Energy Independence! That's a phrase that really resonates. Who could possibly be opposed to 'independence'? And of course, energy is so important. Energy independence therefore has to be a good thing, right?

But what does it really mean, and what are its consequences?

If it’s good for America to be independent in energy, why not be independent in other things? What about food, clothing, cars, electronic products, and so on? In the winter months we get a lot of agricultural products from the Southern Hemisphere, and a lot of food is imported year around. We get a lot of clothing from China, and many of our cars and most of our electronics are imported from Asia. Should we be independent in these things too? If so, why? If not, why not?

If independence in energy and all these other things is a good thing for America, then it has to be a good thing for other countries as well, right? We extol the virtues of freedom and democracy, and try to promote them all around the world, so why would we selfishly keep the benefits of economic independence to ourselves?

The reason we (like other countries) don’t seek independence in these and many other goods is that America believes in free trade. We may quibble about things that don’t seem fair; we may 'tinker around the edges' of the rules, but we still believe in the economic benefits of free trade. And certainly economists will tell you that free trade is a basically good thing.

For shock value, I’ll state this possibly more bluntly than I really believe: Energy Independence is a bad idea, and misleading besides. We would be better off banning the term completely from our policy discussions.

Energy Independence goes contrary to our belief in free trade, and it’s expensive and impractical besides. So why in the world does everybody talk about it? Politics. International politics and domestic politics.

International politics is a big factor because of, you guessed it: OIL. We are vulnerable to supply disruptions because much of the world’s oil comes from a relatively small and politically vulnerable area in the Middle East. Not that much of our own oil comes from there, mind you, but because oil trades in an international market, a supply disruption there would have shockwaves around the world. The price would skyrocket. It might even reach or exceed $100 a barrel! (No, better make that $200 a barrel. We’re already close to the heretofore unthinkable $100 level, and there isn’t even a supply disruption, yet.)

Some of the answers to the international political problem are obvious:
1. Increase supply and stability of supply: Develop supply from other parts of the world, and work for peace in the Middle East.
2. Reduce demand for oil: We are addicted to oil. We must drive more energy efficient cars and trucks, conserve by driving less and by promoting public transportation as much as possible, diversify our mix of motor fuels or don’t use a motor fuel at all. (For example, use rechargeable batteries for the short range but exceedingly frequent trips that are by far the majority of the miles we drive.)

It makes more sense not to suck America’s domestic oil resources dry if a supply disruption seems likely. It’s better to suck some other country’s oil resources dry, so that when the disruption hits, we’ll have domestic resources that we can fall back on.

Domestic politics is a factor because special interest groups want to use 'Energy Independence' as a smoke screen for their hearts desire: Plundering the Federal Treasury with subsidies for synthetic fuels, offshore drilling in the Lower 48, and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

Oh, excuse me; did I say 'special interest groups'? Yes I did. These are all situations where a small group of people stand to benefit enormously, while everyone else pays. The trickle down effect to average Americans isn’t even there because economically these are all bad ideas. We should not be sucking our domestic supplies down. We should not be subsidizing non-economic synthetic fuels. We should not forsake environmental protection trying to perpetuate unsustainable practices.

I realize that I’m painting with a very broad brush here, and that we have an economic system that (based on a certain assumptions) results in economic freedom, growth and efficient allocation of resources. But let’s face it. Unless you are a purist libertarian, in general pragmatic public policy trumps economics. (Who would ever object to 'Trading with the Enemy Act' on the basis that it is contrary to capitalistic principles?)

But the most compelling thing is that Energy Independence is diametrically opposed to addressing Global Warming. GW is an enormous topic in its own right so let's limit this to the intersection of Energy Independence and GW.

First of all, many people say energy independence when they really mean renewable energy. Just look at the windmill graphic used to illustrate Energy Independence as an issue at http://unity08.com/issues. The Forum discussion 'Energy Independence Solutions' by John F. Kirn III is all about renewables and conservation, and doesn't mention the 'independence' aspect at all. Renewable energy is great because it does not contribute to Global Warming. But it's domestically produced, isn't it? Well, mostly, but not necessarily. Renewable energy can come from Canada (the Northeast gets power from Hydro Quebec) or Mexico (wind or solar) or Brazil (ethanol). So mixing energy independence and renewable energy is like mixing apples and oranges.

Many Energy Independence schemes are not based on renewable energy. They’re based on fossil fuels that vastly increase the production of CO2, a major greenhouse gas that causes Global Warming. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil is what got us into this mess in the first place. The 'cure' of synthetic fuels is worse than the disease because, besides being uneconomical, synfuels produce much less usable energy while releasing much more CO2.

Renewable energy is the key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of reducing our addiction to oil that means developing biofuels. Initially, biofuels mixed with petroleum will extend our fuel supplies while reducing CO2 emissions. Ultimately, biofuels may almost replace petroleum altogether.

Would we ever want to be 'Energy Independent' in biofuels or biofuel feedstocks? Well, ethanol driven corn prices over $4 a bushel are good for American farmers. I’m all for that. But wait, doesn’t someone have to pay for that? In fact, you and I have to pay for that. By keeping foreign ethanol and other biofuels out of the US, we not only pay more but also reduce the development of the very same international sources of supply that would be available to counter that disruption of oil supplies that got us all hot and bothered in the first place.

Is there an OPEC for ethanol? No. Is there ever likely to be? Of course not. So what’s the problem with partially relying on imported biofuels rather than relying exclusively on domestic biofuels? There isn’t any.

Let’s face it: Energy Independence is a bad idea. Renewable energy and fighting Global Warming are good ideas. So stop talking about 'Energy Independence.' Period.