Is Energy Independence Good Policy?

18 Jun 2010 – Jeff Erikson

In his Tuesday night oil spill speech, President Obama argued that energy independence should be at the core of national energy policy. Cleveland Cutler of Boston University argues that a policy of energy independence is flawed for economic, strategic, and environmental reasons.

I have never been a fan of energy independence, and agree in principle with the author. My view is that independence in this day and age is inefficient, and that means higher impact on the global environment, as well as more local impacts in the US. Taken literally, energy independence would mean that we wouldn’t buy our solar panels from Germany, or wind turbines from China, or even lithium (for batteries) from Peru. Not only is energy independence impractical, it is also unwise.

In the commentary, the author focuses on oil, and assumes that energy independence means replacing foreign oil with domestic oil. Most environmentalists who tout independence advocate for replacing oil with something else, usually renewables, namely wind and solar. And of course that is a false choice. Oil provides energy for transportation, and wind/solar provide energy for electricity generation. Only if we convert our automotive fleet to electric vehicles can wind/solar replace oil. This is the missing link in the current conversation, driven by the gulf disaster. While there are lots of ads and speeches which state that we need a clean energy future, no one has defined what that means. In the DC subway, there is a big poster which advocates wind – on one side of the poster it shows the burning DH platform, and on the other wind turbines. It is a convenient contrast, but not an accurate one.

[Interestingly, biofuels as an alternative to petroleum seems to have fallen off the radar somewhat (except with Shell, who see biofuels as a key element of their future strategy). I think there is recognition that the current state of biofuels in the US (e.g. corn-based ethanol) has some serious issues – it doesn’t reduce GHG’s much, if at all; it can drive up food prices; it drives conversion of land from forest to crops; etc. My view is that biofuels have the potential to be an important element of a clean energy future, but some advances need to occur to make it desirable.]

Proponents of deepwater drilling argue that the alternatives to oil in the gulf are oil from “states that support terrorism”, or socialist states like Venezuela, or oil from the Alberta tar sands. Again a false choice. The real choice is moving away from liquid fuels altogether. We have mapped out this transition to a low-carbon economy (what others call a clean energy future), and it includes:

• Massive improvements in efficiency and conservation;
• Electrification of transport;
• Decarbonization of electricity generation (replacing coal with natural gas and renewables);
• Carbon capture and storage; and,
• Reversing deforestation.

So, in principle I support lessening our dependence on foreign energy, foreign oil in particular. But more importantly, I support lessening our dependence on oil, regardless of where it comes from.