If there weren't so much money to be made from American
petroleum addiction this might be astonishing, but it's true: some people hang out their
shingles claiming energy independence is a myth and often enough they wear smug indignity
on their sleave and a chip on their shoulder when doing so.
The common thread in these arguments seems to be:
"It's all hopeless, there's nothing that can be done or
even if there are alternatives it's just too expensive so don't bother trying. The
percolating threat you've been feeling in your gut about Iran, Russia, Venezuela and all
their friends and partners in crime holding our dependence over our heads - well, that's
all in your head".
The bottom line of this point of view is its logical
consequence:
Nothing is wrong with spending $1.6 trillion on Iraq and
Afghanistan, there must be another $1.6 trillion to do it all again if we had to, and
there's nothing wrong with viewing today's 8th graders as tomorrow's petroleum protecting
marines.
We believe this is a dead end, and we aren't with the
"dead enders" as Donald Rumsfeld so eloquently stated.
We think these arguments are so utterly vacuous and devoid
of even a modicum of persuasive power that we're confident enough to list three right here
so you can enjoy a belly laugh:
- Robert Bryce of the Institute for Energy Research lists
"5
Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit" in the
Washington Post
- Rod Dreher as an apologist for the ostrich policy of sticking
our heads in the sand in this piece about how "The
Care Bear Stare Won't Fix the World" in
Real Clear Politics
- He'll never be a CEO
- Daniel Drezner predictably
opines with the dollar-cost-is-all-that-can-possibly-matter-you-idiot position
- we should ask Daniel to explain why it doesn't make sense for Ford to purchase parts
from GM, even though GM can manufacture the parts more cheaply. In any case, see it
all here at Dr. Drezner's blog: "This is my brain when it's cranky"
Let us respond briefly to all of this:
Energy independence is not a myth, but, like a diet, it is
hard and it will cost something. Also, like a diet, it has payoffs that begin the
minute the diet starts and keep paying and paying and paying.
It will cost $1.6 trillion to sustain the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan through 2017 according to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office*.
Imagine the costs if (a) that is an underestimate, (b) the conflict continues through
2030, (c) a new conflict erupts with Iran or North Korea, (d) the wrong parties get into
power in China and decide it's time to "settle" the status of Taiwan, or (e) the
nickle-and-dime diplo-economic costs that adversarial governments like Putin's Russia or
Chavez's Venezuela are able to exact on the US because we go on funding their one-product
economies start to turn into gapping holes?
Compared to the astonishing sum we are committed to in Iraq
and Afghanistan, to achieve real energy independence while cutting off the currency
pipeline that enriches our adversaries, we are looking for $150-300 billion to bone up
alternative energy and high mileage vehicles during the same time period: 2008-2017.
If we must continue to stabilize the Middle East in 2017 and thereafter, which is what
Bryce, Dreher and Drezner all appear to argue, then take a trip to the park and look at
the 8 year olds playing on the monkey bars. Those are the babes that Bryce
and company
offer as fodder to guarantee the petroleum supply chain.
Energy Independence is Realistic
and Desirable -
It Only Requires a "Market Signal"
A market signal as we've proposed
will create alternatives to foreign petroleum, even without the $150-300 billion that we
believe taxpayers should invest.
For purpose of argument, let's ask a question:
Is it possible that with the success of this signal the
global commodities price of oil would go below $35/barrel when local supplies increase -
creating a situation where we must buy domestic oil from liquefaction more expensively
than if we sourced it from overseas - a situation which would realize
Daniel Drezner's
worst fears?
Yes!
And that is O.K.
Even if we could buy
petroleum for $20/barrel from the Middle East but forced ourselves to
manufacture oil alternatives locally from biomass and coal liquefaction,
the $35-40/barrel that we'd pay would
contain in it a $15-20/barrel "premium"
that we'd pay NOT to
enrich enemies and adversaries.
Or
we could do it Bryce, Dreher
and Drezner's way. For
what is now no more than the theoretical possibility of a savings of $15-20/barrel
should the commodities prices of petroleum plummet(and it can always rise
back to $100 as we've
seen) we could enrich Putin while he de-democratizes Russia or Chavez
while he spreads Castro-like mayhem throughout South America, and in the
name of free trade that's just what Daniel Drezner would have us do.
But
as parents of the children who will be asked to defend the Middle East
petroleum supply in 8 years or so, we respectfully ask the
energy-import-trio, why?
Ford understands this and does not buy materials from its competitors, even when the
competitors can make less expensive materials. Do you know an entrepreneur?
Try Drezner's argument on them: ask them if they would purchase parts or labor from a
competitor if it cost less than sourcing the supply internally?
Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, understood this and
was clear than when national security is at stake, you source domestically, even
if it is more expensive. We think that even Daniel Drezner understands this because
even he isn't going to start blogging with an argument that we dispose of the M1 Abrams
tank and replace it with cheaper Russian built T-90s as well as the F22 raptor and replace
that with cheaper Russian built Migs. But who knows, maybe he'll surprise us.