Hi Tim -
"Energy independence" in Nixon's time was a catch-all term, never properly defined. Nor was it given a target date.
I think the emphasis was on fossil fuels, since the first oil embargo occurred in November '73.
You have to wonder whether the goal was achievable; certainly, not in 5 years, nor in 10. Possibly it could have been accomplished by 2000, but that would have meant massive electrification, and huge demands for new generation.
Whether "independence" meant that Canadian hydro power would have been rejected is doubtful. Ditto Canadian natural gas and oil.
[Curiously, Canada had a National Energy Program, with the same stated goal: energy independence. It was reviled by the United States, and eventually dismantled. NAFTA put the last spike in that Canadian dream.]
---
"Also many people using that term really mean full independence."
I'm sure they did, and there was nothing wrong with that goal. Had the goal been achieved, history would have been different; both Canada and Mexico would have retained significant oil and natural gas reserves.
The Middle East, and its problems would not have been critically important: at least, not to the same degree. Full energy independence, without resort to any external sources would have been benefited the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
Given circumstances prevailing since the 70's, whether true independence was feasible is another question.
Jim |
