A major disruption in oil supply is about as likely as a major terrorist attack
I don't think something like a 25% cutoff of oil supple is as likely as a major terrorist attack. Its probably more likely than a nuclear or large scale bio terrorist attack, but less destructive.
"Energy independence" has serious downsides. They are considered in this post (the comments are mostly about the upsides)
catallarchy.net
I consider the balance of positives and negatives to be such that imposing a massive relatively quick solution would be worse than the current status quo. If I seriously bought in to the worse versions of global warming and/or peak oil my opinion might be different.
As for your upsides
"-Keep the money at home instead of in the hands of our "enemies""
Some of it goes to our enemies. Some of it goes to people fighting our enemies.
Also the alternatives are more expensive, so they consume more resources, they would not free up more resources that would be put in our hands.
Also American exports to the region would be reduced (but not as much as American imports from the region would be reduced)
"-Lessen the likelihood of war and it's associated costs (human and economic)"
An argument can be made that it would lessen the likelihood of war, but its not a slam dunk. Even if we didn't have to import oil now, we would have probably opposed Iraq's attempted annexation of Kuwait. (The main question would then be would a lower price for oil exports have made the Kuwait invasion more, likely, less likely, or had no effect.) The gulf states would have less money to spend on up to date weapons, OTOH those weapons are 1 - Often bought from us, and 2 - Sometimes used in ways that benefit us. Still a lesser armed region would probably be a net benefit. So you have something here. Even if war between the local states isn't less likely it might at least be less destructive. And Iran would have less money to fuel its nuclear ambitions.
OTOH, while poverty only has a moderate correlation with war, and a weak correlation with terrorism, moving towards poverty has a stronger correlation with both. Or to put it another way if the areas had always been poorer we might not see more war and terrorism, but if they start becoming poorer because the price of oil goes down due to reduced US demand, then war and terrorism might increase.
-Reduce the trade deficit by 1/3
Pretty much the same thing as "keep the money at home". That's pretty much already been answered.
-Clean air and reduction in health costs
Not if we use more coal.
-Stimulate the economy with lower cost of transportation
It would likely be higher costs in transportation and elsewhere. If the alternatives where lower cost they would already be in use to a much greater degree. |
