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?

[Beestie]

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

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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

Haha, yes.

[classicman]

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

[Clodfobble]

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

[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.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Ummm, yea, that's what I said.

[footfootfoot]

CAuse we'll fuck your shit up bitches
give us the oil motherfuckers its ours
We own the sun motherfuckers
aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

CAuse we'll fuck your shit up bitches
give us the oil motherfuckers its ours
We own the sun motherfuckers
aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Oil. Yea that was the reason. Ha! I have been hearing that for years now. So where the hell is it? And how come we're not sucking them dry.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ummm, yea, that's what I said.

I know, that's why I was agreeing with you. What's the matter, couldn't stand the shock.