Energy Myth-Making

Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo that created gasoline lines in the United States, seven presidents have vowed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign energy. But the opposite has occurred. More than 50% of the oil consumed in the U.S. is imported, and it’s likely to exceed 60% by 2010. A mere 4% of the 1 trillion barrels of world oil reserves are in the U.S., while two-thirds are in the Persian Gulf.

Now, as oil prices push the $55-a-barrel mark, both presidential candidates vow to bring the U.S. closer to energy self-sufficiency. Setting aside whether self-sufficiency is possible -- and it isn’t -- is it even desirable?

In the last four years, President Bush has not only failed to arrest the trend of increased oil imports, he has exacerbated it. Bush contemptuously dismissed the idea of energy conservation soon after taking office and gave the go-ahead for Vice President Dick Cheney to hold secret meetings with industry leaders to develop the nation’s energy policy. The administration has been using the fig leaf of energy development to give industry free rein across environmentally sensitive parts of the West.

Although John Kerry is not as beholden to the energy industry as Bush, his plan is almost as impractical. Kerry advocates a number of conservation measures, but is extremely vague about how he would accomplish them. The “Energy Security and Conservation Trust Fund” that he proposes would subsidize mostly boondoggles for farmers in the Midwest who grow corn to produce ethanol. Nor does Kerry propose any concrete fuel standards for automobiles and SUVs, beyond calling for increased fuel efficiency. What Kerry cannot bring himself to acknowledge is that transportation burns two-thirds of the oil consumed in the U.S., most of that pumped into the nation’s 200-million-plus cars and trucks.

Then there is Kerry’s embrace, like Bush’s, of so-called clean coal. Kerry, like Bush, wants to win West Virginia, so he’s calling for investing $10 billion over the next decade to create cleaner coal-fueled power plants. And he rejects, as his plan puts it, “the old view that coal cannot be part of a clean energy future.” In truth, it can’t. No matter how much coal is scrubbed, it will always remain a major polluter. Rather than proposing pouring $10 billion into coal, Kerry should back spending on solar and wind power, as well as conservation.

Perhaps least persuasive is Kerry’s claim that the U.S. must become self-sufficient. As long as oil reserves are diminishing, it makes abundant sense for the U.S. to tap into world reserves rather than exhaust its own dwindling supplies prematurely. Anyway, Middle East countries and Russia could not afford to cut off supplies to the U.S. even if they wanted to because they’re dependent on the revenue. The diversity of suppliers means that a repeat of the oil crises of the 1970s is improbable. The higher prices go, the more countries will seek to develop their oil fields.

Unlike Bush’s, however, Kerry’s myth-making about energy security is essentially innocuous. One candidate wants to plunder the environment for short-term benefit; the other to tinker at the margins with subsidies. Whereas Bush’s plans are futile and harmful, Kerry’s are futile and harmless.