The American

The Myths of  Energy Independence
By Laura Vanderkam

Americans disagree on taxes, the war in Iraq, and a host of other issues. But politicians of all stripes have embraced energy independence as a winner. In President Richard Nixon’s 1974 State of the Union address, he said that the United States should not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving. This sentiment has since been echoed by countless Republicans and Democrats.

There’s just one problem, says Robert Bryce: “Energy independence is hogwash.” In his new book, Gusher of Lies (PublicAffairs), Bryce challenges the notion that America can ever be totally “independent” of the global energy market. It is neither practical nor desirable, he argues. Repeated ad nauseam as a campaign slogan, the concept of energy independence keeps us from having an honest discussion about globalization, economics, and foreign policy. Americans will be best served by embracing global interdependence, and getting government out of the energy business as much as possible.

Bryce, a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research and the managing editor of Energy Tribune magazine, makes a convincing case. For starters, it’s unclear why “energy independence” should be prized above other forms of independence. Americans depend on global markets for the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the raw materials used in everything from electronics to medicines. Like these other markets, the international energy market is highly intertwined and difficult for any single country to disrupt. The 1973 Arab oil embargo did not cause lines at U.S. gas pumps; Nixon’s price controls did. Iran has never had a problem finding a market for its oil, despite U.S. attempts to isolate the Islamic Republic since 1979. Indeed, even Saudi Arabia imports some of its energy.
Americans don’t like this lack of control. That’s why we cheer when politicians talk about “energy independence.” But the reality, as Bryce quotes former UN secretary general Kofi Annan saying, is that “arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity.”

It’s also pointless to argue against fossil fuels. For all the interest in alternative fuels, Bryce writes, “the laws of thermodynamics, combined with the many trillions of dollars that have been invested in fossil-fuel-powered automobiles, airplanes, power plants, industrial systems, and residential heating and cooling systems, will mean that fossil fuels will predominate for the foreseeable future.” Oil may peak at some point, but then we’ll rely more on natural gas, a relatively efficient source of energy. We should also take another look at nuclear power—but since we import most of our uranium, energy independence will prove illusory then, too.

What we won’t rely on—at least not efficiently—is corn-based ethanol. The highlight of Gusher of Lies is Bryce’s 50-plus-page indictment of a substance that “isn’t motor fuel. It’s religion.” While plenty of economists have pointed out the folly of subsidizing corn, then subsidizing its conversion to ethanol, and then forcing Americans to use it, Bryce actually manages to make the subject entertaining. This is no small feat.

The 1973 Arab oil embargo did not cause lines at U.S. gas pumps; Nixon’s price controls did. And even Saudi Arabia imports some of its energy.

He’s on less solid ground, though, with his indictments of wind and solar energy. As the owner of several solar panels himself, Bryce says the idea has promise. But in his zeal to point out the current limitations of these and other alternative energy sources, he shows a lack of imagination. Solar panel storage capacity is getting better. Wind turbines are getting more attractive and powerful. New enzymes and catalysts are lowering the costs of cellulosic ethanol production. Electric cars are becoming a commercial possibility. Toward the end of Gusher of Lies, Bryce throws out the idea of converting algae to biodiesel as a potential fuel of the future. Yet it’s unclear why this alternative fuel source would be better than the others.

It’s also unclear why Bryce spends so much time berating the “neoconservatives” (as well as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman) for the war in Iraq. Bryce mocks politicians who have claimed that relying on fossil fuels helps support terrorism. Yes, many of our fossil fuels come from Mexico and Canada, two nations not known for their terrorist sympathies. Yes, we need to engage the Arab world more constructively. But Bryce goes overboard by stating, “The unfortunate truth about the drive for energy independence is that it is, at its most fundamental level, a xenophobic and—dare one say it?—racist response to a complicated world.” Playing the race card isn’t necessary and diminishes the rest of the book.

That said, Gusher of Lies provides a strong and much-needed dose of reality. Too often the energy debate is dominated more by hype than by facts; witness the zealous promotion of corn as the solution to America’s fuel problems. If Bryce’s book convinces politicians to vote against more subsidies for corn-based ethanol, it will have done a real public service.

Laura Vanderkam is a writer living in New York City. Her profile of Xavier Gabaix, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business, appears in the March/April issue of THE AMERICAN.

Original file is here: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/february-02-08/the-myths-of-2018ene…