodfobble mentioned.

[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.

[Clodfobble]

The article also argues that from a world economic perspective, it wouldn't matter even if there were one.

[piercehawkeye45]

I disagree with parts of it as well but these are the reasons our administration uses. There is no reason to expect Obama to cut down on our energy imports. Here is a similar article given by one of, if not the most influential United States think tank. It explains your concern.

The Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to examine the consequences of dependence on imported energy for U.S. foreign policy. Since the United States both consumes and imports more oil than any other country, the Task Force has concentrated its deliberations on matters of petroleum. In so doing, it reaches a sobering but inescapable judgment: The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.

The Task Force goes on to argue that U.S. energy policy has been plagued by myths, such as the feasibility of achieving “energy independence” through increased drilling or anything else. For the next few decades, the challenge facing the United States is to become better equipped to manage its dependencies rather than pursue the chimera of independence.

The issues at stake intimately affect U.S. foreign policy, as well as the strength of the American economy and the state of the global environment. But most of the leverage potentially available to the United States is through domestic policy. Thus the Independent Task Force devotes considerable attention to how oil consumption (or at least the growth in consumption) can be reduced, and why and how energy issues must become better integrated with other aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11683...rgyenvironment

[TheMercenary]

I agree with pierce, the thought that Obama is somehow going to enter office as a savior of oil dependence is fantasy, but it did help him get elected. Given that, when gas prices were above $4 in most parts of the country we did decrease our use on a national level which hurt the oil producing countries. I think we need to continue to strive towards energy independence as a method of keeping our eye on a goal with the firm knowledge that we may never get there in this lifetime.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, knowing we probably can't reach the goal is no excuse for heading in the wrong direction.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I agree with pierce, the thought that Obama is somehow going to enter office as a savior of oil dependence is fantasy, ...

No leader does solutions. Only wackos or the uneducated believe leaders can solve problems. Leaders can screw things up - as George Jr demonstrated repeatedly in international relations, economic growth, "Mission Accomplished", science advancement, world cooperation, and even going after bin Laden.

Leaders can only make solutions possible. Solutions must always come from the heroes. Leaders are only heroes in movies and bad fiction. In the real world, solutions come from the little people, but only when leaders such as George Jr are not, for example, having science papers rewritten by White House lawyers.

Any solution to greater energy independence ... well some solutions existed in Chrysler, Ford, and GM under names such as Precept. Then George Jr came to power to make innovation unprofitable and unnecessary. Clinton made some solutions possible. Then George Jr simply made things worse. Even intentionally undoing anything Clinton because the wacko political agenda said everything Clinton is evil. Any hope of innovation from American patriots was dashed in a political agenda that said we must even protect _OUR_ oil. All part of a solution that only advocated more consumption and massively subverted possible solutions.

Any leader can stifle solutions. No leader can make solutions happen. A leader can only provide the necessary attitude and knowledge so that the heroes can solve those problems. It will take a long time to undo George Jr's damage for any energy independence.

My god. The man was so dumb as to even hype hydrogen as a fuel - therefore making realistic solutions even that much more difficult.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

... wackos ....George Jr ...."Mission Accomplished"...bin Laden....heroes....George Jr ....White House lawyers....George Jr ...George Jr....wacko.....George Jr's....

Anyone else seeing a pattern in these responses over the years?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Anyone else seeing a pattern in these responses over the years?

Yeph. It explains the many reasons for so many problems in America. It also comes from the few who ask "when do we go after bin Laden?" TheMercenary routinely avoids that question. Eight years later and bin Laden still gets all but protected by George Jr and people such as TheMercenary who fear to ask that question.

TheMercenary, when do you finally use profanity to described bin Laden? Oh. bin Laden is good for George Jr lovers.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

.... bin Laden....TheMercenary ....bin Laden still .......George Jr.....TheMercenary......TheMercenary......bin Laden......bin Laden ......George Jr.....

Thanks for making my point. Again. No substance.