<Energy independence sounds nice, but its difficult and expensive and it still wouldn't make oil unimportant because even if the US didn't have to import oil, most of the world would.>
If we had developed those technologies, we could lease them to other nations (hefty profits there!), and nobody would need ME oil.
Of course its difficult and expensive. But cheaper than garrisoning the ME, at $5B/month. Our military budget is now $400B/year, and much of that is so we can project power into the ME.
There are alternatives, which are now cost-effective. The technologies have been steadily refined, and costs have steadily fallen. Add in all the externalized costs (= costs shifted onto the taxpayer) for imported oil (and nuclear), and two technologies are already competitive: wind and Alberta oil sands. Far more secure, too, as it is unlikely any guerrilla army will sabotage windmills in N. Dakota, or pipelines from Alberta. More efficient engines, for everything from cars to refrigerators, are also cost-effective now. The increased up-front cost is made up, in a few years, by the savings in running costs.
The reason we don't have Energy Independence, is that we haven't made it a priority, and have preferred military solutions to technological solutions. |
